Go read the OP. That is the exact debate I proposed. There plenty of other threads on the inequities of IS.
If you do not want to debate the practice of killing of people as identified individuals as a war aim (which is forbidden) then please do not bother to enter the debate.
Et?
In what way is killing identified combattantes “forbidden”?
You rather strongly implied it in Valteron’s silly thread whining about Muslims who want to kill apostates.
You very strongly implied that you saw executions performed in the West as equally immoral.
You in fact insisted that
And then preceded to explain why you were morally superior to westerners who favored
executing convicted murderers and Muslims who favored forth ting and executing apostates.
Perhaps you didn’t intend to send the message that the Israelis who hanged Eichmann and the Iranians who executed a man for abandoning Islam were morally the same, but that is certainly what you implied.
FWIW, while I find such logic silly, many don’t and no insult was implied and I respect those who morally oppose all executions equally.
So the people being called on to shoot/bomb/whatever military personnel in their homes will magically spare the family members and neighbors of their targets?
Forbidden by whom?
You’re right. I should have posted something like this:
Oh wait, I did. You must’ve somehow forgotten to quote that part!
Well it does not spare either the non combattants who are killed by your drone strikes on family houses either.
In this narrow area there is not a great difference, I agree with Mace. If you wish to make a difference, I do not believe the americans are without care. The DAESH is and deliberately without care.
They have the right to try to kill us, and we have the right to try to stop them - and vice versa. That’s how war works.
The general rules of war which historically banned individual targeted assassinations of individuals as individuals.
Discussion here:
Except where contrary to Conventions and Laws.
Sterile…
If you’re using the word “historically” to hint at what those links say – that we of course have quite readily done it in this century, as forbidden by nobody – then I’d reply that I of course have no problem with us doing it, in this century, as forbidden by nobody, and can’t see why you’re mentioning it.
Which conventions and laws? Be specific - article, section etc.
What are you, the opinion police that decides who can debate in your threads and who can’t?
You’ve provided a facile debate and propose that posters shouldn’t be allowed to bring actual context to the question. The problem is, of course, that the only way your argument of equivalency (and the implicit charge of American hypocrisy) makes sense is if one wears political blinders to exclude facts, opinions, and concepts that are at odds with the narrow minded point you’re trying to argue for.
Can I take it by your response that if one broadens their mind at all to the morality of killing by ISIL and the morality of killing by Western militaries, that we can all agree that ISIL is worse by huge, huge margins?
As per Pjen’s link, “The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution that grants the president the right to use ‘all necessary and appropriate force’ against those who helped commit the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, arguably licenses the CIA to go after terrorists with impunity … The Israeli military regularly engages in targeted killings. That country’s Supreme Court has ruled that these are legal so long as the targets are actively engaged in fighting or else work as full-time militants.”
I rather like that.
According to an ACLU paper,
The most reputable civil rights organization in the US apparently disagrees with your opinion that assassinations have been historically illegal. They just say that such killing needs to comply with certain processes. This article was written by a former UN rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Please feel free to share it on a thread actually concerning your beliefs.
As habitual type of understanding for the OP…
In your OP, you said, “Aside from the question of “us and them” how does this differ from ill guided drone attacks in Afghanistan.”
The issue of “us and them” would seem to mean that the objection to ISIL killing people is because they aren’t American, British, etc. I pointed out they ISIL is routinely conducting shocking and disgusting violations of human rights and the laws of war in an intentional manner. In comparison, Western militaries that injure or kill civilians almost always do so within the laws of war.
I’m debating your stupid OP. How about an on-topic response?
The full text from your cite:
The United States’ assertion of an ever-expanding but ill-defined license to commit targeted killings against individuals around the globe, without accountability, does grave damage to the international legal frameworks designed to protect the right to life. Targeted killing – defined as the intentional, premeditated, and deliberate use of lethal force, by a state or its agents acting under color of law, against a specific individual who is not in the perpetrator’s custody – is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Targeted killing is usually legal only in armed conflict situations when used against combatants or fighters, or civilians who directly engage in combat-like activities, and international law requires that any state that uses targeted killing must demonstrate that its actions comply with the laws of war.
[COLOR=“Red”]To comply with its accountability obligations, the United States should disclose when and where it has authorized its forces, including the Central Intelligence Agency, to kill, the criteria for individuals who may be killed, how the U.S. Government ensures killings are legal, and what follow-up there is when civilians are illegally killed. Disclosure of these basic legal determinations is the very essence of accountability, but the United States has so far failed to meet this requirement. Instead, it has claimed a broad and novel theory that there is a ‘law of 9/11’ that enables it to legally use force in the territory of other States as part of its inherent right to self-defence on the basis that it is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and undefined ‘associated forces’. This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defence threatens to destroy the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the UN Charter, which is essential to the international rule of law. If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does, to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos. The serious challenges posed by terrorism are undeniable, but the fact that enemies do not play by the rules does not mean that the U.S. Government can unilaterally re-interpret them or cast them aside. The credibility of the U.S. Government’s claim that it has turned the page on previous wrongdoing and seeks to uphold the rule of law in its actions against alleged ‘terrorists’ is called into question by its targeted killing policy.[/COLOR]