Point is, Friend Shodan is trying to claim that drone strikes specifically are a crime, when they are not. See, drone strikes are identified with Obama specifically. One might as well say that minimizing exposure of Our People In Uniform to actually getting killed, while still achieving national and international objectives, is.
Simply stating that use of military force is a crime, therefore Obama is just as guilty as Bush, would be silly. And it is. But that’s what it amounts to.
They are indeed. It’s the violation of the sovereignty of another state by the use of military force. How is that not a crime?!
I doubt that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are some right wing organizations that are dedicated to embarrassing the President.
So basically I don’t think we Democrats have any moral high ground to stand on when we minimize the war crimes done by the Presidents from our party. So we should stop doing so.
I’m not clear on what the source of this “crime” is. For example, the UN Charter specifically allows a country to take military action in its own self-defense without authorization from the United Nations. It is surely the position of the Administration that attacking Al Qaeda, as authorized by the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, is something that is quite clearly allowed as a matter of self-defense. So, what is the precise law that you believe is being violated? One cannot simply feel a situation is awful and assert that international law prohibits that which you disagree with.
As for the comparison between prosecution for torture with the carrying out of drone strikes, there are substantial differences.
For torture, 18 USC 2340A is the section of U.S. law which provides for criminal penalties for those who commit or attempts to commit torture. Similarly, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit “cruel treatment and torture” of any detainee.
As for drones, quite honestly all I’ve seen is versions of “international law prohibits this!” I’m pretty familiar with international law, and I have to admit I have no idea what law they are talking about.
I took care, as **Shodan **did but for obviously different reasons, to refer to drone strikes specifically. They are no more a crime than is any other use of military force.
If you wish to condemn the use of any military force in any circumstances, you certainly may, but you may not then proceed to pick out which leaders of nations that have and use them, namely all of them, you are going to condemn. The fact that it is necessary to reach that far to find a *quoque *for Bush’s enthusiastic use of torture, a crime we hanged people for at Nuremberg and Tokyo, says everything it needs to. And that does not even get into his starting the war of aggression from which the use of torture was a side effect, one of many.
So kindly take your own equivalency efforts elsewhere, please - perhaps to the place from which you get your claim to be a Democrat, for instance.
Here is the report. Where does it say, “Drones are illegal?”
Wait… what?! So drone strikes against Al Queda targets in Yemen, Pakistan are ‘self-defense strikes’? Isn’t that stretching the definition of self-defense to a ridiculous breaking point? I mean we rightly decry Israel’s notions of indiscriminate bombing of the West Bank and Gaza as being simply “self-defense” so why exactly are we hiding behind them here? Because we like our current occupant of the White House?
In addition, Human Rights Watch has pointed out that the US has not claimed that it is a party to a war in either place, but is simply protecting US interests.
I mean does one really think that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch doesn’t actually know the law on violations of international law? And I don’t think that those of us on the left can lean on Amnesty and HRW when it suits our purposes and ignore them when it doesn’t. Leaves one wide open to charges of hypocrisy.
Use of military force is an international crime. Obama used military force against Pakistan, including but not limited to drones. Ergo, Obama is an international criminal.
Your attempt at quibbling that drones aren’t illegal but using them is illegal is not very coherent.
And I will assume this stuff about how waging an aggressive war isn’t against US law means you will drop the nonsense about indicting Bush for invading Iraq.
Regards,
Shodan
Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., so attacking them so they do not attack the U.S. again is the very definition of self-defense. AQAP tried on several occasions to attack the U.S., so attacking them is also clearly self-defense. I am totally puzzled why you find this objectionable, or “ridiculous.” It seems totally self-evident to me.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say. They can completely right when they criticize a country for, say, racist policies in that country, and they can be completely off their rocker on other issues. They are not guided by an infallible religious doctrine, therefore they can be right on some issues and wrong on others.
It’s better to apply one’s own reason and judgment and be “wide open to charges of hypocrisy” than take at face value anything that someone tells you in order to avoid being called names. I literally do not care if someone calls me a hypocrite but I believe my reasoning is sound.
OMG, a President used military force! You’d be even more unhappy if he didn’t, or if he did in such a way as to risk more US lives than he does.
It would be, if anyone but you was saying that. :rolleyes:
It is under international law. Again, we’ve hanged people for less. *Other *people, from loser countries, not Republican Presidents, of course.
Already stipulated it won’t happen. If you can make a coherent claim for why it shouldn’t, other than Because It’s Us, please begin to do so.
No, it isn’t, and I’m pretty sure you don’t actually believe this nonsense.
In what way are indiscriminate bombings in Pakistan or Yemen self-defense unless you can show those people are in the midst of actual action against the United States, as opposed to say carrying out operations against our allies (in which case, it’d be nice to get approval from said allies to bomb targets in their country)?
I bring up Israel again. Is it morally defensible for Israel to claim self-defense every time it decides to bomb the West Bank?
I personally don’t believe that the United States is randomly bombing people for no reason whatsoever. There is no doubt that civilians have been killed – but as the UN Special Rapporteur stated in his report, the mere existence of civilian casualties is not evidence of wrongdoing or a war crime. Further, he reported that drone strikes in Afghanistan up through 2012 showed considerably more precision than other air strikes.
Every time? And don’t you mean Gaza? You’re asking your question very poorly. Nonetheless, I’ll answer it. The question of whether something is self-defense is not applied on an all or nothing basis. The circumstances surrounding any particular attack must be taken into account. If there is some threat emanating from another country that can be reasonably understood to be creating jeopardy for another country, that other country is allowed to stop the threat before it reaches fruition. But that does not mean that simply because one country bombed another that it can always be considered a legitimate act of self-defense.
Which was illegal under international law. Do you agree that a President who breaks international law should be indicted?
Regards,
Shodan
Again, where in the UN report does it conclude the US broke the law? Which page, exactly?
It is *your *claim that he should - if we are indeed going to have a government of laws, not of men, as you correctly claim we must.
While you’re busy trying to make Obama supporters out to be hypocrites, can you explain why in August 2006 you posted that there’s no such thing as international law that the Bush Administration need worry about?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7719021&postcount=16
Question: has any democratic nation ever handed over an elected leader for war crimes? The only examples I can think of of leaders being handed over is dictators who get overthrown and then handed to international authorities.
What I meant by that was to keep the thread pointed at my main question: What do we think the current Republican candidates’ opinions on this issue are? As opposed to what the thread has become, which is more of the Great Debate angle of: Which presidents should be prosecuted and for what? But that’s all well and good. Perhaps we should have the thread moved there and just follow that rabbit hole anyway. Although I think it makes for a rerun thread on the subject.
But I did attempt to plainly state as unarguable: that crimes were committed in the process of the torture that took place. That is what I did not think we need to get derailed with. Whether the crimes were personally GWB’s or the many other administration, lawyer, intelligence, and military people’s and what exact charges would apply … that is all undetermined, and never will be determined since it was all swept under the historical rug. So while I don’t have very specific answers to who did what, I think it is still fair to say crimes took place, and were let slide. (The only thing they DON’T let slide: Whistleblowing!)
I agree.
I disagree. People killed by “enhanced interrogation” seems clear cut. The drone killing of an American seems clear cut.
Is “proactively pardon himself” even a thing?
That gets back to the subject I was interested in though. Consider Trump. If you were to ask his Republican primary supporters how Trump should handle the Obama administration’s “crimes”*, can you hear them saying anything but “Appoint the Special Prosecutor on day one!”?
*Whether there have actually been any crimes is beside the point. The point being that the past practice of “let’s look forward, not backward” might have an expiration date as the country gets more and more bitterly partisan.
As for the GD question at hand … I still don’t know. On the one hand, as I said, to start prosecuting the outgoing admin seems like a dangerous path that would turn into the ultimate partisan clusterfuck, but on the other hand, without demonstrating that even the President (of either party) is subject to the laws, how will we ever have a President who doesn’t just commit crimes at will knowing they will get away with it due to Tradition? Or for that matter, Obama has established a pattern of just continuing with plenty of the illegal shit the previous admin started. Where does that end?
I guess the best result we could hope for is electing some improbable person who would get into office, and on day one cut out the illegal bullshit that carries from one admin to the next. So without having a big trial for the outgoing people, just stop violating the laws left and right. Of the people running, I think Sanders or Paul might have the best odds there, but I could see either getting into office and accepting the status quo just the same. (Not like we’ll ever find out, as I don’t see either one winning.)
No, we have to move forward. Unless of course hard evidence is found by the incoming administration that was kept hidden by the previous administration. And even there, given the nature of politics you can do more damage just by releasing the evidence than actively seeking a prosecution.
From a strictly partisan perspective, nothing would be more helpful to Republican prospects than for Democrats to run around saying, “Yeah, he was criminal, but health care!”