It is fallacious to refer to authorized acts of war as literal crimes.
.
But there is evidence of collateral killings. The military even absurdly redefined the definitions of civilian and military target to claim they were killing a lot fewer civilians.
The local prosecutors can charge homicide-related crimes and conspiracy to commit homicide-related crimes.
Do you really think that it is not a crime to kill someone away from any field of battle just because that person is near a person who is perceived as a threat? If the military bombed a white family gathering in Virginia where there was strong evidence that a single terrorist at the gathering, people would demand prosecutions. But because the people being killed are brown people on the other side of the world, it is just absurd and naive to want to see prosecutions.
I guess I am just a fool for thinking there should not be an American license to kill innocent people. Sorry.
Cite to currently valid and applicable statutes? Cite to supporting cases?
it would certainly be difficult to get evidence but that doesn’t mean Human rights groups and journalists shouldn’t try.
And yes, unlike the OP, I think the ICC war crimes tribunal or a military court martial is the appropriate place for any charges.
We are killing our enemies in a war. They are terrorists not civilian first responders. There is no crime to charge. The military is not authorized to kill anyone in Virginia. If they were it is by definition not illegal. This has nothing to do with the color of people’s skins. You’ve provided no evidence of the death of innocents, unless you mean people not convicted of a crime, and we don’t kill our enemies in a war only after we’ve tried them and found them guilty. Gomer had better grounds for arresting Barney than you have for anything you’ve claimed in this thread.
There is no constitutional support for the drone strikes. The Obama administration claims they are legal because “As a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force – the AUMF – passed by Congress after the September 11thattacks authorizes the president ‘to use all necessary and appropriate force’ against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.”
But:
-
There has been no showing that any of targets presented imminent threats;
-
Many of targets are not part of al Qaeda proper or an organization that had anything to do with 9/11. (Or at least is no evidence of a 9/11 connection.
For people who don’t want prosecutions, answer me these questions, is it your position that people in the military can kill anyone so long as they are following orders? If not, why specifically can they kill someone when they don’t even know who the person is just because he is near another person who has been targeted when the two people are not on a battlefield and there is no evidence that the two people know each other or have any connection other than being near each other? Is any difference if the killing is Yemen or the United States? If yes, why?
a) The US is not at war with Pakistan, you can’t declare war on an abstract concept b) Calling them terrorists doesn’t make them so. c) Thats not up to you to decide.
Start on page 56 of this report, theres eye witness accounts of a drone strike on local tribal leaders who were part of the local Pakistani government (eg supposed to be on our side).
http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf
There has been no proper authorization for many of the drone strikes. See my post above.
The military does not just kill the target. They also kill the other people who are near the target. Until recently, these other people were considered civilians unless they were know terrorists or ocombatants. Now if they are male and of military age, they are considered a combatant unless there is evidence that they are not. A lot of time, the military does not even know who the other people are.
The constitution allows the president to make war. The war has been declared by congress through it’s funding. Under those circumstances if the president authorizes it, that’s all that’s necessary. That’s why elections matter.
Now you’re the one with a naive understanding. The President at the time authorized the Watergate burglaries.
He was not acting as the CIC. Stick to the facts and the argument, not straw men.
I don’t even know why this is in GD. There’s a factual answer to the question.
Even the Obama administration does take this position, as I posted above. They claim they can take out imminent threats (under the Constitution) or those involved in 9/11 (under congressional authorization). There is no evidence that either covers many of the drone strikes.
The president cannot just say Mitt Romney needs to be killed and make it legal. Nor can he just say this guy in Yemen needs to be killed. The guy needs to be an imminent threat or in an organization involved in 9/11. There is no evidence to support either in many cases.
Also, the military is not just killing the targets, they also kill people who are near the targets. Why is it okay to kill these people?
Really? You really believe that if some drone operator disregards orders and the rules of engagemetn and strafes a hospital just for chuckles and grins, killing a fair number of the people there, the military isn’t going to court-martial that drone operator?
I’m sorry. I’m not that cynical and I don’t believe our military is that crass.
Show me the evidence that for every drone strike the target was either an imminent threat or part of an organization involved in 9/11. Since you claim there is a factual answer, you must have this evidence since, as even as the administration says, the target either has to be an imminent threat or part of an organization involved in 9/11 for the strikes to be legal even if the president is acting as CIC. Present the evidence or admit that you are full of shit.
That is a complete stawman. The military is not going to bring a case against a pilot that is part of drone strike program for killing targeted people and killing people collaterally when killing targeted individuals, even though there is no evidence that all the drone strikes are legal.
Congressional authority is unnecessary outside of the funding, and they haven’t ceased funding.
We are not at war with Mitt Romney. We are at war with terrorist organizations and if some guy in Yemen is one of them the president can authorize his killing. No evidence is needed in that case. If the congress has a problem with it they can impeach Obama or cease the funding.
It is war. When you drop a bomb it doesn’t select between those who deserve it and those who don’t. Try blaming the terrorists instead of us.
But what if you’re not firing at your enemy? What if you drop an airstrike on some journalists, and then follow it up with another when civilians try to save your victims’ lives?
Under your erroneous view, what if the president declared war (perhaps secretly) against Miit Romney, is it okay to kill him then? No evidence needed, right? Congress’s only role is to later deal with the funding or impeach. Or what if the president said Mitt Romney was in al Qaeda; no evidence needed, right? What if the president declared war on Dallas or said designated everyone in Dallas a terrorist, is it okay to nuke Dallas?
And if the president can do these things, what high crime or misdemeanor could support impeachment?
Congress declares war, not the president. The president can act to stop imminent threats or under Congressional authorization or through a treaty.
No. What it is is you pretending that the military is a free-for-all. It’s not. I’m done here since you’re obviously not debating in good faith.
Apology accepted. Now that you have apologized you can close the thread.