I am not known to have killed Simpson. The drone pilots are known to have killed targeted people. The question is whether they have an affirmative defense, for which they bear the burden.
I reported you for claiming I am a murder.
I’m well aware that America is militarily powerful enough that it can rampage across the world as it pleases. Of course, if “if you can do it, it’s OK” is the standard you are using then there was nothing at all wrong about Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attack, or for that matter the Nazi Holocaust.
Wrong on both counts, and not a rebuttal.
No. :rolleyes: I didn’t say a thing about the supernatural.
You actually think I save all my links going back to 2004? I’m not sure if I even had home Internet access that far back.
This is not a debate about what is OK. It’s about the legality of prosecuting people for these actions.
Then maybe you can find a way to restate that doesn’t ignore that the basis of my statement was justified actions.
Then what’s your definition of evil? The one I hear most often involves supernatural possession. I assumed you believed Americans were motivated by Satan.
[/QUOTE]
Happy to hear it. I’m sure you’d never dream of being insulting.
Huh? Since when does evil require the supernatural? Evil is the intentional causation of unnecessary harm or pain. (This, of course, leaves open the incredibly messy issue of “necessary.” The point is that the dentist who yanks your tooth isn’t evil, even though he does cause you pain. It isn’t intentional, and it may be necessary.)
Is war necessary? Sometimes, all other options are simply not feasible.
Civilians get hurt. That, too, is sometimes not avoidable. If you can figure a way to fight wars where civilians don’t get hurt, I’m pretty sure it would be welcomed. If you can figure a way for civilization to stop making war entirely, that, too, would be greeted with cheers.
I’m just using the same kind of distortion of concepts that he is.
There’s a simple way for civilization to stop making war entirely, but it doesn’t leave anybody to be greeted or do the cheering.
But note what I’m thereby saying about our commander-in-chief: I likewise figure that (a) he’d RATHER no innocent civilians be killed, but (b) he’s willing to tolerate accidental casualties. If you’re not really sure I should be charged, then why charge him for that same you’re-not-sure-its-condemnable indifference?
This thread confuses me. The use of the US military is governed by Title 10 and Title 50 of the US Code, and our treaty obligations according to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The US military does not exist outside Federal Law… it’s actions and the UCMJ are specifically authorized and governed by the afforementioned sections. I do not understand how a “drone strike” is different from any other military action… whether it be airstrike, artillery, infantry, whatever. Also, the killing of nonparticipants in pursuit of valid military objectives is not a crime and is specifically addressed in the Geneva Conventions.
Many of these arguments appear to be arguments against war in general… and that’s fine if that’s what floats your boat. Just make sure you understand the legal foundation of the military and military actions before you claim something is “illegal.”
He produced a cite, now you are the one who has nothing but hand-waving.
“Accidental”? I don’t think you can call dropping a bomb on someone “accidental”. Let’s not sugar coat this, Obama would rather no innocent civilians be killed, but he’s willing to kill them anyway to achieve his goal. And that includes children.
This study by Stanford Law and NYU into drone attacks in Pakistan states:
“The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.”
and
“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.3 TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals.”
If these stats are to be believed, the drone attacks are better at killing children (about 5% of the victims), than we are high level targets.
Then let’s use terms that are relevant and mean something.
They’re not required to say those things (although they have confirmed the deaths of some people, including al-Libi and al-Awlaki). If you believe otherwise, quote the part of the law that says they have to identify the targets and explain their reasoning to the public. The law authorizes the killing of people who are a threat and/or tied to Al Qaeda, and the government says that authorizes these strikes.
I didn’t say this. You know what the legislation says, apparently.
I’m not talking about what we “need.” I am saying the president is not required to show that evidence to the public and the idea that he would do so or be required to do so is daffy. The president is absolutely entitled to keep some information classified for national security reasons. I always want the government to disclose more information than it does. But I also think that your proposal here doesn’t work at all, and I don’t think trumped-up murder charges are a good way to make the government disclose information you want to see (since it wouldn’t work even if someone brought this case).
This is still not an affirmative defense. That will not change no matter how many times you say it and no matter how many times you ignore explanations to the contrary. Criminal law does not apply here.
He has taken the affirmative step of ordering drone strikes. You have only voted for him. Besides, I voted for him too. He was the lesser of two evils, and will be in this election cycle too. Of course, I was not hoping for a continuation of drone strikes when I voted for him. Au contraire. Gotta have different standards for different degrees of complicity.
And on edit: what Hamlet said.
On top of all that, how would a local prosecutor in Las Vegas assert jurisdiction over a murder that happened in another country? Legally speaking, did the alleged crime take place in Afghanistan or Las Vegas? I think the former because that’s where the person was actually killed. Again that’s ignoring all the quite relevant information you posted that shows the legal basis for military action by individual members of the military. Everything you posted certainly seems to supersede any jurisdiction arguments, but it seems to me that any alleged crime was not committed in Nevada if the person was killed in another country.
Could you tell me what the elements of the specific charge of homicide you feel can be brought?
With a cite to the jurisdiction’s legal code, or just name the jurisdiction, if you wish.
His “cite” didn’t claim what he said it claimed. I asked him again to produce a credible one that verifies the claims he made and he’s now admitting, in post 122, that he can’t.
That’s not hand waving.
You made an extremely reckless charge(that the US military refused to allow ten and eleven year old children to leave Fallujah and then deliberately murdered them)that you’re now conceding that you can’t provide a reputable cite for your claim.
In short, until you can provide compelling evidence for it, we should assume your claim was bullshit.
Obviously, that does not mean that you’re lying, but more likely that you have some vague memory of something from 8 years ago which is not what most of us would consider terribly credible.
Perhaps this (starting around 2:35) is what Der Trihs was referring to. If so, that would be bad enough (I am aware of the controversial nature of this documentary and do not take its claims at face value).
Apparently the consensus in this thread is that drone strikes in the “War on Terror” are just peachy because they are not formally illegal. I find that to be a repulsive viewpoint.
What I see people saying is that because they are not formally illegal, the pilots cannot be charged with murder. “Peachy,” I’m not seeing.
Fair enough.
This discussion of legal niceties is just so much bullshit to me.
If anyone is interested, I have started another thread to discuss the moral dimensions of this policy.
It would have been better if the OP had done that in this debate. The OP presumes that drone strikes are a formal crime, and hasn’t paid attention to the overwhelming evidence that it isn’t.