you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SquidwardSnowden1 483 ポイント484 ポイント

While I get what you are trying to say and acknowledge you have a point the attempt at shock value is off putting and undercuts the ability to have a constructive and meaningful dialogue. If you can't back a statement like this up with hard numbers it probably shouldn't be made in this way. Plus would you rather the White House simply ignores the kidnapped girls? I think it's unfair to attack someone for other situations like drone warfare when they are doing what I think most of us would agree is the right thing in trying to recover the missing girls. Edit:spelling

[–]cujo195 489 ポイント490 ポイント

They're trying to equate unintentional consequences of war with deliberate criminal activities. That's the same mentality that supports terrorism.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 143 ポイント144 ポイント

You are right that there is a difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm. The collateral damage accepted for drone strikes, however, goes beyond what should be acceptable as "unintentional."

"The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise."

Edit: Here is the journalistic source for the quote.

[–]thebretandbutter [score hidden]

Far too often the argument is phrased against drone warfare when it should in fact be against the practice of targeted killings in general. Drone Warfare actually causes the least amount of collateral damage when you compare it to special force operations, surgical bombings, etc. If we're going to be killing high profile targets, we absolutely should use drones.

The question is, should we be doing targeted killings at all?

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

True, but drone warfare has reduced the cost and U.S. risk dramatically allowing surgical strikes to be used much more frequently. They have not created a new problem, but amplified an old one.

[–]thebretandbutter [score hidden]

Surgical strikes in the sense of more drone strikes, you mean right? I agree, it's lowered the threshold for violence. But then you would have to decide if the increase in drone strikes due to the lower cost ends up killing more innocents through collateral damage than a regular amount of tactical strikes/operations would.

I also think there's a general stigma around drones because it is mechanical, lifeless, etc. certainly in places where, ya know, we're killing innocent people... but in terms of sheer collateral damage, I don't think it's the worst. But again, I'm not convinced we should be doing these types of operations at all, drones or special forces or whatever.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

I agree. As far as weapons go, I don't have a problem with drones in theory. I have a problem with how they are being used. The fact that they are drones just makes it easier to abuse them without human cost to the U.S. American people.

I have known people who have lived in Pakistan for a few years during the drone strikes and the average civilian lives in constant terror. They don't know where the U.S.'s enemies are. As far as they know, a drone strike could come at any time to any place.

[–]piss4njoymtNOTmplymt 33 ポイント34 ポイント

Yeah? Let's just switch back to ww2 style carpet bombing. Spending billions of dollars to reduce civilian casualties is not enough?

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

There is a big difference because we are not at war with Pakistan.

[–]Thisbymaster [score hidden]

Really? Then why do the Taliban living in Pakistan come over the border to attack people in Afghanistan? Why did they hide the most wanted criminal for 10 years? Why do they not police or control THEIR territory just so they can try to extort money out of the west? This is a war on people holding on to a past that is no longer needed.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

If you think that is the case, you should start the rallying cry for war rather than justifying extensive bombing of a country we are officially at peace with.

[–]clavalle [score hidden]

Trouble is, we are not at war with a country. The US would love to have something as coherent and manageable as a country to go to war with.

Instead the US is at war with a movement. That movement takes many forms and has many leaders and many allies. Some of those allies happen to have positions of power in the Pakistani government. It so happens that the US also has allies in that same government.

IOW the situation is complicated and trying to reduce it to mesh with past conflicts with nation-states is absurd.

[–]Thisbymaster [score hidden]

Peace is cheaper when you can still bomb them.

[–]subiklim [score hidden]

No, we're not. Otherwise they would not allow the USA to fly their drones from Pakistani bases.

[–]clayblaster [score hidden]

No. We're at war with various NGOs in Pakistan.

[–]dalittle [score hidden]

how about the US stop spending billions to kill goat herders on the other side of the world and use that money for things like college students not finishing school with huge school debts.

[–]Ranikins [score hidden]

Or, just not have the US be the world police. We could leave that job to the UN.

They can sit back and work on the economic and social reforms that have retarded development of the American society. With it's massive homeless problem, lack of proper universal healthcare and reliance on underpaid employees, US culture is truly retarded in western terms.

[–]assholejammer 19 ポイント20 ポイント

That website backs up drone strikes for me.

The other targets are not civilian targets. So that leaves militant targets with the overwhelming majority, >76%.

The small number if high profile targets is quite obviously going to be small. There is not going to be a high number of high profile targets to even kill. That is why they are high profile.

It is unfortunate that civilians are killed however it makes no differance if it is from a manned fighter/bomber or an un manned drone.

The aircraft pilot will see almost identical information to the drone pilot (Probability less due to space restrictions) .

Another point is that the Taliban have probably killed many times more civilians than NATO forces during their consistent barrage of suicide attacks.

[–]Sha-WING 44 ポイント45 ポイント

It's funny how this Muslim man can so eagerly point out the US's civilian casualties, while completely unintentional, and somehow move right over the fact that suicide bombers of his own country and religion directly attack hospitals, schools, women, children and more. There was a surveillance video I remember watching of a hospital that came under attack by some terrorists in a truck. They walked up into the hospital with injured and sick and began executing the nurses and others as they walked through. I don't think anything has ever made my blood boil so hot and quickly. I wish the very worst that hell has to offer to individuals like that.

Edit: Source. You can see one man calmly walk up to a group of people and as nonchalantly as most say hello, he tosses a grenade in the middle of them. I'm normally a calm person, but I would love nothing more then to watch each one of them be executed in the most painful form.

Edit2: I was NOT generalizing all Muslims. I was merely talking about the extremists that seek to murder others in the name of religion. I was simply pointing out that the Muslim man that used the current popularity of these captured girls to try and rile up the US hate train by spewing nonsense comparing how we "murder" civilian Muslims to in the name of freedom when he should be more concerned with how his own people actively try to murder they own populace.

[–]I_suck_at_mostthings 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The FUCK? Link to the video?

[–]HappyCatFish [score hidden]

Excuse me, but I feel the need to point out that radical extremists in any country cannot ever be assumed a representation of that country's population. Would you feel comfortable being compared to members of the KKK for being a white American? Or a fascist Neo-Nazi for being born in Germany? Even though the amount of radical Muslims hiding in the borders of middle eastern nations is enough to be a percentage of the population, there have been equal if not greater atrocities committed by groups bred out of whatever country you identify with.

[–]Easymath1001 [score hidden]

Extremism is pervasive in the Mideast, it's so volatile and lacking for any forward logical progression to becoming a steady political or safe region we should have just dipped after eliminating the heads. I'm usually not one to generalize but that shits cray

[–]metans [score hidden]

Right, but he didn't say that the Muslim extremists were representative of all Muslims or all people of one country or another. Nobody is saying bomb all the Muslims, nobody wants civilians to get hurt. But the extremists are killing many innocent people themselves; nobody ever seems to protest against that, and when they do they are labelled as bigoted, ignorant, racist, anti-Muslim, etc. There may well have been "equal or greater atrocities" carried out by his county, your country, or my country, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about what is going on in this picture. The comment above gives more perspective, and at least makes you think it over before just siding with the guy with the sign because military=automatically bad.

[–]PistolPuma [score hidden]

Active, extremist Muslims are very common though.

[–]dalittle [score hidden]

there is a lot of active religious extremism, but you don't hear about it as much. Part of the problem is that republicans want to have an enemy for the US to fight. Some of them honestly believe without an enemy the US will not do well (I think they use it to manipulate the weak minded). It use to be communists. Now it is radical muslims.

[–]HappyCatFish [score hidden]

Yes, but seventy years ago so were Nazis, I fail to understand the rational that because there is a majority somewhere, it is acceptable to place a cast type on an entire culture. Slavery was legal in the United States up until 1865. Time passed and issues were resolved. Westerners have no patience when it comes to other nations social/economic reform.

I can provide some information as to how this practice of extremist and radical Islam came to be so anti-West. Pre-1914 borders in the middle east were relatively peaceful, however due to the Balfour Declaration, westerners forced Zionists into the established nation of Israel with their cultural opposites that had been living there since the Crusades, Arab Muslims. After the Mandate for Palestine in 1923 the borders were redrawn, giving less land to native Israelis and the hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating there. Later, Arab leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaimed that there is "no room here for them" and that "we [Arab Muslims] will drive them into the sea, or they [European and Israeli Jews] will push us into the desert. This began the first Jihad against Jews in Israel. Many vengeful Muslims left Israel and began to organize extremist groups that have launched multiple attacks against Western nations starting in 1972 with the Munich Massacre.

[–]FyourFeelings [score hidden]

Oh come off it mate.

[–]MrMojoRizin [score hidden]

You're full of shit trying to be a apologist for the Muslims. I live in the Deep South, an hour away from the Grand Dragon of the Clan's house and literally nothing they've done in the past 15 years I've lived here could resemble terrorism in the form of going into schools, hospitals, etc to kill innocent people. That shit doesn't fly in the Western world, even for the most racist and hateful groups.

[–]chemlabrat [score hidden]

Maybe nothing significant in the last 15 years, but you can't say that the KKK has never targeted innocent people. Another reason is that they simply don't have the numbers they did in the past. With more numbers and power, they were willing and able to do the horrible things they did. Now you're coming off as apologetic for the KKK. They bombed a church killing four girls in 1963, and shot four elderly women in 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Tennessee_shooting

[–]Fgghfhfhg [score hidden]

Have a word with him, he might agree to stop blowing people up if you agree to stop dropping bombs on people. Once that is sorted what are the rest of us going to do?.....

Oh wait he doesn't represent all of his particular (I don't even know which word to use in this space anymore) group. We need a new plan.

[–]Dicond 27 ポイント28 ポイント

So guilty until proven innocent? I think they got that backward.

[–]KageStar [score hidden]

Well, our Bill of Rights/Constitution only extends to citizens of our country.

[–]HerrHaakon [score hidden]

It also extends to legal residents.

[–]dos_user [score hidden]

Illegals also have rights, most notably right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

[–]drewcifer1986 [score hidden]

Unless you're considered an enemy combatant. Isn't that how they justified drone strikes on American citizens who turned into jihadists?

[–]quintinza [score hidden]

Isn't that why there is such a furore about the decision to kill a US citizen in a drone strike? Too lazy to cite sources or look up more info, I have it kicking around the back of my mind somewhere...

[–]Handel85 [score hidden]

Who told you that?

[–]fido5150 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You're under the impression that it works any other way?

Most people are assumed guilty, or they would not have been arrested. Then it is up to their lawyer to prove their innocence.

I think the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is only an ideal, because those arrested and accused of crimes sure are treated like they're guilty, before it has actually been proven in a court of law.

[–]midasMIRV 16 ポイント17 ポイント

Except the innocent until proven guilty refers to court proceedings and convictions. The jury MUST believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty based on the evidence presented in court. I've had to let a guy who I knew beat his wife go because the prosecution couldn't get pictures of the injuries and the woman refused to testify. Its a very imperfect system, but its what we got.

[–]kymri [score hidden]

As shitty as the situation you described is (and man, letting a guy 'get away' with beating his wife is pretty shitty, though I fully understand that you did all you could)...

The opposite situation is MUCH, MUCH more terrifying. I'd rather see cases like the above transpire where the guy 'gets away with it' because there's no evidence than have guys who HAVEN'T done any such thing thrown into jail because we are convinced they're doing what we think they've been doing despite the lack of evidence.

It goes against the grain to "let someone get away with it", but I think that pales in comparison to the sheer horror of imprisoning (or worse, as has definitely happened more than once) an innocent man.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is imperfect but without true, infalliable omniscience, I think it's the best option available.

[–]CivilityBeDamned [score hidden]

You didn't 'let a guy go'. You had no case.

[–]midasMIRV [score hidden]

The woman was supposed to testify against him, but then she went into hiding with the defendants parents.

[–]CivilityBeDamned [score hidden]

Sounds like you were trying to coerce a testimony that the person didn't want to deliver.

[–]midasMIRV [score hidden]

I didn't do shit, I was on the jury. She filed the charges, she was going to testify of her own free will, but the defendant kept contacting her and saying that he loved her and shit and she fell back into the honeymoon stage.

[–]mathgod 10 ポイント11 ポイント

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the entirety of your legal experience consists of TV shows and internet articles.

No, "innocent until proven guilty" is not just an ideal. It is the law. Yes, some individual police officers and judges do indeed subscribe to a "guilty by default" mindset, but they are the exception, and they are in the wrong.

[–]skeezyrattytroll [score hidden]

I understand a single instance does not prove a point. I once had a job running an adult book store. Job was 16 hrs/day, 7 days a week, sleep on site. I got an offer for a real job and quit on a Sunday. I took the store receipts to the main office and got a receipt for them. The owner did not appreciate me quitting one of his prime locations with no notice, so he filed embezzlement charges on me.

My experience being charged with embezzlement and jailed for 2 weeks pending a hearing sure felt like I was regarded as guilty. I was removed from my world, locked up with other people charged and convicted, lost my new job because I did not have bond money. I was released at court with a 'nolle prosequi' because the charging party failed to show in court. This was in the early 70's. Don't you know that nolle prossed embezzlement charge is still on my record?

Innocent until proven guilty in America is very much like "he's paid his time, give him a second chance" for ex-convicts: A pleasant fiction of an ideal we tell ourselves.

[–]Dicond 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Just pointing out the irony, don't read too much into it.

[–]streetbum [score hidden]

You're a fucking retard. Please stop talking.

[–]verifiedbyme [score hidden]

That's a wrong interpretation, in my opinion. The court states the facts that prove someone's guilt, while the accused's lawyer merely proves these facts wrong.

Still, the court has to prove guilt. If there is no evidence the lawyer will have no need of proving anything.

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

War isn't a court of law.

Al Qaeda didn't serve us papers in advance of flying planes into our buildings.

[–]7kingMeta [score hidden]

Therefore any able-bodied Muslim is Al Qaeda unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise. /eagles soaring in the background

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You're a good summarizer.

There's no such thing as evidence in international conflicts. Laws end where the borders do, because laws end where the ability to enforce those laws end.

[–]Contacta [score hidden]

and of course instead of acting like a grown up enlightend country the US wages war all over the place for 3000 fucking lives compared to the hundreds of thousand other humans who got rolled over by the retaliation strike. in the end the US wasn't forced into war, it willfully chose to and innocent people (even us troops) lost their lives for revenge.

[–]WakkaWacka [score hidden]

The Jedi would be proud of your mindset (I've probably been watching too much clone wars lately).

[–]Contacta [score hidden]

yea i like the principle of letting emotions (especially hate) flow trough you...

[–]screenmonkey [score hidden]

Actually, we asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden or we would attack, and they refused.

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

Please enlighten us as to what your enlightened response to the 9/11 attacks would be. Please be specific as to how it would bring those who organized and enabled it to answer for their crimes as they spread out and hid in other nations and places where the local governments cannot and/or will not do anything about them.

However, before you go too far, don't assume that you're going to see me defending the invasion of Iraq, because I won't. That was an immense Bush administration fuck-up, if not flat-out criminal fraud. It had no real connection to terrorist threats on the US.

[–]cloverhaze [score hidden]

Because stooping down to their level, giving up our civil liberties, and spending trillions on a war overseas is totally what they didn't want. I think we still come out as the losers. We also lost more soldier there than from 9/11 and took out hundreds of thousands of their own (many likely civilians)

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

We lost more lives fighting WW2 than we did in Pearl Harbor also. I'm not sure that's how the scales are supposed to be balanced.

[–]wumbotarian [score hidden]

Which is why they're criminals, terrorists and uncivilized. America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom and justice, no?

It's okay to kill innocents because our enemy did?

[–]pepipopa [score hidden]

The "He started it" mentality is strong.

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

Innocents get killed in war, yes. In every war, that has ever happened in human history. It sucks, but it's the history of pretty much all life on earth.

If you can send in police forces to arrest individual suspects, it's not a war.

[–]Trust_Me_Im_A_Whale [score hidden]

Nah man, its fine. They're fighting terrorism so its justified.

[–]Nodbugger 13 ポイント14 ポイント

Assuming military aged males surrounding a known terrorist leader are combatants seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

[–]sunshine-x [score hidden]

Right, just like people around a presidential parade are all politicians.

[–]Nodbugger [score hidden]

Politicians are not military leaders. If they bombed an American General and killed 20 other males between the ages of 17-40, well it is pretty damn likely they were all combatants.

[–]kymri [score hidden]

Assuming EVERY military aged male surrounding a known terrorist leader are combatants seems a bit much. Sure, it's likely that some/most of them are, but it's every bit as likely that at least SOME of them are not.

[–]clavalle [score hidden]

We'd better wait until we can be sure we only kill those directly responsible for terrorist actions, then. /s

'Show me a man's friends...'

[–]kymri [score hidden]

That's not a position I ever approached. I'm just pointing out that while assuming 'military aged males' near a 'known terrorist leader' are in fact combatants might be 'reasonable' but it is no less reasonable than assuming that at least some of those are NOT combatants.

[–]clavalle [score hidden]

So are you admitting to not having a point?

What should be done? If there is a known terrorist leader with fifteen known combatants and one unknown, and they can be hit with a missile, should that group be taken out, in your view?

[–]cujo195 [score hidden]

A fancy website doesn't make it legitimate.

"The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise."

If that was true, then the war would have been over a long time ago. The solution would have been very simple. But our problem is that our enemies intentionally hide among the innocent, and we have a difficult time identifying and attacking them without killing the innocent people around them.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

Our enemies do hide among the innocent, but that does not absolve us of moral culpability.

[–]cujo195 [score hidden]

Right, that's why we take measures to prevent/minimize civilian casualties. Do you have any idea how many missions have been called off because of the risk of killing non-combatants?

Like I said, if we didn't care about the civilians, this war would have been simple. Our military could easily have destroyed their country in the blink of an eye.

[–]Renmauza [score hidden]

We would have won Vietnam, we just needed more time! We could have beat those Afghanis, if we weren't so humanitarian! I don't know what the US military produces more of, tanks or excuses.

[–]generationderp 3 ポイント4 ポイント

That quote is not anything from a legal doctrine. It's just something someone made up at some point that circulates through the internet.

Unless you can quote a law or administration official making this statement, it's just random internet bullshit.

It would be like me just making up whatever I thought was a persons rational and selling it as fact, then taking my opinion and putting some cute web graphics to it and pretending it's a factual statement.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

From this article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

That is not law or administration, but it is from a NY Times investigative journalist. IMO, that is a little more credible than "random internet bullshit."

[–]troglodave [score hidden]

Unless you can quote a law or administration official making this statement, it's just random internet bullshit.

Agreed.

[–]MasterFubar [score hidden]

The collateral damage accepted for drone strikes,

How much collateral damage would you accept for terrorist strikes? Or you think terrorist strikes have zero collateral damage because they intended to kill innocent civilians from the start?

The fact is that car bombings in Muslim nations kill many more people than the US armed forces do. If anything, the US should intensify their drone strikes.

[–]0xD153A53 [score hidden]

What of the humanitarian disasters, and resulting deaths, that occur as a direct result of war? Are the instigators of such a conflict absolved of blame, simply because such a situation is "unintentional" (despite being a near-universal occurrence in warfare)?

[–]DoctorExplosion 27 ポイント28 ポイント

Check their website. One of their defining principles is "Reviving the Obligation of Jihad".

http://www.mpacuk.org/about-mpacuk.html

These aren't normal people we're talking about here, so of course they're going to minimize the actions of Muslim terrorists and engage in whataboutism.

[–]AliasUndercover [score hidden]

Oh, so they push for Jihad to fight Islamophobia. Great tactic, there, fellas!!

[–]generationderp [score hidden]

That's all just standard religious fundamentalism. It's not in any way unique to Islam.

One of the huge flaws in religion is how hiveminded people can act if they feel they have god on their side. They can easily supersede any base human morals and herd instincts. Humans do have natural tendancies to want to contribute for the greater good, one of the best examples is how we are programmed at the most basic level to care about and protect children. It's hard to invoke more rage from a human than when you harm children, this is a genetic trait, not merely learned behavior.

Religion has the power to supersede these basic genetic moral codes due to the power of blind faith. If you truly believe in god and you are convinced he wants you to kill your child, you are obligated to kill your child. It's an odd evolution of things like burial rights into complex hierarchical beliefs which at clearly at odds with natural law.

One of the downsides of being an imaginative creature is being able to be convinced and convince others of things that disobey natural law.

[–]FluidHips [score hidden]

So much for giving the full definition they offered:

Jihad means the struggle for justice in the way of Allah, and MPACUK aims to empower Muslims to fulfil this Islamic obligation through intelligent political action to protect the Ummah. We believe that pro-active engagement in mainstream media and politics, as active citizens, is the most effective solution to bring about an ethical foreign policy, defend civil liberties and combat Islamophobia.

Read more: http://www.mpacuk.org/about-mpacuk.html#ixzz31QYucfqF

[–]Mentat_0101 [score hidden]

Except Jihad isn't about holy war. It is a religious word that has been bastardized first by extremists, and then in the west through these extremists. Just like the word Fatwa, it ain't what you think it means.

[–]pefyeah [score hidden]

Well then, care to explain to us what it really means?

[–]FluidHips [score hidden]

Maybe just click the link the dude provided. Those guys did it for you:

Jihad means the struggle for justice in the way of Allah, and MPACUK aims to empower Muslims to fulfil this Islamic obligation through intelligent political action to protect the Ummah. We believe that pro-active engagement in mainstream media and politics, as active citizens, is the most effective solution to bring about an ethical foreign policy, defend civil liberties and combat Islamophobia.

Read more: http://www.mpacuk.org/about-mpacuk.html#ixzz31QYucfqF

[–]B0BtheDestroyer [score hidden]

This is a gross oversimplification, but it is somewhat similar to the way "crusade" is used in contemporary times. It has a bloody history, but could be used nonviolently, like a crusade against hunger. A huge difference however, is that crusade's primary definition is military and is only used nonviolently in certain contexts. Jihad does not inherently imply violence, although it connotes it in the today's world.

[–]Mentat_0101 [score hidden]

A Jihad is a struggle against injustice in the eye of Islam. The struggle is not necessarily violent, either. It could manifest in a hunger strike, writing petitions, running for office, anything that would effect a change. This does mean people can use violence (though when/where is heavily debated by Islamic scholars), but if we denounce ALL forms of violent struggle we're pretty hypocritical given our nation's history. So yeah, terrorists use the word, but 99.99% of the time when it's used it is to describe a personal struggle. Al Qaeda caused us to become deathly afraid of this word.

People say that "Fatwa" is a death sentence. It's not, it is a religious edict. You can have a Fatwa saying that people shouldn't wear green shoelaces. Again, extremists use it (most notably the Ayatollah Khomeini when he issued a Fatwa that Salman Rushdie should be killed), but the definition has been hijacked in the view of the west (most notably due to Rushdie/Khomeini). Iran caused us to become deathly afraid of this word as well.

[–]jeffly777 8 ポイント9 ポイント

I think that goes too easy on the Obama administration's perpetration of the illegal drone assassination program. However, I agree that collateral deaths as a result of military action--even illegal military action--are not comparable to the kidnapping, rape, torture, and sale of children. While equally tragic, they are absolutely not morally equivalent.

[–]macallen 9 ポイント10 ポイント

They're not illegal, that's the point. They are 100% within the laws written during the Bush administration, written, voted upon, and passed by our elected officials. They are the law of the land, making them legal.

They are also not unConstitutional, because the Patriot Act has been signed into law and not repealed or reversed by the Surpreme Court.

Edit: To clarify my point...WE did this. This is OUR fault. If we don't want these results, we need to elect different people to do it. Saying THEY did this is passing the buck to "someone else" when there is no one else, anywhere, who can fix this for us.

[–]Levelek 9 ポイント10 ポイント

American Law is not the only law at play. The drone strikes are unambiguously illegal under international law, and represent an infringement of Pakistan (and other nations') sovereign rights as nations. Just because some American lawmaker passed a law doesn't make something legal from an international perspective, and drone strikes perpetrated by one nation on the citizens of another nation are clearly not subject to US domestic law. These drone strikes are subject not to American law, but to Pakistani (or in the other nations where they occur) and international law. American laws are utterly irrelevant.

[–]hitlerbong69 [score hidden]

There is no such thing as international law or rights as sovereign nations. hope this helps.

[–]mrbooze [score hidden]

Which international laws protect countries from terrorists hiding in other countries again? Which international police force hunted down and prosecuted Bin Laden for his crimes? Or for the attacks in India? Or the bombings in Madrid?

The international community and international law does not give a single fuck about the lives of people in any other country. This forces nations to act when they have the power to.

[–]black_floyd [score hidden]

I imagine there would be an uproar if The United Kingdom bombed Boston for harboring IRA members.

[–]hegemonistic [score hidden]

Probably in no small part because the US actually does have sovereign control over Boston, has the ability to find and bring in whoever the UK is after, and would willingly turn them over. Unlike Pakistan whose government doesn't effectively extend to the areas we focus drone attacks on. A better comparison would be if a native reservation harbored terrorists, but even still, the US exerts much more control over them than the government of Pakistan exerts over their FATAs. Pakistan simply can't go out and capture/kill these terrorists, even though they operate on "their" soil, at least not without much bigger and more deadly military action.

[–]black_floyd [score hidden]

I agree the circumstances aren't equivalent and I'm sympathetic to the arguments for action in Pakistan, but Boston and the FBI were aware of the IRA and did little to combat the funding apparatus that made the IRA possible.

[–]NATZIX [score hidden]

You are so fucking ignorant. US drones operate in Pakistan and Yemen with the explicit permission of their governments.

[–]Levelek [score hidden]

What I said was:

These drone strikes are subject not to American law, but to Pakistani (or in the other nations where they occur) and international law.

I did not state or imply that they were illegal under Pakistani or Yemeni law, but that they were subject to the laws of those countries, not American law.

[–]Thangleby_Slapdiback [score hidden]

What's the difference between a Pakistani school for orphaned girls and an Al Qaeda gathering?

Edit: What, no bites? You should at least wait for the punch line before downvoting........

[–]jeffly777 [score hidden]

I agree with your last point; the people of America needs to be better informed, more involved, and elect leaders that won't do these kinds of things.

However, the legality of the programs is not so cut and dried. I'm an attorney and constitutional scholar and feel qualified to make professional judgments on these issues. As such, I feel the Patriot act is unconstitutional, but it is, indeed, the law of the land and has not been repealed or invalidated by the Supreme Court. You are correct in that regard. On the other hand, the drone program is absolutely illegal under international law. It amounts to military force being used on foreign nationals within the boundaries of nations with which we're not at war without their consent. That is an illegal act of aggression which allows the offended country to retaliate militarily. Obama is well within his powers--and, I believe, his duty as commander-in-chief--to stop them, Bush-era laws be damned.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman [score hidden]

even illegal military action--are not comparable to the kidnapping, rape, torture, and sale of children. While equally tragic, they are absolutely not morally equivalent.

Ok then, funny how Michelle hasn't mentioned the hundreds of boys butchered by the same organization.

This whole campaign is little more than an example of how selective people are in whose suffering they care about, which would be fine if they were a bit more honest about it.

[–]PistolPuma [score hidden]

"hasn't mentioned the hundreds of boys butchered by the same organization" The girls are still alive, they can be saved.

[–]generationderp [score hidden]

I don't see the practice of killing fundamental militants who use innocents as shields as being equally as tragic as targeting children for rape.

But I do think just ignoring them would be as effective or more effective than bombing them. Our focus should be simply to secure US interests directly, not attempt to eliminate ideological beliefs with bombs. I just find that view more efficient. I'm not overly concerned with the idea that people who use innocent people as shield results in getting innocent people killed. Perhaps if the common population of these areas would learn to reject militants they would not be in harms way so often.

If you're living in the same house as a terrorist I don't have much faith in the idea that you are really all that innocent unless you are truly being held captive. If I was in a simple village and militants moved in, I'd want them removed. To be brutally honest, if that involved some of my neighbors dying, I would still consider that an action for the greater good because the militants themselves will have a negative impact on my village in so many ways and potentially for decades or centuries if they are allowed to grow and fester into society.

[–]SquidwardSnowden1 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Exactly

[–]FrostyPlum 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"Yeah, he's got the right id- wait, what?"

[–]AIDSofSPACE [score hidden]

Drone strikes do stretch the definition of war and blur the definition of murder. When future terrorists are being recruited, which definition do you think they're rallying against?

[–]cujo195 [score hidden]

I couldn't care less about what goes through a future terrorist's mind as he's being recruited... I'd hope it's a bullet.

[–]AIDSofSPACE [score hidden]

How do you hope to defeat an enemy you don't understand? More importantly, how do you even identify who is your enemy?

[–]cujo195 [score hidden]

Do you think the terrorists asked themselves that question when they hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC?

[–]hitlerbong69 [score hidden]

Mussulman logic

[–]Ranikins [score hidden]

The My Lai Massacre was unintentional?

If the US doesn't intend to kill people, it shouldn't send it's military around the world to do it.

[–]cujo195 [score hidden]

You're bringing up Vietnam now?? Stick to the topic.

We're targeting enemy combatants who intend to do harm to our people. Our enemy targets civilians. How is this even up for debate?

[–]Ranikins [score hidden]

There have been similar massacres in the current golf war. It is particularly relevant. Wherever the US goes disaster follows. Not accidental disaster, deliberate, intentional disaster. The US are a violent and brutal people. They're not saviours who send their military around the world for good.

Remember that the Vietnam War was conducted because the US didn't like the particular type of government about to arise in Vietnam. The US feared economic and political isolation, so it sent it's troops around the world to stop people forming particular types of government.

[–][deleted]

[deleted]

    [–]Mutt1223 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    You should probably not comment on anything that is even remotely serious or that requires any measure of intelligence if you can't see how what he said is true.

    [–]l337kid 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    You're presuming neutrality of benevolence on the part of a war machine that we aren't even discussing in this thread.

    The only reason your argument is preferred over the OP is because it makes Americans/Westerners sleep better at night.

    [–]SCUM03 [score hidden]

    The fact that you could use the term "war" to describe the United States's militaristic drone operations in sovereign countries with no consent whatsoever is disheartening.

    [–]IO4 [score hidden]

    They are well aware of the unintended targets, but they do it anyway. Both sides are evil in their own right.

    Furthermore, you say "deliberate criminal activity," well who defines "criminal activity"? Your view is a bit too convenient, and it misses a lot of the reality. By our own laws and policies, it's perfectly legitimate to fly drones into foreign countries and take out enemy targets, but that doesn't mean it's right, it's just not "criminal activity." I bet you'd have a very different opinion if it was some other country flying drones into the US to take out terrorists.

    [–]InternetFree [score hidden]

    They're trying to equate unintentional consequences

    Ever heard about the term "shock and awe"?

    The US is the biggest terrorist state on the planet.

    Also: Nothing excuses the vile atrocities committed by the US government. How anyone could upvote the shitty apologetics in this thread is beyond me. Vile, inhuman people all around. Where are you from? 99% of the people doing the upvoting are American, right? Just shameful.

    [–]Graptoi [score hidden]

    There's nothing unintentional about using drones to kill people from the sky, there are only "acceptable casualty estimates".

    [–]CivilityBeDamned [score hidden]

    We have not declared war. Our military does nothing but carry out deliberate criminal activities.

    [–]ADavies [score hidden]

    What is unintentional about a drone strike?

    [–]cujo195 [score hidden]

    I'm referring to the non-combatants that have been unintentionally injured or killed during a drone strike... the unintended targets.

    [–]massivedickpower [score hidden]

    unintentional consequences of war

    ROFL

    [–]HAWTITS [score hidden]

    Unintentional consequences..

    You are mentally ill sir, and I suspect you have a very strong case of Stockholm syndrome. You need professional help for defending such atrocious acts of violence that the American government has been doing for YEARS.

    The ignorance in the mucks of this Comment board is BEYOND overwhelming. I am in the SLIGHTEST to be proud to call myself american. You "people" make me sick.

    [–]mrbooze [score hidden]

    Granted, far far far far far more girls have been killed, mutilated, enslaved, etc in Muslim countries overall, but...let's not talk about that.

    [–]ComicDev [score hidden]

    Yeah, let's ignore the fucking regular stonings/beheadings/etc of young women for absolutely ridiculous reasons that happen in muslim countries EVERY fucking DAY. Shit, their culture is practically built around it!

    God, the flippant hypocrisy of them never ceases to astound.

    [–]rasputin777 12 ポイント13 ポイント

    The very nature of these stupid printout hash tags that the white house and state Dept. keep posting is to minimize thoughtful discussion and play to emotion. Guy is just working at their level.

    [–]generationderp [score hidden]

    Yeah.. that makes no sense. People just see an opportunity to criticize world leaders and they take it. If it wasn't one thing, it would be another. This guy is just going for the biggest emotional reaction he can get.

    You can't minimize thoughtful discussion by posting a picture of yourself holding a sign, that's just stupid.

    [–]FtMyersMuffDiver 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    Imagine if hard numbers were readily available. oh wait...

    [–]SquidwardSnowden1 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    There are hard numbers about the amount of people boko haram have killed over the years in rural Nigeria? Please enlighten me and post a link

    [–]FtMyersMuffDiver 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    My bad I thought you were talking about official civilian casualty reports from drone strikes, disregard my comment

    [–]cloverhaze [score hidden]

    Drone attacks have no real followup as far as victims of which Obama ramped up. By blowing this up in the media gives this man (terrorist) more acknowledgement then they should give him. The US shouldn't get involved they should let the UN/Africa handle it. I get picking issues to bring to the media's attention but honestly he's too involved, making that comment about trayvon martin was overboard

    [–]laughs-at-idiots [score hidden]

    How about this picture just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy pouring out of the White House?

    Save the innocent girls if it's good publicity, murder them if that's convenient.

    [–]unbannable9412 [score hidden]

    Plus would you rather the White House simply ignores the kidnapped girls?

    Oh bullshit.

    Michelle will take a selfie, Obama will give a speech, and no one will save those girls.

    They're people, not oil fields, no one is coming for them.

    [–]ButIThoughtYouSaid -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    What missing girls?

    [–]youwantpancakes [score hidden]

    There is a militant islamist group called Boko Haram in northern Nigeria that went into a school in Nigeria, killed a bunch of boys, and kidnapped 300+ school girls.

    [–]Ranikins [score hidden]

    Michelle Obama is using a moral high ground to try and gain public support for efforts to secure these girls. If she has no moral authority, because her country are warmongering monsters responsible for a large amount of unnecessary death and distraction, conducting illegal wars, torturing enemies and killing civilians her message stops having weight.

    Let's not forget that we're talking about a country where this kind of think is not uncommon. This particular issue just got a lot of press.

    [–]CivilityBeDamned [score hidden]

    The US military has killed 1-300,000 civilians over the past decade in the Middle East. Only half or so is on Obama. Still accurate.

    [–]InternetFree [score hidden]

    the attempt at shock value is off putting

    How is this an "attempt"? His statement is truthful and no exaggeration.

    That this is "shocking" to you is because the actions by the US government are shocking.

    and undercuts the ability to have a constructive and meaningful dialogue.

    Well, that's criticism you should point at the people deluded enough to think that the US is a force for good.

    If you can't back a statement like this up with hard numbers it probably shouldn't be made in this way.

    I guess you should give him access to official documentation about atrocities committed by the US government. Oh wait, releasing such classified documents would make you a traitor.

    Plus would you rather the White House simply ignores the kidnapped girls?

    Loaded question.

    He is pointing out her hypocrisy.

    She should call out and propagate action against her husband the same way she does against others.