5 ms·

Ah, the Nuremberg Defense.

by Kristine1975 11y ago

simonh 11y ago
Aaaand we're Godwined. Soldiers follow orders. The Nazis followed orders. Therefore all soldiers are Nazis. Well done. Congratulations. These people are not following orders 'whatever they are'. They're not attacking schools because the Taliban's leaders children go there, unlike oh, I don't know, say the Taliban who massacred 150 children at a school in Pakistan because soldier's children go there. They have rules of engagement defining how to determine if an order is legitimate and acceptable, which they are following, but of course the article never mentions that. Now fair enough, there are troubling incidents described in the article, but we're only get individual perspectives, nothing is really corroborated. I'd like to see more independent oversight of the drone programs. But flinging about Nuremberg analogies is hardly justified.
- atlantic 11y ago
  The problem is that the US is using drones to kill people inside countries with whom they are not at war. If you declare war on a country, that does give you certain rights under the laws of war. But if there is no declaration of war, you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries just because they are deemed suspicious. And declaring war "on terror" won't cut it either; that's basically equivalent to saying, "we are potentially at war with any country any time, when it suits us." Nor will saying "they're the bad guys and we are good," which is kindergarten-level argumentation. Or "we know they're terrorists but we can't share the evidence, just trust us." The media discusses the details of drone operations all the times, but omits to have this much more fundamental discussion about violating the borders of sovereign countries.
  - simonh 11y ago
    > ...you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries... Actually, yes you can. Suppose that country, Pakistan, is complicit in those drone strikes, allowed drones to operate from it's territory for a time and provides intelligence to facilitate them? The (former) Yemeni government also explicitly permitted drone strikes to be carried out on it's territory. Governments have always had the right to carry out attacks in order to prevent imminent threats to their country, and terrorists planning attacks does count. There is a clear legal framework. You can reasonably argue that this is wrong and that it doesn't matter how imminent the threat is or what those people are doing, they cannot be attacked even if the government of the territory they're in says that you can. That's an argument you could make, I suppose. But as it stands, as a statement of fact that's not what international law says. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
    - atlantic 11y ago
      Actually, the article you quoted does not seem to support your claims. There is a legal framework for targeted killings, but that framework belongs to American and not international law. Quoting from your article: >Philip Alston, the former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, condemns the U.S. claims of self-defense as overly expansive, stating that "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."
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >These people are not following orders 'whatever they are'. You mean like the order "Please ignore those men raping children, we want to be their friends so we can't call them out of that"? Or orders such as "Please blow up that group there. We have reason to believe that one of them is bad, and if the children there have to die to get to them, we think it is worth the price"?
  - simonh 11y ago
    The comment I was responding to was specifically equating these people operating this drone program as described in the article directly to Nazis. I don't see those incidents you describe mentioned anywhere in the article. Are they relevant to the subject we're actually discussing, or are they completely unrelated incidents you're throwing in as smokescreen for the specific issue addressed in the article, because you've run out of relevant points to make?

Ah, the Nuremberg Defense.

Aaaand we're Godwined. Soldiers follow orders. The Nazis followed orders. Therefore all soldiers are Nazis. Well done. Congratulations. These people are not following orders 'whatever they are'. They're not attacking schools because the Taliban's leaders children go there, unlike oh, I don't know, say the Taliban who massacred 150 children at a school in Pakistan because soldier's children go there. They have rules of engagement defining how to determine if an order is legitimate and acceptable, which they are following, but of course the article never mentions that. Now fair enough, there are troubling incidents described in the article, but we're only get individual perspectives, nothing is really corroborated. I'd like to see more independent oversight of the drone programs. But flinging about Nuremberg analogies is hardly justified.

atlantic 11y ago
The problem is that the US is using drones to kill people inside countries with whom they are not at war. If you declare war on a country, that does give you certain rights under the laws of war. But if there is no declaration of war, you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries just because they are deemed suspicious. And declaring war "on terror" won't cut it either; that's basically equivalent to saying, "we are potentially at war with any country any time, when it suits us." Nor will saying "they're the bad guys and we are good," which is kindergarten-level argumentation. Or "we know they're terrorists but we can't share the evidence, just trust us." The media discusses the details of drone operations all the times, but omits to have this much more fundamental discussion about violating the borders of sovereign countries.
- simonh 11y ago
  > ...you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries... Actually, yes you can. Suppose that country, Pakistan, is complicit in those drone strikes, allowed drones to operate from it's territory for a time and provides intelligence to facilitate them? The (former) Yemeni government also explicitly permitted drone strikes to be carried out on it's territory. Governments have always had the right to carry out attacks in order to prevent imminent threats to their country, and terrorists planning attacks does count. There is a clear legal framework. You can reasonably argue that this is wrong and that it doesn't matter how imminent the threat is or what those people are doing, they cannot be attacked even if the government of the territory they're in says that you can. That's an argument you could make, I suppose. But as it stands, as a statement of fact that's not what international law says. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
  - atlantic 11y ago
    Actually, the article you quoted does not seem to support your claims. There is a legal framework for targeted killings, but that framework belongs to American and not international law. Quoting from your article: >Philip Alston, the former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, condemns the U.S. claims of self-defense as overly expansive, stating that "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."
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>These people are not following orders 'whatever they are'. You mean like the order "Please ignore those men raping children, we want to be their friends so we can't call them out of that"? Or orders such as "Please blow up that group there. We have reason to believe that one of them is bad, and if the children there have to die to get to them, we think it is worth the price"?
- simonh 11y ago
  The comment I was responding to was specifically equating these people operating this drone program as described in the article directly to Nazis. I don't see those incidents you describe mentioned anywhere in the article. Are they relevant to the subject we're actually discussing, or are they completely unrelated incidents you're throwing in as smokescreen for the specific issue addressed in the article, because you've run out of relevant points to make?