4 ms·

Without a formal declaration of war, drone strikes are pretty much just summary executions of human beings without recourse to a fair trial. ...and I take it b

Without a formal declaration of war, drone strikes are pretty much just summary executions of human beings without recourse to a fair trial. ...and I take it by your comment that it is perfectly fine if another country sends drones into the US to take out 'suspected operatives'?

finid 10y ago
It's going to be very tough for you or anybody else to convince most Americans that drone strikes are a bad idea. They've been so brainwashed by the govt that they know no better.
gwright 10y ago
Talking about a 'fair trial' only makes sense when dealing with issues in the realm of criminal law. But drone strikes and other military actions are distinctly outside the realm of criminal law. It is a category error to try to apply the concepts of a 'fair trial' to these situations. There are entirely different set of rules and agreements that are associated with armed conflict. Even the moral/ethical arguments are entirely different within the context of armed conflict vs criminal law. One of the reasons our public discussion on these issues is so muddled is that these two contexts are often confused. As an example, many critics of the US policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay will argue that we have failed to give them a 'fair trial'. But that is attempting to insert criminal law concepts into an armed conflict. It isn't necessary to prove that a crime has been committed in order to detain people in an armed conflict. Different rules apply. I'm not suggesting that there aren't arguments to be made against the detainee program, but those arguments need to be made in the scope of the legal framework accorded armed conflict not in the scope of the legal framework for criminal activities.
- cyberferret 10y ago
  I mentioned 'fair trial' in the context of 'justice'. I cannot point to a stranger in the street and say "That man is a murderer" and have an official immediately go over and dispatch him with extreme prejudice. If we say that 'point and kill' executions are OK outside the realm of formal war, then pretty much _everyone_ in the world is living with a sword of Damocles over their heads.
jokoon 10y ago
A declaration of war is usually done by countries, not by small groups of people or terrorist organizations. What "suspected operatives" in the US would you be talking about?
- cyberferret 10y ago
  I'd define 'suspected operatives' as people who are either financing, supporting, training or ordering others to commit murder on strangers on the other side of the world. You know, the EXACT same definition that is used to select targets for US drone strikes.

finid 10y ago

It's going to be very tough for you or anybody else to convince most Americans that drone strikes are a bad idea. They've been so brainwashed by the govt that they know no better.

gwright 10y ago

Talking about a 'fair trial' only makes sense when dealing with issues in the realm of criminal law. But drone strikes and other military actions are distinctly outside the realm of criminal law. It is a category error to try to apply the concepts of a 'fair trial' to these situations. There are entirely different set of rules and agreements that are associated with armed conflict. Even the moral/ethical arguments are entirely different within the context of armed conflict vs criminal law. One of the reasons our public discussion on these issues is so muddled is that these two contexts are often confused. As an example, many critics of the US policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay will argue that we have failed to give them a 'fair trial'. But that is attempting to insert criminal law concepts into an armed conflict. It isn't necessary to prove that a crime has been committed in order to detain people in an armed conflict. Different rules apply. I'm not suggesting that there aren't arguments to be made against the detainee program, but those arguments need to be made in the scope of the legal framework accorded armed conflict not in the scope of the legal framework for criminal activities.

cyberferret 10y ago
I mentioned 'fair trial' in the context of 'justice'. I cannot point to a stranger in the street and say "That man is a murderer" and have an official immediately go over and dispatch him with extreme prejudice. If we say that 'point and kill' executions are OK outside the realm of formal war, then pretty much _everyone_ in the world is living with a sword of Damocles over their heads.

jokoon 10y ago

A declaration of war is usually done by countries, not by small groups of people or terrorist organizations. What "suspected operatives" in the US would you be talking about?

cyberferret 10y ago
I'd define 'suspected operatives' as people who are either financing, supporting, training or ordering others to commit murder on strangers on the other side of the world. You know, the EXACT same definition that is used to select targets for US drone strikes.