12 ms·

>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius

by berntb 10y ago

>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated. But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird. The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.

ThomPete 10y ago
I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
- berntb 10y ago
  You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
    - berntb 10y ago
      So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        You mean just like when 9/11 allowed for the idea of pre-emptive strikes to be legalized? Law specialist have no understanding of what is the right law, they have an understanding of how you can interpret the law. These are two very different things you don't need to be a law specialist to have an informed opinion about the definition of what constitutes war.
- dpark 10y ago
  Well Trump openly claimed he wanted to torture terrorist suspects and kill terrorists' families. So yeah, I think that's worse than targeted drone strikes on terrorists. While I have significant concerns about the drone program, I also recognize that we are at war with certain groups and capturing these people in order to get them to trial is mostly infeasible. I don't consider drone strikes to be worse than special forces strikes. I do consider torture and murdering families to be considerably worse. I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/... http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/donald-trump-kill-terrorist-families-war-crime/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/donald-trump-kill-ter...
  - berntb 10y ago
    Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument: >> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war. E.g. the conflict in Afghanistan is still active. So what is the problem? (Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws. Do they have any rights, at all? Please use very good primary sources if you somehow argue that combatants that targets civilians have more rights than prisoners of war... That is contradicting the idea of those laws.)
    - dpark 10y ago
      The fundamental problem is that we are not at war with any nation here. We have repeatedly stated that we are at war with terrorism. So we've got a bunch of citizens of foreign nations that we took captive on the suspicion that they were engaged in terrorist activity, but we can't prove it. They aren't really prisoners of war, and there is no war at the end of which we can reasonably expect an exchange of prisoners. They're stuck in indefinite limbo with no trial and no expectation of release. I don't know how we can defend indefinite detention of people on the suspicion that they might have engaged in terrorist activity. It's basically just kidnapping to hold them this way forever. I think there's a legitimate argument that taking them captive to interrogate them is reasonable, and perhaps even some moderate time of detention. Giving them a trial would also be reasonable. I don't think there's a legitimate argument for holding foreign nationals without trial indefinitely.

by berntb 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.

berntb 10y ago
You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
  - berntb 10y ago
    So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      You mean just like when 9/11 allowed for the idea of pre-emptive strikes to be legalized? Law specialist have no understanding of what is the right law, they have an understanding of how you can interpret the law. These are two very different things you don't need to be a law specialist to have an informed opinion about the definition of what constitutes war.
dpark 10y ago
Well Trump openly claimed he wanted to torture terrorist suspects and kill terrorists' families. So yeah, I think that's worse than targeted drone strikes on terrorists. While I have significant concerns about the drone program, I also recognize that we are at war with certain groups and capturing these people in order to get them to trial is mostly infeasible. I don't consider drone strikes to be worse than special forces strikes. I do consider torture and murdering families to be considerably worse. I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/... http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/donald-trump-kill-terrorist-families-war-crime/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/donald-trump-kill-ter...
- berntb 10y ago
  Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument: >> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war. E.g. the conflict in Afghanistan is still active. So what is the problem? (Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws. Do they have any rights, at all? Please use very good primary sources if you somehow argue that combatants that targets civilians have more rights than prisoners of war... That is contradicting the idea of those laws.)
  - dpark 10y ago
    The fundamental problem is that we are not at war with any nation here. We have repeatedly stated that we are at war with terrorism. So we've got a bunch of citizens of foreign nations that we took captive on the suspicion that they were engaged in terrorist activity, but we can't prove it. They aren't really prisoners of war, and there is no war at the end of which we can reasonably expect an exchange of prisoners. They're stuck in indefinite limbo with no trial and no expectation of release. I don't know how we can defend indefinite detention of people on the suspicion that they might have engaged in terrorist activity. It's basically just kidnapping to hold them this way forever. I think there's a legitimate argument that taking them captive to interrogate them is reasonable, and perhaps even some moderate time of detention. Giving them a trial would also be reasonable. I don't think there's a legitimate argument for holding foreign nationals without trial indefinitely.