4 ms·

It would be funny if it were a crime to download this data and yet not a crime to cause the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians.

rdl 16y ago
Members of the military absolutely can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they commit crimes, including murder of innocent Afghan civilians. There have been numerous prosecutions -- in fact, the "guncam" footage from Iraq was actually recovered, allegedly, from JAG, the legal arm of the military, which was reviewing it to see if crimes had occurred which would need to be prosecuted. The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military (at the direction of the civilian leadership, i.e. the President). There is a much stronger argument about contractors, especially in Iraq from 2003-2006, using unlawful force and not being prosecuted, than military.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military This doesn't preclude the death of innocent civilians. And from the point of view of the people who's country you've invaded that would be murder.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    That's a useful skill, to be able to speak for all the people of Afghanistan like that. I guess you have the objectivity of distance working in your favour.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?
      - rdl 16y ago
        It depends entirely on the context. Obviously, I would be unhappy if someone I liked got killed. However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. It's not like we invaded Canada. Afghanistan and Iraq were fairly horrible places to begin with (especially Afghanistan), and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. The Taliban would kill more than 200 Afghan civilians in a single month. US medical assistance provided to Afghans (not injured by NATO/US), e.g. kids in car accidents, has probably saved more Afghans than have been killed by the US. There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people.
        viraptor 16y ago
        > There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report ... Very dangerous statement to make. Unless you're citing something, please don't... I'm not saying such report is a lie, but it's a risky thing to say if it wasn't true. There are many stories which need a lot of context to understand properly. There isn't much more that person could do, is there?
        rdl 16y ago
        There are a lot of examples. Afghan society is generally willing to sacrifice individuals for their tribe, so it's not that hard to understand. Example: Kandahar, Marines under MajGen Mattis, late Dec 2001/Early Jan 2002. ODA 574 enroute from Tarin Kowt, Dec 2001. For a more recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologize-afghan-civilian-deaths-sheep/story?id=10320603 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologiz...
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Bullshit. It doesn't matter one inch. These people are still dead and the war is still going on. Who the hell cares about procedures and rules when your loved ones are getting murdered?
  - roel_v 16y ago
    What? What are you arguing against? Are you saying that all deaths in war are unlawful? Because if you are you're obviously wrong. I guess you're trying to make a pacifist point trying to say that all deaths in war are immoral, but it's hard to tell.

rdl 16y ago

Members of the military absolutely can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they commit crimes, including murder of innocent Afghan civilians. There have been numerous prosecutions -- in fact, the "guncam" footage from Iraq was actually recovered, allegedly, from JAG, the legal arm of the military, which was reviewing it to see if crimes had occurred which would need to be prosecuted. The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military (at the direction of the civilian leadership, i.e. the President). There is a much stronger argument about contractors, especially in Iraq from 2003-2006, using unlawful force and not being prosecuted, than military.

loewenskind 16y ago
>The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military This doesn't preclude the death of innocent civilians. And from the point of view of the people who's country you've invaded that would be murder.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  That's a useful skill, to be able to speak for all the people of Afghanistan like that. I guess you have the objectivity of distance working in your favour.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?
    - rdl 16y ago
      It depends entirely on the context. Obviously, I would be unhappy if someone I liked got killed. However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. It's not like we invaded Canada. Afghanistan and Iraq were fairly horrible places to begin with (especially Afghanistan), and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. The Taliban would kill more than 200 Afghan civilians in a single month. US medical assistance provided to Afghans (not injured by NATO/US), e.g. kids in car accidents, has probably saved more Afghans than have been killed by the US. There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people.
      - viraptor 16y ago
        > There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report ... Very dangerous statement to make. Unless you're citing something, please don't... I'm not saying such report is a lie, but it's a risky thing to say if it wasn't true. There are many stories which need a lot of context to understand properly. There isn't much more that person could do, is there?
        rdl 16y ago
        There are a lot of examples. Afghan society is generally willing to sacrifice individuals for their tribe, so it's not that hard to understand. Example: Kandahar, Marines under MajGen Mattis, late Dec 2001/Early Jan 2002. ODA 574 enroute from Tarin Kowt, Dec 2001. For a more recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologize-afghan-civilian-deaths-sheep/story?id=10320603 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologiz...
tomjen3 16y ago
Bullshit. It doesn't matter one inch. These people are still dead and the war is still going on. Who the hell cares about procedures and rules when your loved ones are getting murdered?
- roel_v 16y ago
  What? What are you arguing against? Are you saying that all deaths in war are unlawful? Because if you are you're obviously wrong. I guess you're trying to make a pacifist point trying to say that all deaths in war are immoral, but it's hard to tell.