8 ms·

As a non-US citizen, I find it a terrible thought that somehow it should be morally better (or more legal) to kill non-US citizens than US citizens. The only c

by flexie 8y ago

As a non-US citizen, I find it a terrible thought that somehow it should be morally better (or more legal) to kill non-US citizens than US citizens. The only concern should be whether they are proven to be dangerous terrorists, not what their nationality is. If it's okay to kill a dangerous Afghan terrorist in a war zone in Afghanistan, then it's also okay to kill a dangerous American terrorist in a war zone in Afghanistan. Outside of war zones, I don't see any excuse for killing anyone, unless in self defense. I am still not sure about what to think of the whole drone war. I see how it saves hundreds of thousands of lives, compared to bringing in ground troops, but it sure feels wrong and dystopian.

nerdponx 8y ago
It's more legal because they're not US citizens. There's no normative logic to it.
- beobab 8y ago
  I humbly suggest that that law has lost it's moral compass and needs to be addressed. Once you reject the principle that "all people are created equally human", then you run the risk of being on the "wrong side", and treated in a sub-human manner.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    Did the law ever have a moral compass like you suggest? We had slaves for 80+ years after the Constitution was written.
jstanley 8y ago
How many lives does it save compared to not bringing in any troops? Why does killing have to be the answer?
- flexie 8y ago
  In the best of worlds, we could catch the bad guys in a net, put pink, fluffy handcuffs on them while we talk with them gently, get to know them and understand why they did what they did. Then we could hug, and we would become friends, and one day after a not too long stay in our beautiful, green and lounge-like prison resort, we would let them out in society again and they would become productive citizens. In our world, we sometimes have to fight. Sometimes, it's better to kill the terrorists than to risk that they attack us or to risk our soldiers getting killed in an attempt of bringing them in.
  - krageon 8y ago
    It's your world. You're the person advocating infinitely escalating violence, which has landed us with "Bin Laden did a bad thing" and the US responding by basically becoming a million times worse. If you're thinking "well this is just what they're asking for", you'd be partially right. And if that doesn't terrify you, we have no business talking.
  - lghh 8y ago
    You're not just killing terrorists with drones though. You're killing innocent, wrongly suspected terrorists. You're killing their innocent families. You're killing their innocent neighbors. You're killing their innocent friends. All because you "suspect" one person in the room is a terrorist.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      And, not un-importantly, create a new generation of terrorists in the process.
      - VBprogrammer 8y ago
        I think the exponenciality of the growth there shouldn't underestimated. Kill one innocent person; disillusion dozens of people.
        phyller 8y ago
jacquesm 8y ago
Even (suspected!) terrorists have rights. It's easy to think about the drone war: It's plain wrong. Sending guided missiles into other people's airspace is an act of war, and killing people without even so much as a sham trial is murder. The more of this stuff we collectively condone the more the Bin Laden's of this world are winning. That's the real tragedy, that after 9/11 the West lost its moral compass.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  It's hard because we don't know the counterfactual scenario. I, for one, am OK with the fact that [almost] all terrorist attacks on US soil in the last 10 years have been domestic.
  - pc86 8y ago
    I'd prefer that there were 0 terrorist attacks in the last 10 years but different strokes and all that.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The logical next step then is drone strikes on US soil? I mean, why not? What's the legal difference?
    - zeth___ 8y ago
      No knock raids were first pioneered in the occupied gaza territories. Everything done on the edges of empire comes back to the center eventually. Give it another 20 years and we will have missile attacks on kindergartens because suspected pedophiles were seen near it.
      - sitkack 8y ago
        We had to bomb the preschool to save it [0] [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett
beaconstudios 8y ago
I think the ideal situation in all cases would be taking a suspect, bringing them to trial and awarding an appropriate sentence if they are found guilty. The difference between a US national and a foreign national is a US national has a real chance of actually being seen in court. Though it would be infinitely preferable to do so, I can't imagine the logistical complexity of trying to defeat a terror organisation by individually capturing and trying each suspected member. It's a new kind of war, and not one with a set of engagement rules like those that governed more "traditional" inter-state warfare.
baursak 8y ago
> The only concern should be whether they are proven to be dangerous terrorists The only way to do it is via a fair due process and trial.
0xBA5ED 8y ago
I don't know that it's about being less moral or legal. Rather an uneasiness with the military being used against citizens because it is a clearly understood line which is difficult to cross in "boiling frog" fashion like in other areas (privacy, for example), so it's easy to point out and condemn in concrete terms. Like a rallying landmark against overreach.
mimimihaha 8y ago
That's the problem. They believe it's self defense seeking out and killing these terrorists randomly. I'm sure the way they determine whether they are legitimate threats to us is extremely lengthy, but some slip through the cracks like Bilal Kareem.
phyller 8y ago
I recommend the movie "Eye in the Sky" as a great encapsulation of one aspect of the moral struggles in this area. I wonder if the people who made that movie know that it is being shown at the US Air Force Academy by many of the instructors as part of the required ethics course for cadets.

by flexie 8y ago

nerdponx 8y ago

It's more legal because they're not US citizens. There's no normative logic to it.

beobab 8y ago
I humbly suggest that that law has lost it's moral compass and needs to be addressed. Once you reject the principle that "all people are created equally human", then you run the risk of being on the "wrong side", and treated in a sub-human manner.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Did the law ever have a moral compass like you suggest? We had slaves for 80+ years after the Constitution was written.

jstanley 8y ago

How many lives does it save compared to not bringing in any troops? Why does killing have to be the answer?

flexie 8y ago
In the best of worlds, we could catch the bad guys in a net, put pink, fluffy handcuffs on them while we talk with them gently, get to know them and understand why they did what they did. Then we could hug, and we would become friends, and one day after a not too long stay in our beautiful, green and lounge-like prison resort, we would let them out in society again and they would become productive citizens. In our world, we sometimes have to fight. Sometimes, it's better to kill the terrorists than to risk that they attack us or to risk our soldiers getting killed in an attempt of bringing them in.
- krageon 8y ago
  It's your world. You're the person advocating infinitely escalating violence, which has landed us with "Bin Laden did a bad thing" and the US responding by basically becoming a million times worse. If you're thinking "well this is just what they're asking for", you'd be partially right. And if that doesn't terrify you, we have no business talking.
- lghh 8y ago
  You're not just killing terrorists with drones though. You're killing innocent, wrongly suspected terrorists. You're killing their innocent families. You're killing their innocent neighbors. You're killing their innocent friends. All because you "suspect" one person in the room is a terrorist.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    And, not un-importantly, create a new generation of terrorists in the process.
    - VBprogrammer 8y ago
      I think the exponenciality of the growth there shouldn't underestimated. Kill one innocent person; disillusion dozens of people.
      - phyller 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Even (suspected!) terrorists have rights. It's easy to think about the drone war: It's plain wrong. Sending guided missiles into other people's airspace is an act of war, and killing people without even so much as a sham trial is murder. The more of this stuff we collectively condone the more the Bin Laden's of this world are winning. That's the real tragedy, that after 9/11 the West lost its moral compass.

nerdponx 8y ago
It's hard because we don't know the counterfactual scenario. I, for one, am OK with the fact that [almost] all terrorist attacks on US soil in the last 10 years have been domestic.
- pc86 8y ago
  I'd prefer that there were 0 terrorist attacks in the last 10 years but different strokes and all that.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The logical next step then is drone strikes on US soil? I mean, why not? What's the legal difference?
  - zeth___ 8y ago
    No knock raids were first pioneered in the occupied gaza territories. Everything done on the edges of empire comes back to the center eventually. Give it another 20 years and we will have missile attacks on kindergartens because suspected pedophiles were seen near it.
    - sitkack 8y ago
      We had to bomb the preschool to save it [0] [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett

beaconstudios 8y ago

I think the ideal situation in all cases would be taking a suspect, bringing them to trial and awarding an appropriate sentence if they are found guilty. The difference between a US national and a foreign national is a US national has a real chance of actually being seen in court. Though it would be infinitely preferable to do so, I can't imagine the logistical complexity of trying to defeat a terror organisation by individually capturing and trying each suspected member. It's a new kind of war, and not one with a set of engagement rules like those that governed more "traditional" inter-state warfare.

baursak 8y ago

> The only concern should be whether they are proven to be dangerous terrorists The only way to do it is via a fair due process and trial.

0xBA5ED 8y ago

I don't know that it's about being less moral or legal. Rather an uneasiness with the military being used against citizens because it is a clearly understood line which is difficult to cross in "boiling frog" fashion like in other areas (privacy, for example), so it's easy to point out and condemn in concrete terms. Like a rallying landmark against overreach.

mimimihaha 8y ago

That's the problem. They believe it's self defense seeking out and killing these terrorists randomly. I'm sure the way they determine whether they are legitimate threats to us is extremely lengthy, but some slip through the cracks like Bilal Kareem.

phyller 8y ago

I recommend the movie "Eye in the Sky" as a great encapsulation of one aspect of the moral struggles in this area. I wonder if the people who made that movie know that it is being shown at the US Air Force Academy by many of the instructors as part of the required ethics course for cadets.