6 ms·

Most of the comments here, and even the article itself shows just how far the Overton window has moved when it comes to these discussions. The article makes a

by avar 8y ago

Most of the comments here, and even the article itself shows just how far the Overton window has moved when it comes to these discussions. The article makes a few mentions of how perhaps killing non-Americans isn't fine either: > We wiped out the Geneva Convention by creating the unlawful enemy combatant, a term that simply means a person not protected by the Geneva Convention. But even for the Rolling Stone the discussion has mostly moved on. The post-9/11 world of killing people in "warzones" (war was never declared) without any regard for the Geneva Convention is taken as a given.

throwaway5752 8y ago
Okay.. what do we do, declare war on Pakistan in order to prosecute a conflict in Waziristan? War with Afghanistan to go after violent Taliban factions in northern provinces? There is not a nation state entity to declare war against, and for example in Afghanistan you have a national population on the order of the city of Beijing, and hundreds of the police die there per year in this internal conflict. The national governments are probably complicit/cooperative for their own reasons. Also, the Geneva convention has obligations for both sides of a conflict, and - even though conduct shouldn't be dictated by the lowest common denominator - it's just not intended for this situation. I think it's possible to distinguish targeted (however flawed) drone campaigns from mass casualty bio/chem attacks like are done in Syria (with Russian support) or other cases.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I think it's worth stepping back and asking the question of why the US is involved in the conflict there in the first place? And to what extent the US is really threatened by people on the other side of the planet?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    > why the US is involved in the conflict there in the first place? Active and believable threats directed at the US, including sending resources and fighters to actively engage the US. It'd be great if we could give just give Iraq a ring and ask them to go shove a boot up these folks other-sides, but since they're massively losing cities and land to these warlords, they're not really in a place to handle the situation themselves. Something about a terrorist group taking large swathes of your land, borderline enslaving your people into forced labor and selling the pretty ones as "wives" to be raped endlessly kind of makes it hard to function as a normal country. > to what extent the US is really threatened by people on the other side of the planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_li... + June 2016 + November 2016 + October 2017
    - clouddrover 8y ago
      > Active and believable threats directed at the US American police kill more Americans than do terrorists. I'd call that an active and believable threat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police... https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-each-year-480712 https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-eac... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killings-lynchings-capital-punishment_b_8462778.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killing... http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-violence-us-cops-killed-more-people-this-year-than-in-2014/5497416 http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-violence-us-cops-killed-... So when will the war on police start?
      - lostmsu 8y ago
        Total or innocents?
        ahartmetz 8y ago
        The guilty are citizens (and people) too, you know. Inalienable rights and all?
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    A book recommendation: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
- black_puppydog 8y ago
  so you're saying because the current legal framework doesn't allow you to randomly start military actions in other countries' territory without their consent, that the legal framework is wrong? Maybe as a thought experiment, try applying similar logic the other way around: should any other country have gotten involved in e.g. the Ferguson situation? If so, would that be considered an act of war by the US?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Pray tell. There is international law, and international law. There is NO international law. Law exists where you have clear laws, a clear and separate way to determine how it applies in situations, and a way to rectify situations afterwards, and an enforcement mechanism ... So thankfully none of that exists, all there is is some vague international documents nobody actually respects. Not the US, not Europe, and certainly no-one else. For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1] Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ? Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations. Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ? 1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force. 2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards. 3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists. Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- sorokod 8y ago
  Okay... there is no internationally ( or perhaps even nationally) accepted concensus on legalized killing for the reasons you enumerated. Now what?
  - GlobalFrog 8y ago
    So something is missing in international laws. A country can only declare war to another country, so one might ask : what if conventions about wars were to be modified to include this: allow a country to formally declare war to an organization ? I know this won't happen because of many arguments: it is too tempting to limit the level of recognition of the opposite side, especially fighters who are just "terrorists" and not called soldiers ; it is easier also to do what you want when there is no law, even for countries at war as they see more efficiency when there is no formal control. So the dilemna is : either there is more formalization of wars with countries vs terror groups, to allow for better rules and control for avoiding civilian casualties and not breeding new generations of terrorists ourselves, with the downside of legitimizing those terror groups (which might help them on the long run) and losing efficiency in the fight, or we allow ourselves to act as what many can describe as murderers, because of the blind killings of civilians by drones. It is a lose-lose situation, so the choice is really about who we want to be.
    - sorokod 8y ago
      Efficiency is important. Being morally distinguishable from the people you are trying to kill is important.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    I don't know. I don't even know that I'd want to be making those decisions. But I thought the discussion was getting reduced to a caricature of the actual issue, and wanted to elevate it. It strikes me like the trolley problem in that there may not be a "good" solution, let alone one that everyone can agree on. I'm just as curious about your ideas, honestly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
_bxg1 8y ago
The author had to pick their battlefield. Focusing narrowly on this case and the new class of violations it represents made the article more impactful. I don't think the author was excusing or even accepting the other things, but when you're trying to make a strong point and inspire action, you have to be as succinct and directed as possible.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The post-9/11 world of killing people in "warzones" (war was never declared) Only if you adhere to the false belief that a declaration of war requires particular magic words and that the 9/11-motivated AUMF is not an open-ended conditional (on Presidential determination) declaration of war. > without any regard for the Geneva Convention Which of the Geneva Conventions is being ignored, and how?
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Please elaborate on why we should consider that belief false? Plenty of Senators disagree with you.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Please elaborate on why we should consider that belief false? Because the alternative, a “magic words” requirement for invoking the power to declare war, is (1) inconsistent with the way every other Article I power is treated, and (2) was conclusively rejected by the courts while the ink was still practically wet on the ratification of the Constitution, in Bas v. Tingy (1800). > Plenty of Senators disagree with you. There are all kinds of false beliefs publicly embraced (and perhaps actually believed, but that's harder to assess) by plenty of Senators, but I don't see any evidence that the particular one I took issue with upthread is one of them.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      It's not just Senators, plenty of Constitutional experts disagree with you as well: https://www.vox.com/iraq-crisis/2014/9/12/6134159/is-obamas-new-isis-strategy-legal https://www.vox.com/iraq-crisis/2014/9/12/6134159/is-obamas-... It's interesting how you dismiss things you don't agree with as "magic words". What is the existing AUMF other than a set of "magic words" that gives the President the ability to send soldiers into any country at any time for almost any reason? Any idea how many countries we are currently fighting in based on this AUMF? Does it bother you that there were/are soldiers fighting in Niger without Congressional knowledge? Did all of these terrorist organizations exist when the AUMF was passed? If not, how can it possibly apply to them?

by avar 8y ago

throwaway5752 8y ago

Okay.. what do we do, declare war on Pakistan in order to prosecute a conflict in Waziristan? War with Afghanistan to go after violent Taliban factions in northern provinces? There is not a nation state entity to declare war against, and for example in Afghanistan you have a national population on the order of the city of Beijing, and hundreds of the police die there per year in this internal conflict. The national governments are probably complicit/cooperative for their own reasons. Also, the Geneva convention has obligations for both sides of a conflict, and - even though conduct shouldn't be dictated by the lowest common denominator - it's just not intended for this situation. I think it's possible to distinguish targeted (however flawed) drone campaigns from mass casualty bio/chem attacks like are done in Syria (with Russian support) or other cases.

pjc50 8y ago
I think it's worth stepping back and asking the question of why the US is involved in the conflict there in the first place? And to what extent the US is really threatened by people on the other side of the planet?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  > why the US is involved in the conflict there in the first place? Active and believable threats directed at the US, including sending resources and fighters to actively engage the US. It'd be great if we could give just give Iraq a ring and ask them to go shove a boot up these folks other-sides, but since they're massively losing cities and land to these warlords, they're not really in a place to handle the situation themselves. Something about a terrorist group taking large swathes of your land, borderline enslaving your people into forced labor and selling the pretty ones as "wives" to be raped endlessly kind of makes it hard to function as a normal country. > to what extent the US is really threatened by people on the other side of the planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_li... + June 2016 + November 2016 + October 2017
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    > Active and believable threats directed at the US American police kill more Americans than do terrorists. I'd call that an active and believable threat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police... https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-each-year-480712 https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-eac... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killings-lynchings-capital-punishment_b_8462778.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killing... http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-violence-us-cops-killed-more-people-this-year-than-in-2014/5497416 http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-violence-us-cops-killed-... So when will the war on police start?
    - lostmsu 8y ago
      Total or innocents?
      - ahartmetz 8y ago
        The guilty are citizens (and people) too, you know. Inalienable rights and all?
- jsoc815 8y ago
  A book recommendation: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
black_puppydog 8y ago
so you're saying because the current legal framework doesn't allow you to randomly start military actions in other countries' territory without their consent, that the legal framework is wrong? Maybe as a thought experiment, try applying similar logic the other way around: should any other country have gotten involved in e.g. the Ferguson situation? If so, would that be considered an act of war by the US?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Pray tell. There is international law, and international law. There is NO international law. Law exists where you have clear laws, a clear and separate way to determine how it applies in situations, and a way to rectify situations afterwards, and an enforcement mechanism ... So thankfully none of that exists, all there is is some vague international documents nobody actually respects. Not the US, not Europe, and certainly no-one else. For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1] Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ? Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations. Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ? 1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force. 2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards. 3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists. Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
sorokod 8y ago
Okay... there is no internationally ( or perhaps even nationally) accepted concensus on legalized killing for the reasons you enumerated. Now what?
- GlobalFrog 8y ago
  So something is missing in international laws. A country can only declare war to another country, so one might ask : what if conventions about wars were to be modified to include this: allow a country to formally declare war to an organization ? I know this won't happen because of many arguments: it is too tempting to limit the level of recognition of the opposite side, especially fighters who are just "terrorists" and not called soldiers ; it is easier also to do what you want when there is no law, even for countries at war as they see more efficiency when there is no formal control. So the dilemna is : either there is more formalization of wars with countries vs terror groups, to allow for better rules and control for avoiding civilian casualties and not breeding new generations of terrorists ourselves, with the downside of legitimizing those terror groups (which might help them on the long run) and losing efficiency in the fight, or we allow ourselves to act as what many can describe as murderers, because of the blind killings of civilians by drones. It is a lose-lose situation, so the choice is really about who we want to be.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    Efficiency is important. Being morally distinguishable from the people you are trying to kill is important.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  I don't know. I don't even know that I'd want to be making those decisions. But I thought the discussion was getting reduced to a caricature of the actual issue, and wanted to elevate it. It strikes me like the trolley problem in that there may not be a "good" solution, let alone one that everyone can agree on. I'm just as curious about your ideas, honestly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

_bxg1 8y ago

The author had to pick their battlefield. Focusing narrowly on this case and the new class of violations it represents made the article more impactful. I don't think the author was excusing or even accepting the other things, but when you're trying to make a strong point and inspire action, you have to be as succinct and directed as possible.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The post-9/11 world of killing people in "warzones" (war was never declared) Only if you adhere to the false belief that a declaration of war requires particular magic words and that the 9/11-motivated AUMF is not an open-ended conditional (on Presidential determination) declaration of war. > without any regard for the Geneva Convention Which of the Geneva Conventions is being ignored, and how?

moorhosj 8y ago
Please elaborate on why we should consider that belief false? Plenty of Senators disagree with you.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Please elaborate on why we should consider that belief false? Because the alternative, a “magic words” requirement for invoking the power to declare war, is (1) inconsistent with the way every other Article I power is treated, and (2) was conclusively rejected by the courts while the ink was still practically wet on the ratification of the Constitution, in Bas v. Tingy (1800). > Plenty of Senators disagree with you. There are all kinds of false beliefs publicly embraced (and perhaps actually believed, but that's harder to assess) by plenty of Senators, but I don't see any evidence that the particular one I took issue with upthread is one of them.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    It's not just Senators, plenty of Constitutional experts disagree with you as well: https://www.vox.com/iraq-crisis/2014/9/12/6134159/is-obamas-new-isis-strategy-legal https://www.vox.com/iraq-crisis/2014/9/12/6134159/is-obamas-... It's interesting how you dismiss things you don't agree with as "magic words". What is the existing AUMF other than a set of "magic words" that gives the President the ability to send soldiers into any country at any time for almost any reason? Any idea how many countries we are currently fighting in based on this AUMF? Does it bother you that there were/are soldiers fighting in Niger without Congressional knowledge? Did all of these terrorist organizations exist when the AUMF was passed? If not, how can it possibly apply to them?