5 ms·

"Spear Operations Group, according to three sources, arranged for the UAE to give military rank to the Americans involved in the mission, which might provide th

"Spear Operations Group, according to three sources, arranged for the UAE to give military rank to the Americans involved in the mission, which might provide them legal cover." "Aside from moral objections, for-profit targeted assassinations add new dilemmas to modern warfare. Private mercenaries operate outside the US military’s chain of command, so if they make mistakes or commit war crimes, there is no clear system for holding them accountable. If the mercenaries had killed a civilian in the street, who would have even investigated?" In this case the questions have easy answers. Some country recognized the individuals as having a rank in their military, and they were on a mission sanctioned by that country. Thus it is the same as if any other soldier from that country had committed such actions (accident, target, otherwise). However that does highlight other questions. What is a country? What is the distinction between warriors: * for a country in an official capacity? * Is an external entity fulfilling an official contract acting in such a capacity? (Historically, yes) * for a country in a resistance capacity? * for an entity not recognized as a country in any possible capacities? * fighting for their own sense of honor/justice? In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct side by the actions of those involved. In an absolute sense if all were to suddenly act in ways perceived as good and respectful that would be good overall. In another the minimum required force to remove the unjust from the power to inflict that upon others would also be justice. Yet it is also important to ask why they have this power and are tolerated; solving those issues is surely the longer term justice.

jstanley 8y ago
> In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct side by the actions of those involved. In fact this is extremely easy. Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been dressed up in.
- borski 8y ago
  Are you advocating for the military to not exist?
  - jstanley 8y ago
    Yes
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist, except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service. This would free up more than $1.5tn annually. If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to get something interesting done as a species.
    - borski 8y ago
      Idealistic as that may be, we will always need a protection force.
      - jstanley 8y ago
        According to this article: https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-weste... Western militaries have killed at least 4 million people in foreign countries in the last ~30 years. That's not my kind of "protection force". The most sickening part is that we're paying for this, with our taxes. We're paying for people to go to foreign countries and kill people on our behalf. In the name of "protection".
        borski 8y ago
        With all due respect, just because casualties happen in war does not mean we shouldn't have a military. You could make an argument for slimming it down, and that we've overextended our military capabilities past where they need to be, and into foreign soil where we shouldn't have been. I might even agree with aspects of that argument. But to advocate for removal of the military leaves the US vulnerable to anyone who hasn't gotten rid of theirs (read: the rest of the world). We fought to get out from under British rule, so that we could establish a democracy and not live under a monarchy. If we abolish the military, there is literally nothing stopping someone from coming in and ending this experiment in democracy that has lasted as long as it has.
- daenz 8y ago
  >Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been dressed up in. If I defend my family's lives by taking a life, does that mean it was immoral? Now extrapolate the argument to countries and state actors who are committed to killing innocents, and you can see just where all the gray area comes into play. The world isn't black and white.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action this is tautological; murder is immoral by definition. killing is a superset of murder, and people disagree on what types of killing are immoral.
  - jki275 8y ago
    "Murder" the act of illegal killing. malum prohibitum, not malum in se. laws do not define morality.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      you are right, and this is an important distinction.
jt2190 8y ago
The Law of War is the legal arena where these questions are grappled with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war While this system is by no means perfect, remember that the goal of the rule of law is to provide another means of settling disputes other than violence, or limiting or tempering violence when it must be used.

jstanley 8y ago

> In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct side by the actions of those involved. In fact this is extremely easy. Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been dressed up in.

borski 8y ago
Are you advocating for the military to not exist?
- jstanley 8y ago
  Yes
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist, except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service. This would free up more than $1.5tn annually. If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to get something interesting done as a species.
  - borski 8y ago
    Idealistic as that may be, we will always need a protection force.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      According to this article: https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-weste... Western militaries have killed at least 4 million people in foreign countries in the last ~30 years. That's not my kind of "protection force". The most sickening part is that we're paying for this, with our taxes. We're paying for people to go to foreign countries and kill people on our behalf. In the name of "protection".
      - borski 8y ago
        With all due respect, just because casualties happen in war does not mean we shouldn't have a military. You could make an argument for slimming it down, and that we've overextended our military capabilities past where they need to be, and into foreign soil where we shouldn't have been. I might even agree with aspects of that argument. But to advocate for removal of the military leaves the US vulnerable to anyone who hasn't gotten rid of theirs (read: the rest of the world). We fought to get out from under British rule, so that we could establish a democracy and not live under a monarchy. If we abolish the military, there is literally nothing stopping someone from coming in and ending this experiment in democracy that has lasted as long as it has.
daenz 8y ago
>Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been dressed up in. If I defend my family's lives by taking a life, does that mean it was immoral? Now extrapolate the argument to countries and state actors who are committed to killing innocents, and you can see just where all the gray area comes into play. The world isn't black and white.
leetcrew 8y ago
> Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action this is tautological; murder is immoral by definition. killing is a superset of murder, and people disagree on what types of killing are immoral.
- jki275 8y ago
  "Murder" the act of illegal killing. malum prohibitum, not malum in se. laws do not define morality.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    you are right, and this is an important distinction.

jt2190 8y ago

The Law of War is the legal arena where these questions are grappled with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war While this system is by no means perfect, remember that the goal of the rule of law is to provide another means of settling disputes other than violence, or limiting or tempering violence when it must be used.