'Hit and run' drone strikes are 'breaking laws of war'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Channel 4

'Hit and run' drone strikes are 'breaking laws of war'
Thursday 23 June 2011 .

Nations which carry out drone attacks must confirm and report who is killed, lawyers have said in a newly published study on the legality of attacks by the unmanned aircraft.

The use of US drones to kill suspected militants along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan could be breaking international law in cases of "hit and run" attacks.

Independent think-tank Oxford Research Group (ORG) has published a report which claims an "existing but previously unacknowledged requirement in law" has been identified that says all parties involved in drone attacks are legally obliged to search for and identify all persons killed in strikes.

Lead author Dr Susan Breau, Professor of International Law at Flinders University in Australia, said: "It is high time to implement a global casualty recording mechanism which includes civilians so that finally every casualty of every conflict is identified.



Read more: http://www.channel4.com/news/hit-and-run-drone-strikes-are-breaking-laws-of-war

[Swede]

1. You can't fight in here,this is the war room!

[GodlessBiker]

5. Sir, you can't let him in here. He'll see everything. He'll see the big board!

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday machines, Stainsy...

Did you ever see a Commie drink a glass of water?

[FiveGoodMen]

2. "We don't need no stinking laws!" -- BHO

[Angry Dragon]

3. "Hit and Run"

isn't that what terrorists do??

[The Magistrate]

4. This One Is Pretty Funny, Ma'am

Sometimes people really should just say 'I don't like this, dammit!' and leave it at that.

[slackmaster]

6. I'd love to work for a think-tank, especially if they gave me the title "Fellow"

I've always wanted to be a Fellow of something.

[Lasher]

59. I anoint thee, DU Distinguished Fellow Slackmaster

You are more deserving of the title than many of those who have it now.

[primavera]

75. Only problem is they never let you say what needs to be said

... for fear of antagonizing some funding source or political partner. It's pretty constraining.

[DeSwiss]

7. K&R

- We send robots to Mars and yet still believe that it's always better to have your i's dotted and your t's crossed before you start killing people......

[felix_numinous]

8. All of these toys will be used on us eventually.

K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Yes, they will.

Americans are the stupidest people on earth for ignoring this.

[FLPanhandle]

21. Yes, because our enemies will hold back on using any technology we don't use.

Maybe we should only use bow and arrows, so the only weapons used against us will be bows & arrows. :eyes:

Guess what, if our enemies have the technology, then they'll use it on us. Understand this, they'll use it on us even if we are only using bows & arrows.

Dumbest argument I've seen about Drones yet.

[JackRiddler]

24. It won't be "our enemies" (yours, perhaps?) who use this technology in the US.

It will be the US government, states and local police departments.

Under the laws of capitalism it is the fiduciary imperative of the corporations manufacturing the current death robots to figure out ways to adapt them for sale to US-based authorities. They cannot accept limits on this lucrative market, they must exploit new outlets for growth. Anything else would be irresponsible to the sacred shareholders.

The drones running up and down the boulevards of American towns and cities will probably be rounder and slower and deliver tinny lectures about not littering or smoking. The rules will be a lot more strict about when to blow people up, no doubt. A few mistakes will kill some acknowledged innocents and prompt reforms, such as better integration of databases and surveillance systems, so we're absolutely sure it's only certified bad guys who are being bagged and bombed.

[FLPanhandle]

26. I saw Robocop too.

Fun movie for it's time.

[JackRiddler]

31. And it's hardly the first time that science fiction or pulp merely extrapolates...

existing trends to come up with a set of hardly implausible predictions, combined with some absurd elements for the entertainment value. Robocop's not as prophetic as Network, but proving better than others.

However, Robocop had a hero and a redemption story, killable cartoon villains, a Big Bad, a Dragon, stylized ultra-violence and a lot of icky-dark humor. Formula!

That won't be true of the emerging multi-platform cross-agency total surveillance, control and enforcement system we already see in outlines -- which is sure ultimately to incorporate drone surveillance, routine street facial pattern recognition, many other ways of tracking the locations of people and their vehicles, extensive data mining both by government and farmed out to contractors, physical searches, more proliferation of in-city checkpoints, breakdown of many of the remaining distinctions between intel, police and security functions and between the government and its contractors and among the corporations themselves,* etc. etc. etc. Oh, and of course it won't work THAT well, but it will be bad enough and highly profitable for some. And given the state of opposition to these trends, it's all pretty much locked in for now, and only likely to break down on its own in some faraway time.

And so? It's 10 years since TIA was revealed, about 15 since Echelon and Carnivore, and more than 5 since we found out about the NSA surveillance program (except we still don't know the details). You really in denial about this?


* On the Internet, we're seeing an operational merger (not a business merger, so it will be legal) of the major players: Google, Facebook, MS, Apple, Yahoo, the service providers and cable companie: if they're not sharing officially, they're scraping each others' databases anyway and cross-referencing hell out of the lot. And they meet subpoena requests, don't you know, so it's turning into one big database to rule them all.

[FLPanhandle]

37. Much of that has nothing to do with Drones.

Much of what you talk about in your post like street facial pattern recognition, tracking people & vehicles, data mining, checkpoints, distinctions between intel & police will (or won't) happen whether we use drones in the military or we don't use drones in the military.

However, much of the non-drone technology you mention can & will be used unless the public says no. Will they? Probably not until they feel it's being used more for monitoring them instead of catching bad guys. Who knows where and when the public will reach that breaking point.

As for a full Robocop future, I'm skeptical.

[JackRiddler]

40. So what? It has to do with the state that uses drones to murder essentially random people...

in an expanding set of meaningless wars, and the kind of country where most people who even care about that seem to consider it right and expedient. The economic imperatives of a post-democratic feudal-capitalist system and the totalitarian aspirations of its public-private surveillance and control state are very likely to see drone technology commonly deployed in the US by police-military-spy agencies (increasingly indistinguishable) in the monitoring and control of the US population, among the many other nightmares this system is bringing forth. Why is the dystopic nightmare of Robocop, for all of its Hollywood gangsters-and-cops elements, so easily decipherable to us?

[FLPanhandle]

42. So what? Well, the topic was whether drones violated the "rules of warfare"

I have no idea what the "economic imperatives of a post-democratic feudal-capitalist system and the totalitarian aspirations of its public-private surveillance and control state" even means.

Maybe that's a topic for a different thread.

[JackRiddler]

44. Topic of subthread: "All of these toys will be used on us eventually."

And if you have no idea what something means, maybe that's your problem.

[John Paul Jones]

45. That's why the People are armed....

[JackRiddler]

46. Good luck with that fantasy...

A million gun-owners in their homes, that's Prozac.

A million general strikers holding the central square, that's power.

[John Paul Jones]

47. I advise you to double check you data. There are over 85,000,000 gun owners...

"A million general strikers holding the central square," is what you call target practice for for a couple of well equipped government drones.

[JackRiddler]

48. I advise you to understand that metaphor is not data.

Actually, millions organizing socially to shut down and transform the system is the only chance to avoid a future where drones will have no trouble picking off any of those 85,000,000 gun-owners who fantasize that a gun is an effective tool of political resistance in a modern mass society.

[John Paul Jones]

49. Yeah, tell that to the people who were in Tiananmen Square...

[JackRiddler]

52. If they had been armed with anything other than ideas and passion for freedom...

They would have been massacred long before they'd even reached the square.

Do you think armed protesters would have won a military victory over the Red Army?

Their only hope was if the soldiers rebelled, and that's done by spreading the ideas of resistance among the soldiers, not by shooting at them.

That's why Tahrir Square was a victory. The protesters didn't have arms to stand up to the Army, but the soldiers wouldn't have followed orders to shoot at the protesters. (The armed civilian faction were the Mubarak thugs. Think abou that.)

Armed insurgency makes sense in Cuba, 1959. Maybe even in rural Colombia or Afghanistan, today.

But democratic change in today's modern developed industrial societies can only come by way of non-violent mass determination: Strikes, occupations, ultimately expropriations and repurposings.

As for Americans: You really think those 85 million own guns because of their commitment to defending a free nation? Puh-lease. When the government decides to deputize some auxiliary militias to go after strikers and hippies, that democgraphic is where they'll find the most recruits.

[John Paul Jones]

55. A bullet to a soldiers head is a good way to convince the others to rebel.

[JackRiddler]

56. Counterfactual and really kind of childish sentiment...

You want to try listing some historic examples of where your fantasy might have happened?

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[John Paul Jones]

57. You want to try listing some historic examples where tyrants voluntarily relinquished power?

It is you that is living in a world of fantasy, my friend.

[JackRiddler]

58. You're changing the question. Most tyrants have been toppled by protest, not armed insurgency.

Usually they didn't relinquish power, they were forced to relinquish power. But by what?

See Egypt, Tunisia, the color revolutions (suspect though most of them are), the nations of Eastern Europe in 1989, the Philippines... and possibly coming soon to Greece, Spain and Ireland (where the "tyrant" is the IMF-ECB austerity regime).

The primary means by which tyrants have been toppled in the modern period has been by the determined organization of unarmed peoples who staged strikes and occupations of urban spaces.

These movements are not necessarily always non-violent (see South Africa), but they are NOT MILITARY or paramilitary, and they are never based on armed struggle. Usually they do not involve any armed struggle at all.

Meanwhile most armed struggle has ended badly, and in mass industrial societies it has mainly had the effect of causing the people to support state repression against chaos and terror (see: Baader-Meinhof). That is so true that states and parastate organizations have faked arm resistance by staging false-flag terror attacks to justify state crackdowns (e.g. Italy: "strategy of tension").

Funny, why do people keep talking about Gandhi and MLK as though they had a powerful idea?

So what have you got as examples? Fidel and Che?

.

[John Paul Jones]

78. How about Hitler and Mussolini...?

What do you think is happening in Libya, a peace protest?

[JackRiddler]

80. It's about time you came up with some examples.

Hitler and Mussolini were not toppled by armed uprisings of their people. Mussolini was in part, but only after Italy was invaded by foreign forces and he had to flee Rome. The Axis powers attacked and declared war on many countries, who ultimately defended themselves successfully by conquering the aggressor nations. It's a curiously irrelevant example because the armed force of states caused the problems you believe armed force (of states) solved, and peoples' insurgencies did not play the central role (but let's give a salute to the partisans in Russia, Yugoslavia and Greece). So this is about war between states, and not revolutions. Also, it's getting kind of old as the all-purpose justification for whatever form of organized violence one favors.

Remember, this exchange started some posts ago with the idea that drones may one day soon be used as surveillance and control machines in the United States. You replied that a lot of people in the US own a lot of guns, as though that would make any difference, and our conversation went off from there: I basically said so what, if they're not politically organized? Gun-owners are not usually revolutionaries, they're more likely to assent to a total surveillance and control involving tracking everyone and including drones in the sky.

Anyway, somehow now we've got a salad of issues going, all mixed up.

So some final thoughts:

If you want actual examples of armed insurgencies putting an end to dictatorships domestically, these exist and I never said they didn't. Maybe you're not ideologically in tune with the Sandinistas or the Cuban revolution?

So what about Mubarak, Marcos, the Shah, South African apartheid (ended not by an entirely non-violent movement but nevertheless by a political civilian movement), Ben Ali, the Eastern European one-party states? What about the peaceful transitions away from dictatorship in Argentina, Chile, Brazil? What about the Moscow protests that prevented the hardliners' coup of 1991? What about civil disobedience and the reforms it brought about to end American apartheid in the South? Do you understand the power of mainly non-violent civilian political movements for change, or are you too blindered by your romanticism of the gun?!

It's like you're ignoring how must of the history of transitions away from tyrannical governments has actually occurred, and how weak and ineffective and often counterproductive militarized insurgencies have been.

If the US turns into a surveillance tyranny, as it is has been on its way for many years, how do you think effective resistance will happen? By armed militias, or by political movements?

[Dogtown]

50. No thank you.

I don't care for tea.

[John Paul Jones]

51. I do...

I like it iced, hot or green.

[Taverner]

122. I do not buy the conspiracy theories. But I will agree these will be used on us someday.

All it takes is one terrorist attack, and the FBI will be granted the use of predator drones in country

We will give it to them. Many DUers will cheer this, after all, they aren't terrorists.

A report will air on 20/20 or 60 Minutes showing how poor white chicks die from ODing on Meth.

The FBI will use it to get to destroy "meth houses"

And here on DU, people will celebrate it. You'll see posts like 'if they didn't want to get blowed up, then why did they live in a meth lab?'

Then, local police departments will use them every time there's a major event in their town

Sure, no one is going to want to use them. They'll tell the public that they have nothing to worry about, and that the public's safety is their utmost concern.

And so it goes...

[daleo]

71. They will be equipped with tasers

And naked scanners.

[JackRiddler]

81. Oh yeah, there will be relative "rule of law" governing their domestic use.

Woop-tee-doo!

And there will be plenty of justifying propaganda, including from liberals: They save lives, stop crimes, reduce the risk to our police, etc. etc.

Also, likely most of them will be round and friendly-looking patrol units. Maybe they'll broadcast admonitions to eat well and stop smoking and, of course, "If you see something, SAY something!"

I honestly wonder why bother. We may win some struggles for economic justice, we may even stop some wars, we may even end the empire and effect a transition away from hydrocarbon energy... but the future in which everyone gets a camera hooked to a satellite and stuffed up their ass (metaphorically speaking) and most people think that's just fine is already emergent and seems inevitable. People are too willing to be frightened and to go along to get along. (I'm mostly guilty on the latter and probably so is anyone reading this.)

[xiamiam]

10. not a fighter but drones seem to be like a sucker punch..cowardly and unethical

i'm sure there is a use which can be justified..but regularly on innocent people..i dont think so

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. None of the above

There is no requirement to expose your side to risk while attacking the other side. There are requirements that due diligence be done to minimize collateral damage, civilians casualties etc, but it is a best effort basis under the circumstances, not a firm mandate.

War is not about being fair, there is no chivalry involved. Sucker punches are desirable, as long as you are the person throwing them.

[xiamiam]

22. i disagree..nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Why

Where is it required to expose our troops to enemy fire if we do not have to.

[JackRiddler]

25. This moral code could be used to justify 9/11.

The hijackers of the official story could have crashed one of the airliners into Indian Point, with a high likelihood of causing the evacuation of New York City for decades, and a hell of a lot more carnage in the end than just the 2900 killed on the day.

So, to adopt your language: under the circumstances, hitting the WTC was a best effort basis to minimize collateral damage while attacking the other side.

Of course, a lot of Americans killed that day didn't even know they were at war in the Middle East. They should have, no? Surely they'd heard some reports in the decade-plus prior, of all their bombings and such?

But really it's best when the other side doesn't even know it's the other side. Take the people in the Afghan province where something like 90 percent can't read, have no electricity and have never heard of 9/11. Most of them probably haven't heard of the US.

That makes the desirable sucker punch all the more effective! If you declare war in a way that makes them know they will be attacked, they might defend themselves. You'd just be raising your own risks.

If time travel is ever invented, then you can go and kill them as children, before they turn into Taliban.

In fact, since social sciences have achieved a high degree of reliability in predicting (in aggregate) how people will turn out based on their circumstances, who needs time travel? Just kill the males of the most suspect tribes in the crib. Some of them won't have become Taliban, but under the circumstances, it's a best effort. And you'll minimize collateral damage amongst the girls, since after all one of the most important aims is to FREE THEM!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Specious

9/11 was neither a military action nor state sponsored.

[JackRiddler]

32. 9/11 was treated as an act of war by the state, which declared a global war on "terror" in response.

In fact, the September 11th events were even taken as an act of war under international treaty. It was the first event ever to activate Clause 5 of NATO, requiring mutual defense against an attack on one of the members. 9/11 prompted a general war authorization from Congress and an official executive declaration of state of emergency (on Sept. 14th: exact provisions unknown) that's been renewed without fail every year since.

Of course it's bullshit that 9/11 was an act of war, but it's also the legal reality that this is how it was defined, and war was the response.

And anyway, what are you saying? Mass murder is fine if it's a reasonable amount (to you) of "collateral damage" while hitting "enemies" that a state has designated as such. But not if freelancers do the same thing, eh?

"Specious"? Your argument has that in spades, but I consider it more significant that it's monstrous. A license for global mass murder without the architects needing to lose an hour's sleep. Power makes law, and futhermore fuck it if that law is still in power's way. If you've read Machiavelli, you know even he would find this doctrine morally odious.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. The context is the laws of war

And under the current laws of war the 9/11 attacks would have been considered a war crime if done by a state actor.

My comment was that that under the current rules, there is no absolute requirement to not incur civilian casualties but that they should be avoided where practical. Also the methodology is not relevant. Remember where this all started...with a fraudulent claim that the laws of war proscribe drone attacks.

Machiavelli would state that wholesale slaughter of the civilians of a nation you are conquering would cause problems in the anything past the short term. I doubt he would find it odious. He was the ultimate in practicality.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. There are still laws about initiating wars

The War Powers Resolution uses the language of "armed forces" being introduced into hostilities or where they may imminent. A drone is certainly an armed force, so using one in Yemen should necessitate some kind of Congressional Authorization. We are not at war with Yemen, yet we are violating its national sovereignty by doing so.

Precedent, of course, has been set, but in light of the recent illegal warmaking, it's time to start looking at all of these things.

There's certainly no hiding behind the skirts of the United Nations here; they certainly haven't said that the civilians of Yemen need to be protected from an imminent slaughter of mythic proportions.

[No Elephants]

61. You seem to be conflating firm mandate to make efforts to avoid collateral damage

with an absolute ban on collateral damage. There is no absolute ban on causing collateral damage, but there is a firm mandate to make efforts to avoid causing collateral damage.

[WatsonT]

108. Perhaps we could have one of our champions challenge one of theirs in hand to hand combat?

War isn't about bravery, it's about winning.

The bravest side doesn't necessarily win.

And on top of that I'd prefer more Americans come home because we used "cowardly" tactics than to see thousands of body bags of brave Americans killed in pointless frontal assaults.

[hack89]

11. Let look at the "law " they are talking about

The Geneva Convention states that "Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies."

That's a hell of stretch. It is also not limited to drones. Looks like they are simply clutching at straws - and looking stupid as they do so.

[boppers]

14. But complaining about drones gives them publicity!

...and that's worth more than anything else. Including the dead.

[Bragi]

83. Who are "they"?

Are you talking about the Oxford think tank "looking stupid" because they are pointing out violations of international law, the Geneva convention, and other quaint customs that the U.S was largely responsible for, but now scoffs at?

[hack89]

85. It is a stupid argument on their part

they are interpreting the Geneva convention to say that if the military kills someone during war they are required to physically examine the body. Do I really have to explain what an idiotic statement that is?

[Bragi]

88. Just read it and think

Your conclusion is not consistent with the language of the convention.

What is actually being contended is that when anyone uses drone bombs to kill alleged targets and adjacent civilians, they have an obligation to confirm who was actually killed.

That isn't at all "stupid", though it is understandable why pro-drone apologists claim that it is.

[hack89]

89. I did read it - that's why I think their reasoning is stupid

First off, it has nothing to do with drones - that language dates from the 1800's. Why are drones different from bombs dropped from planes? Or from artillery shells shot behind enemy lines?

There is an obligation to try to determine who you are shooting at before you shoot but afterward? What's the point? By their reasoning, America had an obligation after every bombing attack against a German city to send a team to examine the bodies of the dead Germans. Do you see that it might be somewhat impractical?

Indiscriminate killing of civilians is a violation of the Geneva convention. Failing to examine the body of every person that you kill is not.

[Bragi]

90. "that language dates from the 1800's"

The Geneva Convention was negotiated after WW2, with the U.S being the biggest champion of establishing a new international convention that might prevent recurrence of the inhumane war tactics of the Nazis, or at least allow for post-facto prosecution of war crimes.

Ironic or what?

Too many Americans have no idea of history, including the role of their own country in history. Some even now think the Geneva Convention is some kind of 1800s set of rules that modern warfare has rendered irrelevant.

Makes a grown man want to cry.

[hack89]

92. The first Geneva Convention dates from 1864

there was another one signed in 1906
and again in 1929

You are talking about the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Shall we talk about how Americans have no idea of history? Are you still crying?


http://www.google.com/search?q=Geneva+Convention&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Geneva+Convention&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=qBv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=gbMITsKeLIfZ0QGGroWqAw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHcQ5wIwCg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=27b93cf21cbb40b9&biw=1272&bih=570

[Bragi]

94. Oh fer friggin whatever

Yeah, right, whenever people talk about the Geneva Convention, they are indeed referring to the earliest version, not the one that was negotiated post ww2.

You know, the 1949 version that was actually cited in the Oxford group report we are discussing here, and which you falsely claimed had "language from the 1800s.

Anyway, have a terrific day. Bye.

[hack89]

97. Except the clause they focused on was added in 1929. nt

[Bragi]

99. A well known decade in the 1800s, for sure /nt

[hack89]

100. The real issue is that they twisted the intent of the clause

in a dishonest manner - why don't you address the important issue here?

[Bragi]

101. No, that isn't the issue here

The Oxford group was applying the meaning of the clause to an emerging form of warfare.

You may or may not agree with their interpretation, but there wasn't anything I can see that was dishonest about what they were doing.

And besides, their honesty isn't the issue here anyway.

The issue is whether parties engaging in drone warfare should at least have a legal responsibility to try to identify people they kill, be they combatants or civilians.

[hack89]

103. The intent of the clause is simple

it is to prevent the dead to be buried namelessly. It says that if you have possession of a dead enemy, you are required to do everything in your ability to record his/her name and the circumstances of their death. If you are not in possession of their body then you have no obligation.

That clause was in effect in WWII - it was not applied in the way you argue. Never. Because it would have been impossible.

[hack89]

93. You are somewhat correct

that particular wording was added in 1929.

And if you read the wording, what it refers to is the care of bodies that fall into you hands. The intent of the rule is to ensure that no one is buried namelessly. Those people who die from drone attacks are not nameless.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule116

[Bragi]

95. Moved by author

[cosmicone]

12. Drone strikes are last resorts

to be used against lawless countries who use terrorism as state policy.

[Bragi]

84. Well that changes everything

No reason to observe laws if you are going after real bad people, is there.

:sarcasm:

[FLPanhandle]

13. but traditionally piloted aircraft don't "confirm and report who is killed"

Did the US do that during bombing runs over Germany or Japan?

Stupidity. No difference if the pilot is watching a screen and pushing a button to launch a missile while sitting in a plane 20,000 feet high or 500 miles away. Same screen, same button, same missile. The only difference is where the pilot is sitting. Yet, one is "breaking the rules of war" and one isn't.

Stupid.

[John Paul Jones]

15. "Laws of war..." That is oxymoronic...

In truth, the laws of war are what the winner says they are.

[KurtNYC]

17. the Nuremberg trials, "Grand Illusion"

Geneva Conventions, landmine bans, OBL's assassination -- there are rules and consequences.

[John Paul Jones]

43. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the winners write all of those rules?

[boppers]

62. The rules were written, for the most part, before the win.

If one engages in a battle with an opponent, one should know the rules they are engaging in.

Changing the rules, mid-game, isn't an effective way to win war, chess, tic-tac-toe, or anything, really. It's a liars game.

[John Paul Jones]

65. "It's a liars game." Therein lies the disconnect. I do not view war as a "game."

[boppers]

66. Rules make it a game.

Without a game, without game rules, it's just savage destruction, no mercy.

The easiest way to win a game of "tag" without rules is to shoot your opponents, and then call "tag".

Which is why Germany, Italy, and Japan all got disqualified from the game.

[John Paul Jones]

68. If you were faced with the choice of breaking one of these so-called "rules" of war,

or losing to Nazi Germany, what would be your choice?

[boppers]

73. I'd bomb Dresden.

Once your opponent cheats, rules are off the table.

[John Paul Jones]

77. So, you are not a pacifist after all...

Prior to being vanquished, your opponent's survival instincts will force them to "cheat." The reverse also applies--we would also "cheat" to survive. Thus, when the stakes are high, the so-called "rules" of war do not apply.

Winning, is the only rule that matters.

[Bragi]

91. That argument was first rejected about 1600 years ago

Check out the concept of the "just war". The notion of "civilized" countries respecting rules for warfare has been around for a very long time.

Here's a list of a few thinkers who don't agree with you that laws governing warfare are oxymoronic:

Cicero (106 BCE-43 BCE)
Ambrose (337/340-397)
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Stanislaw of Skarbimierz (1360–1431)
Francisco de Vitoria (1492–1546)
Francisco Suarez (1548–1617)
Alberico Gentili (1552–1608)
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645)
Baron von Pufendorf (1632–1694)
John Locke (1632–1704)
Emerich de Vattel (1714–1767)
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
George Barry O'Toole (1886–1944)
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971)
H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962)
Paul Ramsey (1913–1988)
Murray Rothbard (1926–1995)
Michael Walzer (1935-)
James Turner Johnson
Jean Bethke Elshtain
Louis Iasiello (1950-)
Timothy P. Jackson (1954-)
Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez (1953-)
Brian Orend (1970-)
Brian Culhane (1975-)
Kyle Scott (1975-)
Jeff Hoffenberg (1975-)
Jeff McMahan (1954-)
Greg Posey (1902-)
Sir Richard Klein (19??-)
Eric Christian (1930s?-)
Richard B. Miller
Oliver O'Donovan (1945-)
Alex J. Bellamy
Spencer L. Miller
Robert L. Holmes
Uwe Steinhoff
John Rawls (1921–2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

[BadgerKid]

16. Didn't the US colonies violate traditional warfare rules?

9th grade US history class told me that the US colonies played by their own rules (essentially played dirty) in fighting the British. They fired at will against a British army that had an established, rigid protocol in which two rows of soliders alternated between firing and reloading.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Was a bit more than that...

though the rules and expectations were not document as they are today.

An example was that officers were not to be targeted, since they were required to keep their men in check. US revolutionaries targeted them when they could...

[boppers]

63. Oddly enough, targeting officers (and their men) is still (arguably) a war crime.

Targeting their uniform, position/location, or other equipment, however, is not.

Law gets quite interesting as it evolves over history.

[Nihil]

104. Yeah ... f'ing terrorists!

:P
:patriot:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Total BS

The cited passages are clearly not applicable

Nothing wrong with opposing what is going on, but this is intellectual dishonesty at its worst

[indepat]

23. This surely isn't true for we all know the US assiduously follows all protocols

required by international law and the Geneva Conventions in all wars, be they pre-emptive in nature or otherwise. :patriot:

[Canuckistanian]

27. This is giving Pakistani special troops a reason to attack American sites

If Pakistan has the equivalent of Navy Seals, they'd be justified in attacking American drone piloting sites.

And there's NOTHING the American govt. can do to defend those sites, legally. The precedent is set.

Because according to International Law, they'd be defending their "interests" in their own region.

[hack89]

28. Of course we can legally defend those sites

are you really saying that we would break the law if we didn't stand by and let our soldiers be killed? I don't think you understand international law - do you have actual cites and case law to support your idea?

[Nihil]

34. The US can (and will) defend the sites. The point is ...

... they just can't claim that it was an unprovoked attack or any
kind of unjustified "terrorism" ...

All's fair in love & collateral damage.

:shrug:

[FLPanhandle]

36. This argument is just fear mongering

If so, they'd be just as justified to attack US bases that support piloted aircraft, or bases here where long range bombing runs are flown from. Drones don't change anything.

[The Northerner]

33. K&R nt

[Overseas]

35. I just want all drone attacks to stop.

They create far more enemies than they kill.

[FLPanhandle]

39. Then your issue isn't with the weapon system the military uses

It's the military executing the mission at all. I don't think the people on the ground care much if it was a drone, or a traditionally piloted aircraft or a cruise missile that did the killing.

[boppers]

64. How do you feel about arrows? Slingshots?

Might as well absurdum this out of the gate.

An arrow is a remotely originated way of killing people, as is a rock from a slingshot, and a drone plane.

[Red1]

38. Indiscriminate Hit and Run

Is the tactic our enemy's use...whats good for the goose...

[Bragi]

102. Right, eye for eye, two wrongs make a right, etc. /nt

[Lasher]

60. We shouldn't use night vision goggles unless our enemies have them.

Otherwise it's cheating.

[JackRiddler]

67. Hell no. We shouldn't even tell our enemies they're enemies before we kill them!

Peasants in Afghanistan who can't read, don't have electricity, never heard of the World Trade Center, maybe never heard of the United States... so what are you going to do? Serve them with papers to tell them their house is on a list of terrorist havens, or their neighbor's been fingered as a bad guy by our informant, his cousin with a grudge? Bullshit! A drone appears and incinerates them before they even have time to ask: What the fuck is that flash in the sky? Now that's how it's done! Hu-ah!

[Lasher]

69. Do you think we should warn our enemies before we attack them with drones?

Do you think we are attacking people at random with drones? I can tell you are opposed to the use of drones but I'm not sure why that is so.

[JackRiddler]

70. Do you have any idea who your "enemies" are? Why? Let's start there.

[Lasher]

72. No, let's not. I want to stay on subject if you don't mind.

I just asked two simple questions so that I could better understand your position. You shouldn't be afraid to answer them.

[panzerfaust]

76. Actually, the true subject really IS who is the enemy

The obvious answer: anyone who opposes our government.

[JackRiddler]

79. The subject is you see a world of "enemies" you imagine it is legitimate to kill by surprise and

without cost, and I do not.

In fact, the worst enemies of the people of the United States are the classes and institutions who plunder the 80 or 90 percent and keep the country in a perpetual war by constantly identifying and demonizing foreign "enemies," thus making real enemies for the country around the world.

And these true enemies of the people should not be killed by surprise without cost. That would not be moral, it would not be right. Nor is that possible, nor is that a desirable way of effecting the necessary social transformation, because ultimately it's a system that must change and not simply people who must be replaced. These true "enemies" and that system should be removed from power by the political uprising of an awakened people. Except this people are constantly buying into the bullshit that they need a militarized state sucking up half their tax dollars while more and more people are thrown into impoverishment, because they must be protected from barefoot peasants in Afghanistan you consider it legitimate to erase from the sky without even knowing for sure who the hell you're shooting at.

But the fact is: You can't even say clearly who is your enemy and why. You accept that whatever the government labels (each week) as your "enemy" is your enemy. You don't need to know. You prefer to start the discussion, such as it is, with the question of how best to KILL this "enemy" who has been chosen for you.

[Lasher]

82. We could ask ourselves if we should wage war at all, against whom we should wage it,

and how we should go about it. Since the OP clearly concerns the use of drones as a method of waging war, and in order to minimize the conflation you promote, I will dispense with the former two topics, to focus on the latter.

Sifting through your tirade of righteous indignation for anything relevant, I am left with your belief that our enemies should not be killed by surprise or without cost. Since I cannot laugh in your face, I have wasted my initial reaction on my poor monitor. It is clear that you know nothing about warfare.

The element of surprise is a key principle of military strategy. Throughout history, all competent leaders have sought to attain it over their opponents. A commander would be derelict or worse if he were to intentionally give up such an advantage over an enemy. How effective could a drone strike be if we notified people in advance we were going to attack them?

When you mention cost, I'm pretty sure you think we should incur casualties on our side whenever we inflict them on the enemy. A more foolish notion I have never seen. And you dare claim moral ground when making this assertion? We have an obligation to protect our soldiers from harm whenever possible. To do less is morally reprehensible.

Drone technology gives us an important military advantage over our enemies, just as the Macedonia had the phalanx and India had war elephants. If we fail to fully exploit it based on misguided 'moral' principles, then it is our own soldiers who will pay the price for our foolishness.

[JackRiddler]

86. You: "It is clear that you know nothing about warfare"

I know that it is a plague upon humanity. You think it's a game to win. I know that initiating war is the highest international crime, according to the principles by which the United States itself and its allies ruled at Nuremberg. War is a problem, not a solution. You seem to think it's a desirable industry, worthy of absorbing more than half of the US income tax collected and maintaining a military budget that is about equal to all of the military spending of all of the other countries in the world.

The most decorated Marine and most popular war hero of his time, Smedley Butler, said that "War is a Racket." Tell us, did he know something about warfare? Shall we say he was ignorant about war?

You seem to think waging war effectively is more important than knowing why you are waging it at all. In fact, you don't seem to want to know. Your reactions on this thread are all reflex: Follow the flag when your government rocks it. You also seem to think waging war effectively is more important than not committing mass murder. Anyone that was killed, that must have been "the enemy." Killing a few thousand in addition who are non-combatants is regrettable, "collateral damage."

You: "I'm pretty sure you think we should incur casualties on our side whenever we inflict them on the enemy."

No, clearly I do not. I do not see "the enemy" you see, therefore your comment is obviated. I do not see the "sides" you see. I am an American citizen, but I am not part of whatever you think is "we." You do not speak for the American people. My "we" is not for your wars. Your we is an imposition, an illusion, a patriotic lie.

Force is legitimate only in self-defense. The United States has no business in the countries it is bombing. That someone there may have invited US invasion is not a legitimate rationale. War is a racket.

Will you say that Smedley Butler ever thought "we should incur casualties on our side"? Then what did he mean when he wrote the following?

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

SNIP and CONTINUED: FULL TEXT AT LINK.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Lasher]

106. OK that's it.

You're trying to create a smokescreen by obfuscating, changing the subject, and building straw men in order to facilitate a cowardly exit from a losing argument. I have plenty of time to engage in fair debate but no time for this.

I hope you have at least learned something about military science.

[JackRiddler]

107. Nice projection there. Enjoy your "victory."

[Bragi]

98. I agree with you

I agree with your perspective.

I know it isn't easy to take on the pro-war faction, especially in these times of the ascendant right, but I would encourage you to keep on keepin' on.

I keep doing my bit as I can, but I'm getting wearied by it all.

- B

[JonLP24]

112. Added you to my buddy list

Wow. Impressed with everything you posted in this thread.

edit-Can't because I'm not a donor. I will however keep an eye out for your posts.

[Nossida]

74. isn't it

A Little Late, to be concerned about
the 'legality' of all 5, 6, 7, or 8
Illegal Wars you've indulged in for the
past 10 Years? The Death toll over a
million.

Frankly, I consider a SWAT Team, shooting
an Iraqi Vet 70 times, in Arizona, Illegal.
But just as with all those Wars, it isn't
Illegal, or Tyranny when the ones in charge
do it.

[CJvR]

87. That sounds...

...like an unusually stupid idea, even for lawyers.

[Bragi]

96. The all-war all-the-time viewpoint is just unrelenting

There really don't seem to be any limits on the horrendous carnage so many people are prepared to justify these days.

Very sad, but so typical of these fear-ridden times.

Makes one want to cheer for the coming economic collapse, which might be the only thing that can possibly slow down the war machine.

[Nihil]

105. It's easy: If it involves "somebody else" then there is no problem.

If it involves "you" then there is a problem and so you shout & scream
to your "representatives" and they will sort it out for you ... or maybe
not as if you aren't one of their masters sponsors then you will be ignored.

:shrug:

[WatsonT]

109. The laws of war, who enforces/decides these?

Why the victor of course.

And as no nation rules against itself the proper code of conduct is thus whatever wins wars.

[Ash_F]

110. The Warhawks in this thread don't get it.

The civilians are saying many of the dead are innocent. The US military repeatedly maintains that they are acting on "good intelligence"
But how can they say that when they do not even know who they are killing? That is a serious crime.

It is really that simple. No need to do mental gymnastics and come up with ridiculous faux-philosophical excuses for war crimes.









The Oxford Research Group is absolutely right.

[hack89]

111. Oxford Research Group (ORG) should make that argument

without their idiotic interpretation of the Geneva conventions. There has never been a requirement to identify everyone you have killed in war. Never.
There is a requirement to not indiscriminately kill civilians but that is not what they are arguing. The purpose of that particular clause is to ensure that casualties of war do not die namelessly - an country is required to identify the identities of any bodies they have in their possession. They are not required to go into enemy territory to identify the dead.

Oxford Research Group (ORG) simply undermines their worthwhile goal with asinine logic like this.

[Ash_F]

113. If you don't know who you have killed, then you have killed indsicriminately.

Nonsense and mental gymnastics.

Watch this video. http://video.pbs.org/video/1917910631/ <- Particularly the part about the election campaigners.

How would you like it if someone did you or your family like that? Ridiculous what people will defend.

[hack89]

114. So during WWII,explain to me

how US forces identify all the Germans that were killed by our bombing? Did we really sent teams of people into hostile territory to do this?

Can you show a single time since 1929 (when this clause was adopted) that any army went behind enemy lines to identify all the dead?

I am not defending anything. Your video does not support your view - the entire point of that show is that despite spending a lot of effort to identify targets before we strike, we sometimes make mistakes. We should not make mistakes like that. We should do a better job of indent fy targets. The Geneva Convention requires that and I support it.

There is no requirement to identify people after you have killed them - especially when the remains are not in your possession and in hostile territory.

[Ash_F]

116. The US was fighting people that were shooting back in WWII. This is not what is happening in here

And the US did collect the dead when possible as did the Germans. You can't even begin to compare the two situations. This is nothing like WWII. Here they are attacking a civilian population with the the excuse that they 'might' be anti-government guerrillas in secret. Under what law are these people being put to death? What judge? What Jury? What justification?

If they were actually armed then they can be attacked under the rules of war but most of the time they are not. They are being killed on "tips"
They killed people that were peacefully opposed to the US installed government in Kabul who were trying to make their country better through democratic elections. That is a abridgment of liberty and a crime against humanity.

How can you even begin to make this excuse? "despite spending a lot of effort to identify targets before we strike, we sometimes make mistakes." Obliviously they don't. Look at Petraeus's smug face when presented with facts, he doesn't care. He knows what he has done.

I suppose you want to live in world where you, your friends and your family can be killed at the point of a finger from a corrupt politician?

[hack89]

117. So US forces have unrestricted access to all of Pakistan

and the Tribal Territories in particular? Do you understand that there are parts of Pakistan where the Pakistani army is scared to go into?


I agree that we should only shoot at enemy fighters. I agree that sometimes we do a poor job of identifying targets. Indiscriminate killing of civilians is illegal and must stop. Doesn't that sound like we live in the same world? My only point is that ORG are making a moronic interpretation of a single clause in the Geneva Conventions.

[Ash_F]

118. You say you are against killing people indiscriminately but ...

how do you know it was indiscriminate in the first place without any form of accountability? Trust in the government? Trust in people like Petraeus? I find it highly suspicious that it is a coincidence that the campaigners who were killed were peacefully trying to run an election against the US appointed government in Kabul. Petraeus coyly maintains that the guy was someone else who was a violent bomb-maker despite the reporter destroying his case right in front of him. If in his head he somehow thought he was right, then he showed incredible incompetence and coldly ignored the death of bystanders. There was a mountain of evidence including video and documents proving him wrong and he countered with nothing and stonewalled. The person the government had a photo of looked nothing like the guy he had killed and he still said they were the same person! How do we even know the guy they had a picture of was a bomb maker? What I see here is political suppression by way of murder, or incompetence on the level or criminality. Probably some of both from different parties.

Pakistan is very under-reported but it certainly does not seem to be as violent as you say because most of these people are being killed in their homes and not while fighting. Even good reporters are rarely going to find as much evidence in most of these cases as in the Afghan case. It was luck that they had a video just before the bombing. And even then the story did not go public until almost a year later. It should be investigated and if it was not a mistake or if there was criminal incompetence, people should go to jail. Every killing should be investigated. But who is supposed to maintain such justice?


Where is the accountability? Who is the cop that is watching cops like Petraeus? It should be the American citizens who are paying for it all. But how are we to hold them accountable if they won't even tell us who they killed?


So let me put this question forward to you. I assume you are against killing innocent people(indiscriminately or purposely)like any normal person. That is a nice thing to think but what do you think should be done about it? Obviously justice is not being served over seas. The Geneva conventions were an effort to maintain justice. The first step is for the government to be forced to identify their killings, which can not be done without recovering the bodies. It is tiny baby step of many, many steps that need to be taken. I am glad you and I have similar morals but do we really live in the same world if you don't think this is necessary?








Oxford's reasoning is sound, just and straightforward. Unlike a lot of the nonsense placation that has been posted in this thread from various posters.

[hack89]

119. Simple - we ask Pakistan and the Taliban for unfettered access

to their territory, bases and compounds so we can verify who we kill. While we wait for their permission, we continue as we are doing with more effort on minimizing innocent deaths.

[Ash_F]

120. Unfortunately in Afghanistan, most of the people who are being killed are in US controlled territory

Ironically, there is less violence in the Taliban controlled regions.

I am confused on what you mean by 'permission'. In the cases of Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan these strikes are carried out with the cooperation of their central government. The governments are the ones who are tipping the US off on who to kill in most cases. There is really nothing stopping them because these strikes are mostly not happening in 'hot zones'. The people that these lawyers are speaking out for are the under-represented peasants who are basically living in the 'boonies' where most of the strikes are happening. There are anti-government forces out there for sure. But the areas are generally under control.

So who is a terrorist and who is a peaceful reformist? Who is apolitical? If your life was on the line based on someone elses answer to that question, would you not like a decent system of accountability to protect you and keep that guy in line?

Edit - and again no one will ever be held accountable for your death if it is not proven that you died to anyone except your family.

[hack89]

121. So the centeral govenemtn can verify the names since they have control?

so what's the problem? Looks like all we need to do is get the governments to do their jobs.

[Blue_Tires]

115. silly me...If torture, mercs, extraordinary rendition, cluster bombs, profiteering, etc

wasn't already "Breaking the laws of war", then what difference do drones make??