Summations Only

The overly simplistic answer is: because they were killed legally.I guess that the whole thing is stupid because Pakistan seems to be ignoring the drone attacks for political reasons.
If Pakistan actively (rather than tacitly) supported these attacks then possibly these people could be arrested instead of killed.But I also think that USA has found that drones are the method that costs the fewest American lives - and so (again for political reasons) they continue the drone attacks.
Do they risk killing innocents in the hope of ending a conflict? Of course.
IMO it is morally similar to Hiroshima/Nagasaki (but on a much smaller scale).
Granted, in Japan, they knew they would kill innocents.In the Iraq war ~100,000 civilians were killed.
But only ~60,000 insurgents were killed.
And none of those insurgents had a trial.
How is this not murder? Because it was deemed to be a war.A country is allowed to decide when it is at war and with whom.
This, in turn, exempts them from certain laws: they are allowed to kill people without a trial.As usual, politics turns what would otherwise be a no-brainer (i.e. should we kill suspects?) into a moral quagmire of expediency and convenience. I think that every government that goes to war is responsible for the undeserved deaths of 1000's of innocent people - including their own soldiers.
But 'murder' is a legal term which doesn't apply. (I've had several mojitos and a smoke, so please forgive the lack of structure to my reply.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If you read my post you will see that I agree that it is morally ambiguous. They are similar for that exact reason. When they balanced the consequences, civilian casualties were considered 'acceptable'.
The main difference is the scale of the deaths. As I said (emphasis added): There are definitely war crimes - but you haven't shown that using drones is a war crime. So, who's definition should we use then? Perhaps because it is not considered to be murder by the majority of the international community?.All I see in your post is a distinction without a difference.
Could you explain why troops attacking a compound and accidentally killing civilians is not a war crime but drones attacking a compound and accidentally killing civilians is a war crime?

But we can say that - because it is true. But the deaths do need to be considered murder for the government to be guilty of murder.
If you deem the deaths as unjust, then that is your own personal moral judgement - but that is not the same as murder.
IMO most of the deaths in wars are unjust, but that doesn't make governments guilty of murder.And I ask again: who's definition of 'murder' should we use?
If 'murder' is the unlawful killing of someone, then we need to choose whose laws we are going to use.
Currently, according to most lawyers, America is in an armed conflict with militants in Pakistan and are therefore not committing murder.Let's look again at the OP:

quote:

---

How did it become acceptable to go around executing people who we suspect to be 'militants'?

---

quote:

---

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? How is this not murder?

---

This is not worded as a criticism of the actual conflict itself - it is worded as a criticism of the methods used in that conflict.
And the answer to these questions is simple: because they are at war. I agree.

Yes. That seems to sum it up quite succinctly. But they are at war with Afghani militants. Countries don't 'claim' to be at war: they declare war.And all democratic countries do this for the same reason: to change the laws that apply to their behaviour.
This allows them to invade countries and kill people without trial.
American is simply doing what every other democratic country has done - and it is not murder.You might be shocked to learn that in 1943 Canada declared war on Germany and then sent troops to Italy to kill German soldiers without giving them a trial...

Correct, but irrelevant.

quote:

---

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

---

War in not only waged against states.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada fought in the Spanish Civil War. Imminent peril is not a requirement for war.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada was not in imminent peril in 1943, but they still went to war with Germany. But they are enemy soldiers.
Countries kill enemy soldiers.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada also kills enemy soldiers. So, the war in Afghanistan is 'unwarlike'?
Which aspects of war do you feel it is lacking?

But, as I said, Canada was not under imminent peril.
Therefore, my point stands: imminent peril is not a prerequisite for war. I agree. America is at war. That is not a requirement for war. America is not at war with a belligerent country: it is at war with belligerent militants.
And civilian casualties are unfortunately commonplace in war. I am suspicious of your linked web-page.
It claims: "The first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009." but links to a page that doesn't even mention rescuers.
Considering the page is titled "Obama Terror Drones", I doubt their impartiality and their reliability.I still don't see any reason not think that:
a) America is at war.
b) Accidentally killing civilians whilst at war is not murder..All I have seen (by yourself and others) is a desperate struggle to somehow redefine 'war' so that America is NOT at war.
This would then allow people to categorise civilian deaths can as murder.
This is all the more puzzling when you admit that America is at war.

I have never described civilian deaths as 'necessary'; it is simply the unavoidable consequence of using ordnance in an uncontrolled environment. No, not 'necessary': unavoidable in any practical sense during a war.
But yes, they look like the kind of accidental deaths normally associated with a military strike. Could you provide a list of who these 9 people were, so that I can try and confirm that they were not militant targets? "a situation that did not involve any active combat." Really? Then how were they killed? Militants in Yemen are an established target - remember: America is at war with the militants, not the country - like in Pakistan.
And it was not a one-off strike, it was part of a campaign.From how you describe it, it was just a random killing in a random country.
But that is far from being the case. And does further investigation shows that the killing of civilians was intentional?
Was the American government guilty of murder? But that is an article about the article I questioned the credibility of.
All you have done is linked to a web-page higher up the pile. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

America is at war.
Soldiers killing soldiers - while at war - is not murder.
Soldiers accidentally killing civilians - while at war - is not murder.All you have done so far is try to change the meaning of words so that your claim is true.You can claim that the war is not war-like.
You can claim that murder is not a legal term.
You can claim that CIA aren't soldiers.
You can claim that wars are only between countries.
You can claim that good countries insist on 'imminent threat' before going to war.But none of your claims are supported.
They are just baseless assertions and equivocations - or as you say: bullshit.Let's go back to the actual topic:
Since we seem to agree with the definition of war I provided, I will ask for the 3rd time:
"Who's definition of 'murder' should we use?"
Please define 'murder' for me, so that I understand what you are accusing the Americans of.Is this definition good enough for you?

quote:

---

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human being by another.

---

Repeating your baseless claim is stupid.
But since that is all you have, I guess you have no other option.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Good.
And according to International and American law, the deaths are not murder.
And that explains "why there is no international outcry against the killing of civilians in drone attacks."<\thread>Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I agree.Murder is reasonable easy to ascertain.But the problem with justification is that it is subjective.
America only needs to justify its behaviour to its voting public and selected international communities.
It is also impossible for America to make everyone happy.
Some people will claim that going to war is reprehensible and some people will claim that not going to war is reprehensible.Personally, I am undecided about whether the war is justified. There are good and bad aspects to the war.
But the necessary secrecy of military operations, the politically driven secrecy of governments and the anti-American propaganda means I will probably never be able to decide one way or another. Killing people based on faulty intelligence happens frequently in all wars.
I doubt that '100% accurate intelligence' actually exists.Finding out that the attack was based on false information would not make it murder.
As I am sure you know, time makes fools of us all.

quote:

---

Hindsight is not only clearer than perception-in-the-moment but also unfair to those who actually lived through the moment.

​

EDWIN S. SHNEIDMAN, Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind

---

The problem with debating the justification is that it will probably end up with 2 opposing opinions that are unable to be reconciled due to the opinions being subjective.
It is like art. There is no good or bad art: only art you like and art you don't like.
The best you can do with a differing personal opinion is say "I can understand why you think that." If they had targeted civilians then I would expect it to be considered a war crime.But you have not shown that civilians were targeted.

Some of those examples are either not true or taken out of context.i.e.
Mobile soup kitchens were banned from feeding the homeless in Manchester...
Not true. a girl was banned from spitting in public and jailed when she broke her ASBO's terms...
"She became extremely upset in the courtroom and ended up throwing water over the Group 4 officer and spitting at a magistrate. She was remanded in custody and charged with new offences." an alcoholic was banned from entering pubs or carrying alcohol in public...
"At 15 she was expelled from school for repeated truancy and disruptiveness. But being home-schooled only increased the opportunities to hit the bottle. During her time as an alcoholic, Laura calculates that she was drinking about 150 units of alcohol a week." a woman was banned from answering the door in her underwear...
"The ASBO also banned her from making noise, shouting and swearing, holding drunken parties, abusing neighbours and letting pals use her garden as a toilet."Just sayin'...

Thank goodness that no-one here is supporting war criminals then.We haven't even mentioned any, from what I remember - so you can rest, contented that no-one here is supporting war criminals.
/patEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

So, you are advocating the bizarre position of intentional deaths being legal and accidental deaths being illegal.And how exactly should soldiers ensure that they completely avoid accidental deaths?
Because, unless you can guarantee a way to avoid unexpected deaths, no soldier could risk going into battle.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Perhaps you could give definitions of 'natural accident' and 'unnatural accident', since you have made up these terms to try and support your crazy ideas.
Or is it just a distinction without a difference: "A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the argument as a whole." You think the developed world should disband its armies?
You think that would be a good thing??Your responses lack anything beyond naive knee-jerk reactions.