Summations Only

You are correct in an Orwellian speak sense.Danger means a risk for future harm. Drone targets are generally not in the act of shooting, and we generally don't know of a certainty what their future plans are. The targets are chosen because the present a thread of future harm, and the calculus is that the downside, which seems mainly to be assessed as whether Pakistan will get sufficiently mad as to make a differnce, is acceptable.

Not "Orwellian" at all. The people targeted are targeted as I said, because they are a "clear and present danger".They are targeted based on past behavior as well as continued current behavior.

Past events are not dangers. Past events are predictors.Describe the danger presented by any one of the 13 people killed in the drone attack in Yemen. So far, the targets are described only as suspected militants. In your description, I expect you to avoid any reference to future harm that might be caused, since according to you, they were a risk to cause present harm.

Too funny.I did not exclude future harm, I said the decision was made based on them being a Clear and Present danger.Nor do I know what the danger was in any specific drone attack, but since I also did not call for them that is irrelevant.The point is that it is still not murder.

Funny? Hardly.Since you don't have personal knowledge, what is the basis of your assertion that there was a clear and present danger? You seem to know there was danger without knowing any details of the current activities of those who were killed.How is it clear that someone is going to harm someone in the future if he is only suspected of being a terrorist? What level of suspicion is required to justify killing uninvolved people in a country we are not at war with? Aren't those the kinds of things we ought to be thinking about before we say the danger is clear? Yes, the title does have some hyperbole, but the question of why the US gets away with the attacks does not depend on the attacks being murder.My point is that you are talking well beyond the scope of what you actually know.

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.

So what he should have said was that he thought the guy was going to get better and start shooting at him again at some future date. This then would be equal to the danger presented by a 'suspected militant'. Say you have an armed robber who has killed a couple of people and taken refuge in his house with his wife and children. By your line of reasoning it would be acceptable for the police to just blow up the whole house killing all the occupants because the criminal presented a danger.It is not legal at all, it is just expedient. Would it be legal to do it in the US? If Iran were to carry out an operation like these in the US it would be classified as terrorism. We would have no qualms about calling it murder. Herein lies the hypocrisy and the dishonest application of 'our' own laws.

While I have been encouraged to be polemic when framing the debate topics I don't think it's hyperbole. I think the hyperbole comes when they describe the killings as 'legal'. I think if more people were to decide that it was a lot like murder then the US would not be able to act with such impunity.

So we have militants from Afghanistan who are taking refuge in Pakistan and the US (coalition) is engaging them there. Seems fair enough. I mean we do want to actually win right?The problem is that the US is not at war with any particular state. They claim to be at war with Afghanistan to gain the legal protection of being at war and then use those protections to go after individuals no matter where they are located. It's bullshit.

Without even knowing anything about those who were killed.The reason I know is that that is the standard our government set for authorizing such strikes.What I do know is that I very much approve of such drone strikes and that I hope in the future we will develop even better methods of selective termination.We are still trying to develop the new set of Rules of War, and so the questions like "What level of suspicion is required to justify killing uninvolved people in a country we are not at war with?" is a valid one, although not relevant to this topic.

And also present enough evidence that was the case to sway the judge or jury. That is not my line of reasoning and simply more misrepresentation of both the scenarios presented and my position.Continuing to create false analogies does not help your position. Terrorism and murder are not synonymous just as killing and murder are not synonymous.

I think what you mean is that the USA needs to change International law because it has a technology that it finds useful to pursue its country's aims.Whether the rest of the world agrees with you is a moot point but as far as I'm aware, it's still illegal for a government to kill people in a country they are not at war with - innocent or guilty.Edited by Tangle, : spelling - again

No, that's not what I mean at all.The current set of laws relating to wars are set around the concept of Nation State conflicts and the assumption that there is some governmental body that has both the rights and capabilities of ending a conflict.When looking at terrorism that is not the case.We are basically in our infancy in creating a set of Rules of War involving NGOs.

Yes the judge or jury for the soldier on the battlefield but not for the soldier in the office. That is not my intention jar. I am trying to better illuminate the subject by coming at it from different angles. Where is the material difference?

It is absolutely relevant.