Summations Only

With the "War on Terror" idea, anyone, anywhere, can be classified as a terrorist and drone attacks can follow. Doing so makes the risk of civilian casualty inevitable, forces a massive blowback, and that in turn brings it back to what the root cause of 9/11 was and the reasons being used to justify the current drone attacks. It's an endless circle of killing.It is unrealistic to think you can fence off battlefields, sure, but the "leaders" here in US feel ANYWHERE can be a war zone so long as they say so - and that's not right either.- Oni

Human rights. Yeah I have no idea but if you have the legal right to blow someone up I would think that you have the legal right to arrest them.My overriding argument is this. We make up our own rules so why not make some that more accurately reflect our desire to be civilized? It is not even that much. All we have to do is interpret the laws that we already have in such a way. When I quoted Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 I left out articles(i) Wilful killing;and(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;It has long been recognized that the object of war is not to kill your enemy but rather to subdue him.Again, the argument that we have been slaughtering each other legally for millennia is no argument in support of continuing to do so.

Yes, the word that we should be using is negligence and not accident.Say we have a CIA agent driving into work. His bluetooth is broken so he uses his old cell phone to call in an air strike on a restaurant in Pakistan. He is distracted by his phone call and causes an accident that kills a mother and child. The air strike also kills a mother and child along with the intended target. The accidental deaths on the highway are manslaughter but the accidental deaths in the restaurant are only an accident. This seems off to me. Not a world away just a word away.

Perhaps this point is clear to everyone, but there are different classes of negligence. Just calling something negligence does not place an act in the "do not prosecute as muder" category.I think it is important to distinguish criminal negligence from the ordinary negligence involved in things like car accidents caused by driver error. "Ordinary Negligence" would be the appropriate characterization if the drone operator (or the person giving the order to fire) had some good reason to believe that the missile was not going to kill the non-combatants and innocents present at the wedding.But there is no such hope or reason to believe that children and great-grand parents aren't going to be killed when that missile hits. In fact, it is just as likely that the target will escape as it is that an innocent death will be avoided. So rather that a failure to act with the proper care, which would constitute ordinary negligence, we have indifference to the fact, known and appreciated before firing, that innocent people are going to be killed.In short calling the collateral deaths accidents is absolutely a false characterization. Collateral deaths are simply considered incidental, and cannot be justified as negligence. In a criminal context, a similar mental state would constitute reckless indifference, which would allow manslaughter or second degree murder charge to be brought. If the deaths occurred when during commission of a felony, capital murder charges would be appropriate.Lest someone latch onto the fact that manslaughter is not murder, remember that we are talking about a "manslaughter" as a plan of action. In a criminal context, such a campaign would surely be murder.When considering all types of negligence, we do take into account the mental state and circumstances of the accused. When a soldier is in harms way, we don't expect the soldier to make calm decisions and perfect judgments when his life is at stake if he makes an error. IMO, it is reasonable not to give the remote drone operator sitting in a cubicle the same consideration. True. Negligence doesn't mean that. But murder does not require a specific intent to target or kill the victim. Instead the act leading to the deaths was surely intentional and intended or expected to create a large radius death zone. We aren't talking about accidentally leaving duct tape over some air vents and causing a crash. We're talking about deliberately firing a missile at a target knowing that only a fraction of the people who will be killed are suspected of being terrorists. But the person ordering the strike simply doesn't give a hoot about the collateral deaths.

Just to clarify: they are not mutually exclusive.
You can accidentally hurt someone due to negligence.
You cannot intentionally hurt someone due to negligence. But you would prefer:
Say we have a CIA agent driving into work. His bluetooth is working so he uses it to call in an air strike on a restaurant in Pakistan. The air strike kills a mother and child along with the intended target. The CIA agent is arrested for manslaughter.After that arrest all other 'front-line' CIA agents would quit their jobs.
And then all other front-line soldiers would quit.
No soldier will fight in a war if accidental deaths would get them imprisoned.
No soldiers = no army. But the only alternatives you have provided are either:
a) Never go to war
b) Force the army to disband
(both of which have similar results). And that word is 'lightyears'.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

See my reply to DogmaFood.You are demanding the same impossible standards of soldiers.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Do you have any evidence to support either of those assertions?And are either of them even relevant?

You have to remember that in NoNukes' mind, all soldiers are murderous bastards that launch missiles at children while laughing maniacally.
They have no heart nor soul nor conscience. They are just mindless killing machines.What he wants is soldiers who are perfect omniscient super-beings who are scared of the sight of blood.Or something like that...

The elimination of Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders. This isn't a conventional internation war. We're not fight against sovereign countries. We're at "war" with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.For example, a couple days ago a drone strike killed an Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen. The other 6 people in the car with him also died. (news) But we're not at war with Yemen and it wasn't a war crime.

The military.I don't the protocols or anything, nor how the international court would go about receiving a case against a particular attack.But the spirit of the law is against just blowing the shit out of a region willy-nilly without even trying to reach some kind of military goal.These drone strikes are not that.

I can't be both counting it and not counting it. You were right the first time: I don't consider the blowback as a part of the cost of the action. It an indirect result that isn't necessitated.

The american military budget is about 1.2 TRILLION dollars a year (including hidden costs). The profits from escalating drone missile use are rising dramatically. Yes, I agree with you, there certainly is some kind of military goal.

"It an indirect result that isn't necessitated." You are sounding like Mod when he is being careful to not make a clear point.I would like a simple answer. Why did the terrorists cause the attacks on 9/11? Do you believe what Bush Jr. and Tony Blair said, that the reason is because the terrorists hate our freedom?Edited by dronester, : "?"

Which part is confusing you and unclear?The drone strike that killed the Al-Qaeda leader also had the cost of the 6 people in the car with him. If his cousin decides to kill some other people in a few months because of it, then I am not counting that as part of the cost. I don't know why they did it.

Well, since the cousin's action may directly impact your family or friend's life, why wouldn't it be a good idea to consider blowback? I understand you may not care about people living thousands of kilometers away, but don't you at least care about your family and friends?

quote:

---

I don't know why they did it.

---

I am nearly speechless. You are advocating violence for no known reason?