|
On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote:
It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied.
i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong
|
Reminds me of Enemy of the State. Not that I didn't already believe that stuff was going on.
|
I wouldn't read too heavily into the paper itself. Pet lawyers producing ridiculous memos to justify whatever unethical action the president happens to be taking is par the course.
The actual campaign of drone strikes, imprisoning and other "surgical" actions by the obama administration are... while better than another outright war... pretty out of line, considering how unilateral they are and how far removed from the judicial process. There should have to be at least some collaboration and authorization by the judiciary before the anyone in the executive branch - even the president - can have someone who isnt an immediate threat killed or jailed for any unreasonable length of time.
Sitting in a room talking with terrorists is bad and all, but it isn't the same concept as a guy shooting into a crowd or trying to escape arrest. I can see why arresting people under the former circumstances is hard, but that doesn't justify simply killing them without any sort of judicial process happening.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, it's not as if without this war on terror, the CIA would hesitate with killing dudes. let's be serious. the legal blah always is preceded by a course of action already chosen on political/power grounds.
|
This is chilling. we live in dangerous times.
|
On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote:
It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong
Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive.
edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy.
|
I found that an illuminating read as well. I'll try to distill its points so we can get hopefully get some opinions on it. Bear in mind I'm no law student...
Basically, whether someone is an imminent threat or not is obviously important, but not the determining factor in whether or not the US military has a right to kill them. The reasoning is that the US is in fact at war with al Qaeda, that the battlefield of this war is more or less the entire globe, and that every terrorist/member of al Qaeda is therefore an enemy combatant. Much like how an enemy soldier during a war can be assassinated without a trial or anything of the sort, even if a battle isnt underway, a member of a terrorist group that we're at war with can be killed simply on the basis of his being an enemy combatant.
The major problem here, I think, is the problem of evidence and transparency. In a war, an enemy soldier knows what he's getting into when he puts on a uniform and a weapon. And likewise, someone who knowingly joins up with a terrorist group intending to commit an act that will kill thousands, has de facto forfeited their rights and become a valid target for killing, the same way a US soldier who went over to the enemy would become a valid target. That's basically what the government is asserting in the case of intentional drone killings of citizens.
But... Let me just insert my opinion... To just accept them at their word and leave it there seems to be taking things way too far. Soldier or terrorist, for anyone who was a citizen and was subsequently killed, his fellow citizens, family, etc deserve as full an explanation as possible. I also don't think it's fair to assume someone is a full fledged, knowing terrorist without very solid evidence. I mean, sitting down with terrorists does not a terrorist make, and furthermore, there are degrees of participation when it comes to terrorism, just as with warfare... The people who fund terrorism, or civilians that give them aid, or just sympathizers... these groups obviously shouldnt just be lumped together and killed, and its important to lay out evidence so that we can know whether a person killed by a drone was a legit threat or something else.
But of course the military/intelligence branches are reluctant to share its evidence, to avoid revealing their sources of information. In a traditional war, where territory is divided and soldiers' movements are restricted and easily tracked, this is less problematic, but this is hardly that kind of war.
So that's why we are at a sort of impasse. My gut instinct is to dislike this whole "war on terrorism" mess because it is just so broadly defined, and could conceivably be a justification for killing people on the flimsiest basis. I do not believe that's what's actually happening or is likely to happen, but how can we know that without going through due process? But then, how can we go through due process without compromising the very sources from which our evidence was drawn? I am positive informants play a huge role in any success the us has or will have against terrorists, but this necessitates that you cannot reveal much about them lest they be exposed. Same goes for technology the enemy may not know we have.
Fucking tough day for democracy. Terrorism is just a complete pain in the ass to deal with.
|
The idea of beeing at war with annything other then a national state is just completely rediculous to start with.
War on drugs:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is smugling drugs without trial.
War on terror:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is a terrorist.
War on illegal imigrants, war on obesitas,war on unemployment.
The war on terror is just a catchphrase, it has nothing to do with a real war.
All these laws giving the government unlimited freedom as soon as terrorism is involved (not only in the usa, also in europa) are the prelude to something horrible i fear 
|
On February 08 2013 11:21 Rassy wrote:The idea of beeing at war with annything other then a national state is just completely rediculous to start with. War on drugs:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is smugling drugs without trial. War on terror:we can kill or jail annyone who we say is a terrorist. War on illegal imigrants, war on obesitas,war on unemployment. The war on terror is just a catchphrase, it has nothing to do with a real war. All these laws giving the government unlimited freedom as soon as terrorism is involved (not only in the usa, also in europa) are the prelude to something horrible i fear
I think "war on terror" was a bad phrase to put into circulation. You indeed, cannot make war on concepts. War on al Qaeda is very realistic and even necessary though, IMO. They are a global, paramilitary organization, and its not like Interpol is going to go and stop them for us... Nor can the police/military forces of whatever countries it has bases in be expected to do so. So that really only leaves one option.
|
Ok, just so you guys know, citizenship is about the most meaningless thing in the world. I was born in Texas, thus I am a citizen. That doesn't make me ANY more valuable of a person than anyone else. In fact, citizenship should be applied for when you're 18. Otherwise, you should just be this semi-citizen.
Anyway, while I don't think killing some guy (who -happens- to be a US citizen) in some place far from the US because he is a terrorist (or whatever the hell he really may be) is entirely the best thing to do without SOME form of trial, I do believe that the act isn't completely wrong. If some American citizen was holding a gun to some kid's head, don't you think someone should probably like, kill the guy before the kid gets killed, because you know, most people would rather have 1 living kid instead of 1 living murderer?
The idea of a trial is silly, and having the person be in there in person, well that would be even more silly. Do I think they should be able to just kill anyone who they consider a "threat to the United States"? No, that would be bad. Sometimes, there are just no ways to win in a situation.
But let's be honest here, do you really think this is the worst thing someone has done? While it may be a much larger problem later, I think it might be intelligent to focus on, you know, the more significant things in the world. After all, thousands of people in Africa die all the time, and no one gives two shits.
Who knows why this guy died, but honestly, there will ALWAYS be this "TOP SEKRIT" bullshit going on. People with power will -ALWAYS- be doing something. Some small deaths, citizen or not, mean nothing in the long run. Hell, a few economic decisions could cost more American lives than all of the American citizens killed unjustly/by drone/whatever.
Also, I agree with Zahir. He was less lazy than me, too.
|
On February 08 2013 11:48 Blargh wrote:Ok, just so you guys know, citizenship is about the most meaningless thing in the world. I was born in Texas, thus I am a citizen. That doesn't make me ANY more valuable of a person than anyone else. In fact, citizenship should be applied for when you're 18. Otherwise, you should just be this semi-citizen. Anyway, while I don't think killing some guy (who -happens- to be a US citizen) in some place far from the US because he is a terrorist (or whatever the hell he really may be) is entirely the best thing to do without SOME form of trial, I do believe that the act isn't completely wrong. If some American citizen was holding a gun to some kid's head, don't you think someone should probably like, kill the guy before the kid gets killed, because you know, most people would rather have 1 living kid instead of 1 living murderer? The idea of a trial is silly, and having the person be in there in person, well that would be even more silly. Do I think they should be able to just kill anyone who they consider a "threat to the United States"? No, that would be bad. Sometimes, there are just no ways to win in a situation.
But let's be honest here, do you really think this is the worst thing someone has done? While it may be a much larger problem later, I think it might be intelligent to focus on, you know, the more significant things in the world. After all, thousands of people in Africa die all the time, and no one gives two shits. Who knows why this guy died, but honestly, there will ALWAYS be this "TOP SEKRIT" bullshit going on. People with power will -ALWAYS- be doing something. Some small deaths, citizen or not, mean nothing in the long run. Hell, a few economic decisions could cost more American lives than all of the American citizens killed unjustly/by drone/whatever. Also, I agree with Zahir. He was less lazy than me, too.
A couple of issues with that statement:
1) Obviously, no, worse thing happens - it is a cruel cruel world. That does however not make it any more "okay".
2) The United States has a little issue called the declaration of independence which contains this little snippet: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - I think it is self-evident why killing people who do not threaten you, heck even killing people who do threaten you but at the cost of hundreds of innocents is in conflict with the very foundation upon which USA was founded.
I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them.
|
This is horrible truth be told
|
I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them.
Bin Laden was guilty no matter what and he would never get a fair trial. Bringing him to justice would cost us more time and money(protecting him, paying his attorney fess, and so forth). It makes no sense when hes guilty for what he did on 9/11. The trial would nothing be a "high profile case, show trial" for the world to see. Bin Laden would use the trial as a pulpit to spread more propaganda to the Muslim nation and the rest of the world as America is evil and I'm good. Watch Zero Dark Thirty or read articles about it, they didn't know it was Bin Laden until he was dead.
|
On February 08 2013 13:23 TriO wrote:Show nested quote +I will right away say that I was dissatisfied with the fact that there was a kill-order on Osama Bin Laden and that he was not brought to justice (outright shooting someone isn't justice (although the end result might be the same) - there is a reason for the division of power into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary department), so yes I am biased. I do believe that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral code than our enemies or else we are no better than them. Bin Laden was guilty no matter what and he would never get a fair trial. Bringing him to justice would cost us more time and money(protecting him, paying his attorney fess, and so forth). It makes no sense when hes guilty for what he did on 9/11. The trial would nothing be a "high profile case, show trial" for the world to see. Bin Laden would use the trial as a pulpit to spread more propaganda to the Muslim nation and the rest of the world as America is evil and I'm good. Watch Zero Dark Thirty or read articles about it, they didn't know it was Bin Laden until he was dead.
Recommending someone to watch Zero Dark Thirty as if that actually held the truth is kind of naïve, but nevermind that. Whether or not they knew it was Osama Bin Laden is actually completely irrelevant to the argument in the first place. The kill-order was still in effect and that was what I had a problem with. I would ask you to elaborate on why he would never be given a fair trial though? A fair trial would in the case of Osama Bin Laden be hugely a pro forma deal - but nonetheless, according to the human rights charter he had the right to one, and even open and shut cases should go before the court to avoid even the slightest suspicion of a juridicial murder (is that the English expression?). What the cost would be is irrelevant for the cost - or else you might apply that argument to everyone all the way down to the common petty thief - effectively dismantling the judicial system. Is it because you expected it would be impossible to find a neutral court? There is always Hague.
|
Interesting, could see which sources you're working with ghost com? I don't fancy reading a novel or movie or whatever zero dark thirty is, and my google search results are not showing anything promising, mostly news articles which assume the official version is correct or mention the potential inaccuracies in it without actually addressing them.
Having said that, From what I've read, the team was told to accept a surrender if they were given one, encountered resistance upon entering the compound (completely unsurprising if they stormed it without warning, which is itself understandable) and then shot a figure who peered around a corner, then shot him to death shortly afterwards while he was incapacitated, only to later discover it was bin laden.
I think what happened was regrettable, but I'm not going to be the one to tell a group of men who're storming the compound of an enemy general (more or less) and are probably going to face armed resistance they HAVE to take the enemy alive at all costs. He had forfeit his right to not be killed through his own actions, its not like their failure to take him alive was a moral lapse.
Sorry if you didn't imply any of that, just felt the need to get my thoughts out. He could've had a trial if he wanted one by turning himself in, or by surrendering and ordering his men to surrender, but he chose to continue the jihad and surround himself with armed followers so that anyone who wanted to stop him would take casualties.
Edit: just wanted to add that while I'm sure the administration had its fingers crossed that bin laden would die and save them a hassle, I don't see much they could have actually done differently.
|
Please, let's refrain from believing that what people wrote over 200 years is how everything should work. Obviously, it's what our country HAS believed in for many years, and yes, I do think there are some very logical parts to it, but in the end, it really is just a piece of paper with some guidelines on it. Many Americans believe the Declaration of Independence is the "CORRECT" way of the world, but that's just a load of shit. Let's not get too far into that.
ANYWAY....
It's a cruel world, so let's prioritize the things which are FAR more significant. Even symbolically, this guy's death is practically nothing. If you look back at presidencies all throughout the oh-so-many years, corrupt shit has been going down since, well, forever. I don't give two fucks who gets elected, they will do something corrupt, whether it comes to light or not. And no, Bill Clinton lying about having sex with a woman does not even qualify.
Also, at your second point, if this guy was truly innocent, then no, I would not consider this at all a "just" murder, but since it is assumed or whatever that this guy was a head terrorist of some sort, one way or another, then I'm pretty sure that would qualify for "threatening" people. I'm all for everyone having their right to happiness and shit, but if one citizen hinders two citizen's rights, then wouldn't it be better to get rid of the one citizen and not the two? I think the overall objective is to MAXIMIZE happy citizens and MINIMIZE casualties/suffering/whatever.
Lastly, justice is some sick stupid concept which is basically the same as revenge. It holds no purpose. It achieves nothing in reality. It's been driven into so many people's heads. It is the same as patriotism. The best course of action would be to achieve the best possible outcome through whatever means necessary. This focuses specifically on the FINAL outcome AS A WHOLE. Whatever can best achieve that goal should be the chose of action, citizen killing or not. But who is to say? It's an unsolvable issue!
This was @Ghostcom.
|
On February 08 2013 14:21 Blargh wrote:
Please, let's refrain from believing that what people wrote over 200 years is how everything should work. Obviously, it's what our country HAS believed in for many years, and yes, I do think there are some very logical parts to it, but in the end, it really is just a piece of paper with some guidelines on it. Many Americans believe the Declaration of Independence is the "CORRECT" way of the world, but that's just a load of shit. Let's not get too far into that.
ANYWAY....
It's a cruel world, so let's prioritize the things which are FAR more significant. Even symbolically, this guy's death is practically nothing. If you look back at presidencies all throughout the oh-so-many years, corrupt shit has been going down since, well, forever. I don't give two fucks who gets elected, they will do something corrupt, whether it comes to light or not. And no, Bill Clinton lying about having sex with a woman does not even qualify.
Also, at your second point, if this guy was truly innocent, then no, I would not consider this at all a "just" murder, but since it is assumed or whatever that this guy was a head terrorist of some sort, one way or another, then I'm pretty sure that would qualify for "threatening" people. I'm all for everyone having their right to happiness and shit, but if one citizen hinders two citizen's rights, then wouldn't it be better to get rid of the one citizen and not the two? I think the overall objective is to MAXIMIZE happy citizens and MINIMIZE casualties/suffering/whatever.
Lastly, justice is some sick stupid concept which is basically the same as revenge. It holds no purpose. It achieves nothing in reality. It's been driven into so many people's heads. It is the same as patriotism. The best course of action would be to achieve the best possible outcome through whatever means necessary. This focuses specifically on the FINAL outcome AS A WHOLE. Whatever can best achieve that goal should be the chose of action, citizen killing or not. But who is to say? It's an unsolvable issue!
This was @Ghostcom.
The declaration of independence might be over 200 years old, but the Human rights charter is from 1948. Are you seriously going to call that a load of shit and not a goal to strive for? In that case I guess we are just about done.
I feel I have already pointed out why you argument in the next paragraph is terrible - you do not get a free pass just because someone else does bad stuff! Furthermore it isn't exactly an "either or" scenario. It is possible to be critical of multiple atrocities at once.
For your third paragraph: Without any open trial the administration is free to define terrorist as they see fit. Stalin did the same with his political opponents which I hope you are not going to defend next.
I think it is safe to say that you and I have very different definitions of justice and revenge. In my world justice is about getting people to answer for their actions, revenge is about getting back at people. The distinction is rather huge. And yes, the best course of action is always to achieve the best possible outcome. And killing innocents when no imminent threat is present is NEVER acceptable (and how in the world that should ever result in fewer terrorist is a logic that is beyond me). Our morals obviously differ far to greatly for anything meaningful to come from this, so I'll leave it at this.
For the guy above with regards to the sources I have mostly my understanding of the events from back when the operation happened, but a quick google search brings these 2 hits as the first 2:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/bergen-obama-osama-books
And the fact that Zero Dark Thirty was denounced by the head of CIA as fiction and dramatization (which is why I called it a naïvity to believe the ultimate truth is to be found in the movie in the previous post).
I believe that the truth probably lies somewhere in between a direct kill order and the official explanation. I have no doubts that it probably went down largely as described, but I think everyone conveniently abstained from insisting on Osamas capture because it was so much more convenient to simply have him dead and not give him a podium. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but at the end of the day, we will never really know.
EDIT: Ultimately it seems like we agree Zahir  Only just saw your edit.
|
I may have given the wrong impression, but what I was trying to say with the D.o.I. is that even though the United States is basically structured around it, it does not by any means provide the best system/laws. It was made in a time far different than the one we live today. Now, I think it's very unlikely a group of people could make something better today and it work at all, but my point is that what the D.o.I. says should not be what everyone turns to in terms of moral correctness (or whatever?). Obviously, some laws must exist and must be enforced or else we have, well, chaos, but when one of these laws is broken in a situation like this, I really do not take it that seriously. It's a "war on terror"! He's got to fight that terror, even if it comes at the cost of some American citizens. Who knows the truth about this whole "war on terror" business. I'm sure it'll never be revealed, which is a damn shame. Just think how interesting it'd be if a presidency and politics truly were transparent!
And while I don't think you should ignore it, I also don't think this is the event that should be slapped onto every news headline and front page. Quite frankly, I could find 100 global health ones I give more of a shit about than that one. The United States is big, it's "important", it's influential, but this kind of shit will go on, and you know, I don't think anyone will do anything about it.
No one will have a trial because no one wants to release any information publicly, for a variety of reasons (who knows!).
Also, an example of justice (according to me) would be...
Someone does something they shouldn't. That person gets punished because they do not deserve to live as if nothing happened for committing such a deed. I do not believe "justice" does anything. I think the reason why you would put someone in jail is so that they do not do it again. You cannot change the past. Obviously, when people see there is a punishment for something, they will (usually?) be less likely to do it. He died, he will no longer do whatever it is he is doing, I think that solves a problem right there. Should innocent people die? No, they shouldn't, but if it saves even more innocent people in the future, the sacrifice should be made. And, who knows what the "right" decision is, but someone has to make a decision and it just so happens that is what the president did.
But I do agree with your last bits and Zahir's post. But, if the CIA didn't want it to become publicly known, wouldn't it make sense he denounce it? Now, I still agree with you, but just sayin'!
Slightly off-topic. When I first read the OP say "I've chosen Glen's write up" I thought he might have been referring to Glenn Beck, but I was relieved to find it was not, in fact, Le Glenn Beck.
|
On February 08 2013 10:43 sorrowptoss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote:
It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive. edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy.
I think you are missing the point that in countries like yeman, Pakistan, Somalia there are parts of the country in which there is no centralized government. It is run by tribal groups and militias. Some of these groups are terrorist and they want to kill you and any American they can. Most actual will never get this chance but some will and have whether it's sneaking into this country and trying to blow you up or attacking an embassy. Drone strikes have proven to be very good an kill these groups and there bases. Doing nothing is not an option we have tried that it didn't work. Al quada blew 2 embassy and the USS cole before 9/11. Nothing about war is good but I would much rather be proactive about then sit and wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
