Skip to main content

View Diary: "Drone Rule Book": It Doesn't Exist, Except on the New York Times' Front Page (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The sterilization of war (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, aliasalias, CIndyCasella

    "Star Trek"- A Taste of Armageddon

    http://youtu.be/...

    I'm finding your cold, calculating position truly distasteful.

    When the consequences of war are moot, then war is all we will have.

    Recall Bush wouldn't allow pictures of our dead veterans to be taken or even shown???

    Why was that again?

    To control and lessen public opinion on his illegal aggressions.  

    War Made Easy:

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:05:53 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The consequences of war are moot? (0+ / 0-)

      Tell that to the poor bastards on the other side of the use of force, or a squad in the field under fire.  UCAVs don't magically elevate airpower to a decisive degree over other elements of combined arms.  They're simply a new way of doing what has historically been one of the least risky jobs in war.

      •  That obvious to all of us here... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, CIndyCasella

        A point you seemingly chose to ignore, belittle and never address.

        "Least risky" has become, NO RISK.

        That isn't war, it's annihilation at the end of a joystick.  

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 01:23:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ops, should say, "that WAS obvious"...etc...n/t (0+ / 0-)

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 01:24:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The risk has been declining for decades. (0+ / 0-)

          To the point where the US suffered only 24 fixed wing losses over the course of eight years.  We've come to the point where accidents are more of a danger to pilot than hostile action, but more importantly the US did not hesitate to employ airpower for eight years during a little side show call Vietnam, when loss rates were order of magnitude higher.

        •  It's irrelevant to the question at hand. (0+ / 0-)

          The issue is whether or not drones are some sort of especially pernicious development in the history of warfare.  They're not.  You can argue that modern war itself is more pernicious.  I'd disagree, and point to the extraordinary carnage sixty years ago and ask if anyone wants to go back to that.  But that's a different discussion entirely.  And I don't think peace activism requires a theory that prefers the men and women we send to war to endanger themselves unnecessarily.

          •  Again, it isn't war, it's annihilation at the end (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, CIndyCasella

            of a joy stick.

            Include in said is what has become a mercenary force  called the CIA that can be utilized by any president without a declaration of war.

            Did you forget that part?

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:04:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As opposed to the regular forces? (0+ / 0-)

              They're deployed all the time without declarations of war, authorizations to use force, etc.

              "Annihilation at the end of a joy stick" is an unwieldy turn of phrase.  I'll continue to use "war" if you don't mind.

              •  Then I get to use the term war crimes (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias, CIndyCasella

                and crimes against humanity and point you to the LOAC:

                http://usmilitary.about.com/...

                Clearly we've violated all three principles, constituting war crimes & crimes against humanity.  And we don't get to "redefine" the terms to suit us, unless the Constitution is null & void.

                I'm still searching that damn piece of paper, I can't seem to find where the POTUS gets to declare war or his private mercenary forces in the CIA can invade and attack another country...

                Could you show me?

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:49:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good question. (0+ / 0-)

                  50 USC § 413b.

                  There may come a day when LOAC is interpreted to render illegal what is widely viewed as lawful today, but I imagine that would happen after international law gets around to condemning the conduct of the Allies during World War II.  

                  •  It's lawful to target and kill innocent civilians (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    aliasalias, CIndyCasella

                    then posthumously declare the victims terrorists?

                    We did this during WWII?

                    Funny, the code you provided shows it went into effect in 2011,

                    Of the 300+ drone attacks since 2003, and 298 of them occurring since 2009, isn't it a bit late to "codify" these unconstitutional actions?

                    This sounds just like the retroactive immunity given to the Telecoms.

                    Who "widely views" these things as lawful?

                    Please don't claim Holder, he's the one who claimed "due process" was whatever the government wants it to mean:

                    http://www.motherjones.com/...

                    "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Holder said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:47:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't accept your characterization. (0+ / 0-)

                      And I'm not interested in a hypothetical.  You have a view that certain unprosecuted acts amount to war crimes.  The relevant convening authorities and criminal investigators tasked disagree.  That's who "widely" disagree with you.

                      You asked for the law authorizing the President to employ NSC special activities.  That's the law.  I'm not sure why you think it went into effect in 2011; the language explicitly describing the President's authority to employ covert action dates back to 1991.

                      •  These are not hypotheticals, they are occurring (0+ / 0-)

                        as we speak.

                        You see, I do know that "laws" are only enforced when it suits some agenda, not because it's the law.  Who stands in judgment when the State fails to do it's sworn duty in this case?

                        We know that in the Trayvon Martin case, the Fed's stepped in when the State failed to prosecute.

                        Who does this with the Federal Gov't?  So, your position is demonstrably incorrect here.

                        The powers granted to the POTUS cannot violate International Treaties we've signed on to.  The quoted section of Code you gave me doesn't grant him or his operatives immunity from prosecution for war crimes, period.

                        See Nuremberg Trials please. They've escaped prosecution because we still have the most powerful military on the planet.  When that changes, and sadly, history proves these types of institutions cannot last forever, when it crumbles, they can be held accountable for the actions today.

                        Then tell me those men & women that have been mislead  and lied into doing "a job" is legitimate.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:56:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site