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

  •  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