Targeted Killings with Drones legal defence AG Eric Holder

Be like Nutella

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=safari&q=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&oq=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...9933l16545l0l19057l15l12l0l0l0l0l996l4664l2-1j1j0j1j4l7l0.frgbld.&mvs=0

Sickened me .... may not be right place to post... Can't think of better

This just makes me once and for all lose faith in law... It seems you really can argue anything at all.

The use of the reason of : when we can't go in and try and capture with a platoon coz the country won't like it etc therefore we choose the option of drone strike as convenience dictates is so wrong... Im paraphrasing but he deffinately uses that as a supporting argument along with the 'because it is armed conflict' we can do these killings without due process coz it's war is messed up...

The collateral damage ie hundreds if not thousands of innocents killed which includes children 'not on a battlefield' plus the lack of due process plus the fact it's being done in a country with which they are not at war with plus the obvious result of breeding further hatred and assumingly multiplying willing jihadists is just all so very very wrong.... The legal argument is based on a self created false world of crap and as with all things legal nobody but legal guys get it... even though they may lack any historical or moral understanding of the issue .... and lastly the painfully obvious crap of president appointed AG to support a presidents program is the last straw really... This holder guy should be so ashamed.

Be like Nutella

My main contention is one of morality. I put to you that it is substantially easier to make a decision to use a robot to kill some people far away from your own population in a manner which puts no troops life at risk and can be justified based on your governments stated controversial position that.. 'you are at War' and therefore MUST take war measures of self defence anywhere and anytime once you feel the future risk of the targeted person is beyond some arbitrary threshold point and therefore justifies the use of lethal force which will in most instances definitely result in the loss of innocent lives which can and has on at least 50 occasions included children. You know... just shredding kids with supersonic hellfire missiles from unmanned flying robots operated by a couple of jocks sitting in Langley Virginia 7 thousand miles away.

I think there are many issues at play here, here's just a few.

IF I agree that the US is at war with 'Terror' ... in the world... then I still think they should try to capture and try these suspected individuals and if this is not 'convenient' I think that the option of using unmanned robots to therefore arguably indiscriminately slaughter people is not a 'Moral' choice and is in fact an immoral choice the responsibility for which lies with the president ...Bush who first authorized their use and now even more so Obama who on entering office immediately ramped up the strategy of targeted Killing by Predator Drone Strikes.

If I don't agree there is a war... which I don't coz they’re clearly isn't... then these acts are illegal AND Immoral in so many ways to make a lawyer do a head spin and the Geneva convention burn like the devil himself had picked it up... and knowing the history of cooperation or lack thereof between the US and the ICC this is a null point. So when I see AG Eric Holder stand up in North Western University defending his authorization of drone assassinations citing as one of his supporting motives, 'Liberty', I instantly know the game at play is clear and simple: Create a domestically air tight legal framework based on arbitrarily designed parameters such as 'The War on Terror' and 'Armed Conflict' and 'Self Defence' and 'pre-emptive War' and walk the population through the argument basing each action on the assumption of the validation of the previous stated 'facts' and so forth until you're there, and nobody ends in jail or worse yet in front of a Senate Commission.

The military industrial complex that conspiracy folks talk about is unfortunately quite real although inconveniently very complex, and the development of Drones over the last 60 years is a colossal business. Just as with other weapons systems its constituents (General Atomics, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon etc) and those individuals and groups that stand to gain from their increased use in more prominent roles heavily and unfairly lobby those who would govern their use which has blurred the objectivity one would hope is central to the decisions on their use. Just another major moral issue which disserves serious scrutiny.

The socio-political landscape in the US is one right now which is not conducive to putting troops in harm’s way when there is what seems to be a 'smarter' option available which so happens to negate any actual system of justice coming into play unless of course you regard a 'suspected low level possible future suicide bomber being shredded alongside his two 5 year old daughters and his mother while sitting down for dinner by a supersonic hellfire missile in his shack in North West Waziristan' ...as Justice... in which case you'd love the movie 'Minority Report'.
The issue here is of course morality again as the decision framework involved is not purely militaristic, as it of course would be, were this a genuine war on a battlefield etc where politics best not get in the way of generals lest it get its ass kicked.

Political social pressure forming military strategy, involving the all too easy option of robotic flying death bots, does not a good moral compass make. All of the above has directly contributed to the unnecessary and totally immoral, and I believe fruitless, massacre of well over 2000 people over 7 years a small percentage of which, ever represented any future threat to the US or its interests in any way shape or form.

- Essentially assassinating a suspect in a country you're not at war with
- without due process or even an attempt to capture them because of diplomatic complications
- And in the process killing innocents with virtually every strike and often while missing the intended target
- and stupidly creating more vengeful jihadists in the process (just think how many hard IRA men were formed by the killing of those IRA guys in Malta years ago)

The whole thing rests on the arbitrary designation of this US vs Extremist Islamists situation as 'War' which it clearly is not. This 'War on terror' is not a war it's just a bull**** phrase. Yes there are many jihadist terrorists out there in Al Qaeda and other groups who wish to do the US and in some cases Britain harm and I don't agree with them in any way but surely doing these brutal assassinations with unmanned robots killing thousands of innocents on such a large scale and continued over such a long period is no better than what these terrorists do?

This was a drone strike in '06

Wiki :

30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.




It's not up to me whether anything is legal or not but if this Global War on Terror isn't provably a War as the term is and always has been used then AG Eric Holder can't make the corollary to 'armed conflict' which allows him to logically Sanitise/legalise the 'lethal act' changing the descriptive word from assassination
(illegal under existing executive order 12333 part 2.11 ‘No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.‘)
to ‘targeted killing’, as an act of pre-emptive self defence under duress during a time of War which is internationally legal.

My point is simply that there are too many arbitrarily defined steps in his legal summary and that is all AG Holders speech is… a mere summary and does not in any way deal with the details which would be required in a hearing in the ICC in The Hague should that ever happen.

Each one supports the next part which supports the next part in a desperate attempt to mumbo jumbo us into moving away from the glaring truth about how we feel morally about the acts, acts I might add which are made in the clear light of day away from the fog of any so called WAR and without any risk to US troops.
This is clearly assassinating people (as the term is and has been used) by their HUNDREDS without trial, under narrow executive control, using methods that make such acts easier to decide to execute, and which has caused the deaths of so many innocent people as to potentially categorize the acts as indiscriminate civilian murder and which on a number of documented occasions has caused the death of US citizens and in doing so treads on constitutional issues (5th AMD) so broadly and blatantly as to constitutionally REQUIRE proper national legal debate on the issue as it pertains to the protection of rights AND the most disgusting part is that AG Holder then just decides to MORPH yet another vernacular term 'Due Process', telling us all that Due Process DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO EQUAL DUE JUDICIAL PROCESS, and that in the course of war the presidents chosen oversight mechanism (i.e. in this case narrowly executive) IS the Due Process and so we should be content and well.. shut up.... basically.

This stuff isn't even debatable in the minds of most people. What they're doing is wrong, is killing hundreds maybe thousands of innocent people including children and women (already similar to total 9/11 deaths raising the issue of disproportionality) and IS NOT DUE PROCESS...How can it be?
Do I argue that military stop on a battlefield, read Miranda rights and carry out due process no I do not because that's WAR on a battlefield hence the name battlefield and the existence of an actual battle. This on the other hand is black ops, run by the CIA who own and operate the drones (and the Justice dept which is part of the exec involved) and has nothing to do with War or A WAR or A BATTLE or A BATTLEFIELD or even AN ARMED CONFLICT. Who in their right mind thinks that raining Hellfire missiles from flying robotic unseen Drones at a funeral group is armed conflict? The only thing conflicting is the weak arguments AG Koh and now AG Eric Holder uses to support what they've done and are doing right now and will be doing more of in the future, unfortunately.

“There is a real war in Afghanistan and it extends across the border into Pakistan.”

The War in Afghanistan is certainly a war, against the insurgent Taliban who were kicked out of power by the US who claimed they were harbouring AQ after 9/11 hence the bombing and then invasion and then nation building 'efforts'. However, this war in Afghanistan is absolutely not the main stated driver for the drone program of targeted killing in Pakistani tribal areas and legally it can't be, as there have been many instances where Al Qaeda members were targeted and killed NOT because they were deemed to present a credible, material or imminent risk ‘specific’ to US forces in actual armed conflict over the border in Afghanistan but because they were deemed AQ planners of attacks against America as pertains to the ‘Global War on Terror’ or GWOT. In other words these guys were considered central or party to the possible future organisation or planning of a terrorist attack on America i.e. they may have done absolutely nothing towards this yet, but were considered a great risk of doing so in the future. The level of this risk is not measureable and is arbitrarily RATED by a narrow executive group including the President and his advisors including AG Holder based on things like ‘observed behavior’ ! Observed behaviour? And now my house is blown up and my daughter and wife dead. Nice.

Before AG Eric Holder there was AG ‘Koh’ who argued a few years ago that:

"… a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

The obvious problem here, which suits Koh nicely but not a shredded bunch of 4 year old Pakistani kids as much, is,
THAT DRONES ARE NEW, DRONE USE IS NEW, THEIR DEVELOPMENT WAS SECRET THEREFORE INTERNATIONAL LAW DOES NOT GOVERN THE USE OF DRONES AS KILLING WEAPONS...IT'S SO OBVIOUS IT HURTS YOUR BRAIN. THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK HAS NOT KEPT UP WITH THE HORRIFIC EVENTS IN REALITY BECAUSE NOBODY ENVISAGED ANYONE BEING SO BRUTAL AND IMMORAL WITH FLYING ROBOTIC WEAPON TECHNOLOGY.



Approx 290 US Predator Drone Strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 have killed maybe a few hundred Taliban fighters, approx 50 Al Qaeda people and somewhere in the region of 2000 others including children and women and innocent bystanders.

Legal concerns in no specific order

·Firing Hellfire missiles remotely at visibly unarmed non-belligerent terrorist targets from a position of absolute safety involving absolutely no risk to US lives brings up the issue of proportionality, use of lethal force and accountability especially when considering attacks happening ON a location of non-persistent conflict between both parties i.e. Waziristan
·within an extensively observed group that visibly includes civilians, women and in many cases children. The Predator weapon system allows significant observation of intended targets which increases the need for oversight and justification of action and analysis of decision of execution and possible recourse related to these decisions i.e. The ICC should have access to the chain of events from target acquisition to observance details to the decision to strike to the weapon used and the resulting analysis of the strike itself.
·and so in many cases the decision for the remote release of a weapon 'guarantees’ NOT ‘RISKS’ the deaths of innocents
·and by the sheer number of executed attacks of this kind carried out since 2004, ‘290’ … which have been meticulously and publicly documented and have killed between 2 and 3 thousand people, can therefore be argued to be 'disproportionate' and
·Clearly be categorised as extra-judicial killing. (i.e. Not reflective of American 5th AMD protections of due process which has always been considered to mean DUE JUDICIAL PROCESS and Illegal under Executive Order 12333 part 2.2)
·Including conscious indiscriminate killing of civilians in the case of M.A.L.E. weapons as the Predator is, specifically designed to loiter over targets recording real time high definition imagery of target groups leaving the command structure to make decisions on taking out a 'group' which has a high likelihood of containing the target and by doing so consciously accept in advance the killing of sometimes ‘many’ (important) innocents in a situation which is lacking in any real duress or fog of war or necessity for violent reactive self defensive measures as is present and sometimes excusable during real armed conflict during war on a battlefield. (consider 2 Drone pilots with 'Britney mics' sitting in arcade game type cockpits with consoles including joysticks and with a telephone in front of them sitting in an air conditioned office in CIA HQ Langley Virginia looking at chrystal clear images of a family and friends taking part in a funeral procession)
·In an area not reasonably considered a battlefield (where persistent military conflict occurs between parties) in that the firing of a Hellfire missile travelling at supersonic speed from an unseen unstoppable high altitude robotic unmanned flying platform, cannot be described as ‘armed conflict’, especially when the supposed 'belligerents' are observed in many cases to be visibly unarmed clearly in a passive state of 'non-conflict'.(and by their location far away from armed conflict not nexpecting to be in conflict)
·by course of a decision and command structure and mechanism clearly designed to be non-transparent i.e. the executive branch… just think of that photo of Obama and the guys sitting in that room during the OBL raid in Pakistan… exactly the same command and oversight)
· which has not withstood national legal debate and criticism even though those in command claim publicly that these attacks are reflective of the VALUES of Americans.


______________________________________________

Run it through a mental exercise.

Ok you are a Chinese Special Ops Commander and you've got terrorist problems! Mainly regional separatists and this separatist guy is hiding out in a Cartel controlled region in northern Mexico and you have to get this guy because your People's Congress in Beijing has passed the law authorizing you to use any force necessary to get the job done because of the attacks on Shanghai and Beijing during the Olympics so screw international legality just send in the Yilong drones and take him out! Right? coz you’ve already got the congressional mandate and are at least domestically legally justified, according to your AG anyway.

How blatantly illogical and weakly justified it rightly seems, and is, when you change up the perspectives and imagine the international reactions in hypothetical parallel scenarios.

Now tell it again, except this time change the memes

'China' for America
'Regional separatists' for Al Qaeda
'The National People's Congress in Beijing' for Congress in Washington
‘Shanghai and Beijing’ for New York and Washington
'The Olympics' for 2001
'Cartel controlled region in northern Mexico' for 'lawless tribal controlled region of Pakistan'
'Yilong' for Predator Drones

Ok so you are an American Special Ops Commander and you've got terrorist problems! Mainly Al Qaeda and this AQ guy is hiding out in a lawless tribal controlled region of Pakistan and you have to get this guy because your congress in Washington has passed the law authorizing you to use any force necessary to get the job done because of the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 so screw international legality just send in the Predator Drones and take him out! Right? coz you’ve already got the congressional mandate and are at least domestically legally justified, according to your AG anyway.

If China did anything that even sounded like 'executing hundreds of Yilong Drone Strikes’ in Mexico, which is very close to America, just because they thought a terrorist leader was hiding out there and they needed to head off some terrorist attack this guy COULD plan in the future armed with their political mandate on the back of national outrage and anger because of a massive terrorist attack during the Olympics and they couldn't count on a corrupt Mexican government to either do it themselves or officially allow access because of possible political ramifications and social repercussions… well there's no point thinking about it... it couldn't happen and wouldn't happen!!
Yet that's what the US has done for 7 years, 290 times that we know of. First Bush and then even moreso Obama who has carried out 5 times the number of Drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan than Bush did, beginning in June 2004.




(and by the way Pakistan borders China)





Source:
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

snafuk35

I'll let Dan Breen have the last word because the same logic applies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTS09G__CqQ

Torakx

America have been cruising for a bruising for a very long time.In some ways if it comes down to it, I kind of hope the US army gets its karma balanced out.Go China!

In saying that people under chinese rule in smaller countries might be shouting Go America!

Sollution? Literally linch up the people involved with instigating war including the rothchild,rockerfeller types involved.

I agree with Dan Breen there.But he probably grew up without a tv, so compliance was not an issue that needed to be overcome as much as today.
The time to rise up and nip it in the bud was a long time ago in Ireland.Maybe back in the 80's or 90's.At least before the euro.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Go China!

I'm not sure I'm behind you there, China indulges in a lot more control, state spying, intrusion, censorship, crushing dissent than almost any other major power. Odd to find conspiracy theorists or other who support such a government

Torakx

If you really think i support China you are not reading between the lines enough..or the rest of my post.
Or you just dont like me(correction-my posts) lol

snafuk35

Torakx wrote: »

America have been cruising for a bruising for a very long time.In some ways if it comes down to it, I kind of hope the US army gets its karma balanced out.Go China!

In saying that people under chinese rule in smaller countries might be shouting Go America!

Sollution? Literally linch up the people involved with instigating war including the rothchild,rockerfeller types involved.

I agree with Dan Breen there.But he probably grew up without a tv, so compliance was not an issue that needed to be overcome as much as today.
The time to rise up and nip it in the bud was a long time ago in Ireland.Maybe back in the 80's or 90's.At least before the euro.

The point I was making is that in war you use any and every means to kill the enemy and to win.

It doesn't matter if the enemy is on the battlefield firing at you or if he is at home watching TV or asleep in his bed.

You kill him!

The US have every right to kill these terrorists wherever and whenever they can find them.
This is war and there have been no more 9/11s thanks to the ruthless extermination of terrorist killers.

Brown Bomber

snafuk35 wrote: »

The point I was making is that in war you use any and every means to kill the enemy and to win.

Perhaps your point should more accurately reflect the situation. The US is not in a "war" with Yemen. The US is not in a "war" with Pakistan. The US is certainly not in a war with tribal villagers, including children that it kills from the skies, attacking funerals with drones or making strategic return drone strikes after family members (elderly, women, children etc) and other villagers have come out to aid the injured from the first wave of attacks.

snafuk35 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the enemy is on the battlefield firing at you or if he is at home watching TV or asleep in his bed.

Yes it does. It's called international law.

snafuk35 wrote: »

You kill him!

The Maxim of a terrorist.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The US have every right to kill these terrorists wherever and whenever they can find them.

So you'd be in favour of US air strikes taking out whole apartment buildings in Florida and Hamburg killing scores of innocent US and German civilians in attempts to get to Atta pre-9-11?

An then you can turn it on it's head. Israel has been financing and arranging (through terrorist organisations Jundullah and MEK) terrorist attacks against Iran. Literal state-sponsored terrorism. By your logic Iran now has the right to take out Israel's terrorist leaders, without due process, by any means and wherever they find them.

snafuk35 wrote: »

This is war and there have been no more 9/11s thanks to the ruthless extermination of terrorist killers.

This POV is incredibly naive but sadly all to common. This so-called campaign of ruthless "extermination of terrorist killers" kills more civilians and even livestock than so-called "terrorists"

It creates terrorists, common sense dictates it. Such as the would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahad. Under oath he specifically cited US drone attacks on his familes tribal homeland as the cause of his radicalisation.

Insurgent Math’ is an arithmetic championed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was the commander of U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan before Obama impressed him into the American army of the unemployed. ‘Insurgent Math’ holds that, “for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.”

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

If you really think i support China you are not reading between the lines enough..or the rest of my post.
Or you just dont like me(correction-my posts) lol

Yeah, I agree. Anti-the barbarism of empire moreso than pro-China. If anything pro a counterweight to US global hedgemony that leads them to making the committing of murder without due process legal when committed by them.

Jonny7
China indulges in a lot more control, state spying, intrusion, censorship, crushing dissent

On that and somewhat on topic

US skies to be full of drones

The American skies may soon be full of drones after it was disclosed that domestic law enforcement agencies – from the FBI to local police – have been granted permission to deploy the unmanned aircraft.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9219787/US-skies-to-be-full-of-drones.html

Brown Bomber

Be Like Nutella, this is worth the watch should you have the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9kdx6GQAo8

SOME SCENES DISTRESSING

enno99

Innocent babies been taken out of the rubble Sorry I watched that now

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Innocent babies been taken out of the rubble Sorry I watched that now

Sorry enno. Iäll add a warning.

enno99

There would be no right time to watch it

But it needs to be seen

golden lane

it seems that people who feel they are not in danger....think they have a right to tell people who feel they are in danger.....how to behave.......i do not get this....

there is only one international law that stands the test of someone being killed......the law that says you kill your enemy first..... the law of self preservation....the people who did not adhere to that law.......will never complain...they are dead......not you, the critis isers.......you are alive and well........civilians have been killed all around the world...by all sides who have been at war.....yes we would rather it didn't happen...but it did......

let the victims governments or otherwise protect themselves and their people in every way they know how........or do you want them to sacrifice their own lives.....

Be like Nutella

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/institutes/ilp/targetedkilling/papers/AlstonCIABeyondBorders.pdf

One of the main problems as always with perceived injustices like this is that they're so emotionally charged it can be hard to articulate reasonable arguments. I usually end up ranting on etc well I've been trying to understand the legal perspectives on this for weeks now as a 'lay person' and this author and subsequently his paper above has really nailed it down for me. Basically this guy Philip Alston was the UN's point man on executions and targeted killings etc for a number of years culminating in his presentation of a report on the drone strikes which was fairly damming to the US and was in effect ignored. Since then he's been teaching Human Rights Law at NYU but still managed to produce a scholarly paper on 'Targeted Killings' (which is up to date ie completed last year after the OBL killing) and is linked above. It is extremely comprehensive and is I reckon a scientifically unignorable argument pushing for the international community to demand the US to allow appropriate access to their executive insofar as to assess the legality of these targeted killings in respect to humanitarian and human rights law concerning armed conflict and non armed conflict scenarios. The guy is very passionate on the issue and was more than willing to get into a debate with me by email sending me his paper etc . Personally I obviously find these attacks in Pakistan abhorrent and now that I understand the legal aspect of it, to some degree, I'm left completely confused as to how this issue has not received more attention. On the basis that people may not read the hundred page legal paper, although there actually isn't too much legal mumbo jumbo, I'll post what I reckon is the main thrust of the thing in bullets here soon. And if you want to get the really short version just type 'Philip Aston YouTube' into Google and you'll see some interviews 'democracy now' etc in which he manages to articulate his viewpoint in a few minutes... the legal perspective is not half as fun as shouting at eachother but I've learned over last few weeks little things like the rules or war, geneva, Hague conventions and the activities of human rights lawyers in respect to all the armed conflicts especially in the last 30/40 years have been so civilisationally defining, hugely important I wish I'd tried law myself.

Be like Nutella

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/10870

Interview Philip Alston - Legal concerns

Be like Nutella

Thanks for the Yemen Doc Bomber! That smug political analyst dude knows his sh1t... and clearly more than he was sharing.. prob why he's still breathing fresh air : )
The US has broken laws. Their CIA drone program is internationally Unaccountable and should other countries take their lead from these illegal immoral drone assassinations then a lot of innocent civilians across the world from Chechnya to Columbia to Northern China are so fukced! Since 9/11 the US can forever say that terrorists will strike them however whenever and wherever they can and therefore fcuk international law or normatives we're gona do what we want and our goal is purely patriotic and unaffected by things like greedy survivalist regimes, creation of martyrs, oil security or the military industrial complex ie General Atomics pitching new drone platforms at a belt tightening DOD. (search for General Atomics Predator Avenger Procurement)

This stuffs really starting to piss me off. Give me a few million euro, a few HR lawyers, a few friendly journalists, an internet connection and an office and you could shut this **** down in 12 months I reckon... that's the most annoying part. The ****ing young girl talking about her brothers being killed by that air strike was, how should I term this.... enraging. How can anyone anywhere defend that? Please try

Torakx

Like i said in an other thread.
Most likely it is some psychopath at the head of all this pushing it forward.
Because obviously ANYONE who goes out to kill innocents knowingly is a murderer and must not have much in the way of empathy at all.
I suppose army trained personal actually doing the dirty work is only just slightly different, in that they are murderers, but woefully/willfully ignorant of their cause.

My own oppinion of international law is derived from what i have researched myself on human rights and general maritime laws.Not alot on war though.

I think myself that its sometimes not worth the paper its written on..unless you have a strong enough deterrent to prevent murderers doing their work or can give them something they want.

People have been trying to impeach criminals over the 9/11 murders and still have had absolutely no success in being allowed to bring these people to justice.
Following the laws written by tyrants to me is playing at their game and you will lose nearly every time.

snafuk35

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps your point should more accurately reflect the situation. The US is not in a "war" with Yemen. The US is not in a "war" with Pakistan. The US is certainly not in a war with tribal villagers, including children that it kills from the skies, attacking funerals with drones or making strategic return drone strikes after family members (elderly, women, children etc) and other villagers have come out to aid the injured from the first wave of attacks.

Islamist terrorist groups who do not recognise borders were operating throughout the Middle East and the US is zapping them with drones.
Civilians die in all wars.
Are you going to tell me there shouldn't have been a 1916 Rising because civilians died?

Yes it does. It's called international law.

International law doesn't exist. Don't give me that hogwash.

The Maxim of a terrorist.

This is war. You kill the enemy before he kill you. If he didn't want to be zapped from sky then too bad.

So you'd be in favour of US air strikes taking out whole apartment buildings in Florida and Hamburg killing scores of innocent US and German civilians in attempts to get to Atta pre-9-11?

Florida and Hamburg have police forces that can surround apartment buildings and swat teams that can go in and take them out. Afghanistan or Yemen is different where militants live in areas that controlled by the Taliban and where the FBI can't simply walk in with an arrest warrant. That's when military force has to be used. The terrorists hide among the civilian population using them as a shield. Civilian deaths are inevitable.

An then you can turn it on it's head. Israel has been financing and arranging (through terrorist organisations Jundullah and MEK) terrorist attacks against Iran. Literal state-sponsored terrorism. By your logic Iran now has the right to take out Israel's terrorist leaders, without due process, by any means and wherever they find them.

Iran is an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship which is bent on the nuclear destruction of the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel is a democracy, a liberal, tolerant society under attack from Islamic fundamentalist fanatics who are raining rockets on the country. If you support a second Holocaust that is your business. Don't expect the Jews to walk meekly into the gas chambers and ovens. Israel have every right to support groups who will help them to take out Iranian nuclear scientists.

This POV is incredibly naive but sadly all to common. This so-called campaign of ruthless "extermination of terrorist killers" kills more civilians and even livestock than so-called "terrorists"

That's just your opinion. The facts are that hundreds of key Islamist leaders are toast and thousands of terrorists were dead.

It creates terrorists, common sense dictates it.

Rubbish. Did bombing Nazi Germany create more Nazis? In war you kill the enemy until there is no more enemy but peace.

Such as the would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahad. Under oath he specifically cited US drone attacks on his familes tribal homeland as the cause of his radicalisation.

Since 9/11 there has been no repeat on American soil.
The terrorists have their butts kicked.
America is not going to let up killing these pukes to keep peaceniks like you safe.
The brave men and women who are defeating the enemy on your behalf are not looking for your thanks or your gratitude because they haven't asked for it.
You are entitled to your crazy anti-American views because your freedom is garanteed by the US military.

Jeboa Safari

Regarding drones, what do people think of the Irish made components found in the drone shot down in Sudan, who are said to have got it from Iran? Tillotson involved in some shady deals or is the director genuine?

Tzar Chasm

First off, international law is a very real thing despite its existance not suiting your position, the EU is founded and run on international law, but a prime example here might be the geneva cnvention.

Secondly by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for Iran to rain missiles down on Israel because they are enemies, and that's whst you do in war.

Or is it only acceptable for the side you propose to support to indiscriminatly assassinate political enemies and slaughter civilians?

Atlantis50

Be like Nutella wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=safari&q=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&oq=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...9933l16545l0l19057l15l12l0l0l0l0l996l4664l2-1j1j0j1j4l7l0.frgbld.&mvs=0

Sickened me .... may not be right place to post... Can't think of better

This just makes me once and for all lose faith in law... It seems you really can argue anything at all.

The use of the reason of : when we can't go in and try and capture with a platoon coz the country won't like it etc therefore we choose the option of drone strike as convenience dictates is so wrong... Im paraphrasing but he deffinately uses that as a supporting argument along with the 'because it is armed conflict' we can do these killings without due process coz it's war is messed up...

The collateral damage ie hundreds if not thousands of innocents killed which includes children 'not on a battlefield' plus the lack of due process plus the fact it's being done in a country with which they are not at war with plus the obvious result of breeding further hatred and assumingly multiplying willing jihadists is just all so very very wrong.... The legal argument is based on a self created false world of crap and as with all things legal nobody but legal guys get it... even though they may lack any historical or moral understanding of the issue .... and lastly the painfully obvious crap of president appointed AG to support a presidents program is the last straw really... This holder guy should be so ashamed.

Shouldn't this be in the US Politics forum as it's a government policy and not a conspiracy theory? Classing it as a 'conspiracy theory' denigrates the serious points you are making.

Torakx

We have tried porting "ct's" into the mainstream.
If it doesnt fit with the current system of thought, people will reject it for that reason alone from my experience.

Alot of people especially those highly educated in the mechanics of any Ct topic being discussed, suffer from an inherent focus on the mechanics and supposed facts as if they were written by god himself.
These become associated or somehow identified as being a part of their ego and so it becomes hard for those people to accept any theory that they had not already clung on to.

Much like the way a CT'er would cling to a conspiracy because they wish to believe the world is a certain way.
It takes a long time to find that balance and most simply do not allow their egos or fears to let go unfortunately.

This is just my presumption based on the many times i have met with unreasoned criticism on these forums and another example was when i tried to bring to question fractional reserve banking in the economics section.
Its like people sometimes lose the ability to step back from that which they are closely involved in or have high stakes in and miss some of the most basic things about said systems mechanics.
So basic that it is nearly unexplainable when something is so obvious.

Like if i said the sky is blue..and someone said no its not..sometimes i dont know how to expand on that but say " the sky is blue!"
Maybe bad example but im sure my point is more or less taken.i hope lol

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

We have tried porting "ct's" into the mainstream.
If it doesnt fit with the current system of thought, people will reject it for that reason alone from my experience.

Alot of people especially those highly educated in the mechanics of any Ct topic being discussed, suffer from an inherent focus on the mechanics and supposed facts as if they were written by god himself.
These become associated or somehow identified as being a part of their ego and so it becomes hard for those people to accept any theory that they had not already clung on to.

Much like the way a CT'er would cling to a conspiracy because they wish to believe the world is a certain way.
It takes a long time to find that balance and most simply do not allow their egos or fears to let go unfortunately.

This is just my presumption based on the many times i have met with unreasoned criticism on these forums and another example was when i tried to bring to question fractional reserve banking in the economics section.
Its like people sometimes lose the ability to step back from that which they are closely involved in or have high stakes in and miss some of the most basic things about said systems mechanics.
So basic that it is nearly unexplainable when something is so obvious.

Like if i said the sky is blue..and someone said no its not..sometimes i dont know how to expand on that but say " the sky is blue!"
Maybe bad example but im sure my point is more or less taken.i hope lol

Well, I guess the easy thing is to blame everyone else for the failure of "CT's" to gain any traction.

Tzar Chasm

in fairness Torakx makes a valid and balanced point.

Bertrand Russell says it better

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. ~ Bertrand Russell

hooradiation

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

in fairness Torakx makes a valid and balanced point.

Not really - the mistake both you and Torakx are making is that rejection of the "CT" ideas is an assurance that it's correct and people simply don't get it, as opposed to evidence that it may well be wrong.

The Bertrand Russell quote you supplied by way of 'proof by quotation' exposes the self same issue - though I doubt that was your intent.

To make the point a bit clearer - failure to convince people of your viewpoint is only proof that you've failed to convince people of your viewpoint. Nothing more.

Torakx

Actually i embrace productive criticism.It helps me reach a higher level of research when i need to respond.

If you search my posts there are certainly times when i am onjective aswell.
In saying that..the dicussion on this thread is another topic to the example i gave and so isnt a great comparison for my point either.

My response was to the question of why the CT isnt in a mainstream forum and i think my point still stands.
Doesnt mean that all CT's are correct.
Im just pointing out human nature and the reason why i also come to these type of forums to discuss important issues rather than one where the majority are not so open minded.

Yes i know "cters" also can be just as closed minded.But i can say what i wish here and speculate more freely on reality than i can in other forums.

enno99

The United States has begun launching drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen under new authority approved by President Obama that allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known, U.S. officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop

More innocents to be slaughtered what a f*cked up world we are living in

Jonny7

enno99 wrote: »

The United States has begun launching drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen under new authority approved by President Obama that allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known, U.S. officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop

More innocents to be slaughtered what a f*cked up world we are living in

What's the conspiracy theory?

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy theory?

heres page 1 incase you missed it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056602622

Torakx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop

The policy shift marks a significant expansion of the clandestine drone war against an al-Qaeda affiliate that has seized large ­pieces of territory in Yemen and is linked to a series of terrorist plots against the United States.

To me that reads:

The policy shift marks a significant expansion of the American's drone war against an american affiliate that has seized large ­pieces of territory in Yemen and is linked to a series of imaginary terrorist plots against the United States.