UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

[Freewill]

Is there ever going to be peace?

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announces investigation of civilians killed by US drone attacks

The UN's special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announced Thursday that the Human Rights Council at the UN will likely initiate an investigation into civilian deaths caused by the CIA and US military's use of drones and other targeted killing programs, and said that if certain allegations against the US prove true, he considers them serious enough to call "war crimes".

Ben Emmerson, at speech given at Harvard Law School on Thursday, said that he and his UN colleague—Christof Heyns, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions—are compelled to investigate the controversial programs because the US government has so far refused to answer even some of the most basic questions about how it justifies such programs or prove that it has put in necessary safeguards to prevent the death of civilians.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There will be no peace as long as there's islam. Fact. You're fucking crazy to think anything else.

 

[Sunni Man]

The U.S. government has even gone so far as to conduct drone attacks resulting in the death of American citizens who haven't been charged with a crime. ..

 

[Freewill]

There will be no peace as long as there's islam. Fact. You're fucking crazy to think anything else.

Off topic Matthew.

 

[Freewill]

The U.S. government has even gone so far as to conduct drone attacks resulting in the death of American citizens who haven't been charged with a crime. ..

Gibbs should change his name to Gobbels after this answer. It is chilling, it is cold it is spoken by a person who can't have a soul. But the left laps it up. Obama has a shitty father does Gibbs endorse the same treatment?

THIS is why this administration should be put on trial. The other stuff is bad but in this case they targeted Americans and then gave this BS answer for killing them and everyone around them.

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

 

[ScienceRocks]

I guess a air plane is illegal within your eyes. Since we been bombing countries for 100 years now I really doubt it.

Some people really are weird.

 

[deltex1]

Is there ever going to be peace?

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announces investigation of civilians killed by US drone attacks

The UN's special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announced Thursday that the Human Rights Council at the UN will likely initiate an investigation into civilian deaths caused by the CIA and US military's use of drones and other targeted killing programs, and said that if certain allegations against the US prove true, he considers them serious enough to call "war crimes".

Ben Emmerson, at speech given at Harvard Law School on Thursday, said that he and his UN colleague—Christof Heyns, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions—are compelled to investigate the controversial programs because the US government has so far refused to answer even some of the most basic questions about how it justifies such programs or prove that it has put in necessary safeguards to prevent the death of civilians.

Tell the ahole that there would be no need for drone strikes were it not for Islamo terrorism.

 

[Freewill]

I guess a air plane is illegal within your eyes. Since we been bombing countries for 100 years now I really doubt it.

Some people really are weird.

Don't even understand your response. The topic is the American use of drones to kill innocent people and the UN investigation.

The whole discussion about peace can be another topic. Certainly when we view the world and the conflicts in the world we see that those who hold to Islam are involved in almost if not all. But that is a topic for another day.

I am interested though what was the air plane remark even referring to?

 

[Freewill]

Is there ever going to be peace?

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announces investigation of civilians killed by US drone attacks

The UN's special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announced Thursday that the Human Rights Council at the UN will likely initiate an investigation into civilian deaths caused by the CIA and US military's use of drones and other targeted killing programs, and said that if certain allegations against the US prove true, he considers them serious enough to call "war crimes".

Ben Emmerson, at speech given at Harvard Law School on Thursday, said that he and his UN colleague—Christof Heyns, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions—are compelled to investigate the controversial programs because the US government has so far refused to answer even some of the most basic questions about how it justifies such programs or prove that it has put in necessary safeguards to prevent the death of civilians.

Tell the ahole that there would be no need for drone strikes were it not for Islamo terrorism.

Being the devil's advocate. I am getting out of your post that we should tell the UN that we completely trust the CIA and Obama to pick out the right targets. We also trust those who are tagging them on the ground, and receiving a bounty for doings so, can be trusted. We tell them that even though these people pose no immediate threat to the US we can justify killing them and anyone around them. We tell the UN that even though Obama said that targeting Americans was unconstitutional, and he did it, it is a never mind. We tell them that killing an innocent 16 year old American is OK because of "Islamo terrorism?" And we get pissed when they bring pressure cookers to Boston.

 

[Sunni Man]

Habeas Corpus has been the backbone of the American judicial system since the founding of our nation.

And is what protects us from government excess and abuse.

Yet, there are brain dead citizens who applaud it's suspension in the name of security and political expediency.

And support the drone killing of American citizens who haven't been charge with any crime.

This is a black hole with no visible bottom. ....

 

[Trajan]

I didn't give a crap what the UN said under bush and I don't give a crap here....

 

[RoadVirus]

Is there ever going to be peace?

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announces investigation of civilians killed by US drone attacks

So.....when is this UN bureaucracy going to investigate civilian deaths caused by radical Islamists?

 

[Freewill]

Is there ever going to be peace?

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announces investigation of civilians killed by US drone attacks

So.....when is this UN bureaucracy going to investigate civilian deaths caused by radical Islamists?

I don't know if it is in their charter to do so but I am not sure what they could do. They send in UN "peace keeping" forces a various times.

 

[Kondor3]

Any objective analysis can divide all such deaths into three distinct categories:

1. deaths occurring as a result of legitimate combat strikes, in which no mistakes were made in targeting

2. deaths occurring as a result of legitimate combat strikes, in which mistakes were made in targeting

3. deaths occurring as a result of the intentional targeting of innocents

...sub-divided into the deaths of enemies / combatants / intended targets, and unintended collateral casualties.

And, it seems highly likely that it is only within the realm of (3) that charges of War Crimes have any snowball's chance in hell of sticking.

And, so far, I'm not sure that we have any solid examples of (3) to play with, anyway.

Nothing will come of this...

Another UN circle-jerk that ends-up rotating faster and faster round its axis until it finally disappears up its own arsehole.

 

[National Socialist]

Guess all those women and kids the drones are murdering are terrorists eh? Good ole Amurican policy...

 

[NYcarbineer]

There will be no peace as long as there's islam. Fact. You're fucking crazy to think anything else.

They would have said that about Catholicism a few hundred years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another conservative intramural squabble...

...this one over whether or not we should relinquish our sovereignty to the UN.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is more or less out the philosophy of Rand Paul's BFF, Jack Hunter, the infamous Southern Avenger,

who said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much terrorist acts as 9/11.

 

[FA_Q2]

There will be no peace as long as there's islam. Fact. You're fucking crazy to think anything else.

US kills innocents in a targeted attack and you blame Islam. You realize how insane that is, right?

No matter if the deaths were justified or not, your response is seriously lacking.

 

[Freewill]

Any objective analysis can divide all such deaths into three distinct categories:

1. deaths occurring as a result of legitimate combat strikes, in which no mistakes were made in targeting

2. deaths occurring as a result of legitimate combat strikes, in which mistakes were made in targeting

3. deaths occurring as a result of the intentional targeting of innocents

...sub-divided into the deaths of enemies / combatants / intended targets, and unintended collateral casualties.

And, it seems highly likely that it is only within the realm of (3) that charges of War Crimes have any snowball's chance in hell of sticking.

And, so far, I'm not sure that we have any solid examples of (3) to play with, anyway.

Nothing will come of this...

Another UN circle-jerk that ends-up rotating faster and faster round its axis until it finally disappears up its own arsehole.

How about a combination of 1 and 3? The legitimate target was killed but along side the target there are many innocents? Such as when the 16 year old was killed. He was not a legitimate target but let's assume he might have been. He was blown up in a road side restaurant with a stinger missile, how many more were killed?

Is the US allowed by international law to attack any country they deem a threat? Or just countries filled with brown people? What if the same terrorist were in France, do you think there is a snowball's chance in hell we would get away with killing the "legitimate" target along with a bunch of Frenchmen?