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

[Freewill]

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.

BS, unsubstantiated BS.

 

[rightwinger]

Define the alternatives and what civilian casualties would incur in those cases

- armed invasions
- manned air strikes
- do nothing and allow unrestricted terrorist control in those areas

I'll take the drones

 

[Trajan]

Define the alternatives and what civilian casualties would incur in those cases

- armed invasions
- manned air strikes
- do nothing and allow unrestricted terrorist control in those areas

I'll take the drones

of course you would, one wonders what your thoughts were ala collateral damage under bush...I had no issue with it and I don't here under obama, it is unfortunate to be sure but ....

 

[rightwinger]

Define the alternatives and what civilian casualties would incur in those cases

- armed invasions
- manned air strikes
- do nothing and allow unrestricted terrorist control in those areas

I'll take the drones

of course you would, one wonders what your thoughts were ala collateral damage under bush...I had no issue with it and I don't here under obama, it is unfortunate to be sure but ....

Collateral damage under Bush came from "shock and awe" and civilians who were targeted by the enemy for collaborating with the Americans

I prefer drones

 

[Trajan]

Define the alternatives and what civilian casualties would incur in those cases

- armed invasions
- manned air strikes
- do nothing and allow unrestricted terrorist control in those areas

I'll take the drones

of course you would, one wonders what your thoughts were ala collateral damage under bush...I had no issue with it and I don't here under obama, it is unfortunate to be sure but ....

Collateral damage under Bush came from "shock and awe" and civilians who were targeted by the enemy for collaborating with the Americans

I prefer drones

what BS.......

snip-

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/w...ith-defense-policies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[R.C. Christian]

Obama murdered a 16 year old kid and his friend on the side of the road because he could. The kid was not a terrorist. Daddy was, and the kid was traveling to find his father who was previously murdered by Obama. Pathetic.

 

[rightwinger]

of course you would, one wonders what your thoughts were ala collateral damage under bush...I had no issue with it and I don't here under obama, it is unfortunate to be sure but ....

Collateral damage under Bush came from "shock and awe" and civilians who were targeted by the enemy for collaborating with the Americans

I prefer drones

what BS.......

snip-

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/w...ith-defense-policies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nobody got a free ride like Bush

All because Obama refused to prosecute

 

[Trajan]

Collateral damage under Bush came from "shock and awe" and civilians who were targeted by the enemy for collaborating with the Americans

I prefer drones

what BS.......

snip-

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/w...ith-defense-policies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nobody got a free ride like Bush

All because Obama refused to prosecute

you are so challenged.....I mean really....but thats what comes from taking Obamas side in every issue despite having taken opposing sides against bush on the same issues= lack of integrity.


so obama should be prosecuting himself for doing the same thing bush was doing? Will Holder go along with that?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

No one cares what the un has to say.

An American minor was killed, and not one liberal can manage anything more than a; meh

So the slaughter of brown people is meaningless.

 

[rightwinger]

what BS.......

snip-

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/w...ith-defense-policies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nobody got a free ride like Bush

All because Obama refused to prosecute

you are so challenged.....I mean really....but thats what comes from taking Obamas side in every issue despite having taken opposing sides against bush on the same issues= lack of integrity.


so obama should be prosecuting himself for doing the same thing bush was doing? Will Holder go along with that?

Democrats did not seriously investigate Bush because they were afraid of what they might find out. Otherwise we would know about...

9-11
Bogus Iraq invasion intel
Torture
Botched investigations of Gitmo prisoners

 

[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.

BS, unsubstantiated BS.

A rudimentary understanding of history substantiates it. Pity the poor fool that lacks such.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. ....

Once you have been deemed an enemy combatant you can be killed as part of the military action authorized by Congress,

whether you're an American or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

There was nothing in the article stating any US official was found guilty of ‘war crimes’ by any recognized international tribunal.

Consequently the UN official is expressing subjective opinion only.

Needless to say, the right would be condemning the UN official if Obama were a republican.

And no, the irony of the partisan right citing the UN favorably concerning the matter is lost on no one.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

It's crazy to think a way people worship, is a threat.

The use of drones, is American terrorism.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

The fundamental difference being that Jesus of Nazareth is not on-record time-and-time-and-time-again within the New Testament, giving permission to make war upon and to kill Nonbelievers and promising Paradise for those who die in the service of God or to advance The Faith.

Heck, I personally believe that even greater and more horrific slaughters have been committed by Christians throughout history than have been committed by Muslims, but that is largely attributable to the backward state of Europe for much of the past 2,000 years and its light-speed evolution and emergence in the past 400-500 years, and the mortal and fallible spin-doctoring done with the teachings of The Founder and his Followers, to convince Euro-Christian sheeple to go along with wars and such.

It is always possible for Christians to Press the Reset Button and reclaim Peace by citing the actual teachings and words of their Founder; however, unfortunately, when Muslims Press the Reset Button and cite the words and teachings of their Founder, we reset back to Bloodbath Time.

With respect to Peace, Islam's Reset Button has been broken since Day One, and, given that their Founder locked-out changes from Day One, there's no hope of fixing it. Those are the differences, with respect, and those differences are vast and highly significant.

But that's a conversation to pursue more vigorously in a Religion Forum.

 

[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.

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?

That sounds like (1), subdivided into Intended Deaths and Unintended Deaths

"...Is the US allowed by international law to attack any country they deem a threat?..."

War is a breach of International Law - at least under a majority of circumstances. It is the complete failure of political dialogue and a concession that international legal processes are not producing the desired result within the desired time-frame.

We are engaged in a long-term military and policing campaign against terrorism on a global basis and, to date, we have only utilized drones to attack over foreign airspace under circumstances where we (1) already have the permission (open or hidden) to attack or (2) have lost confidence in the ability of the Locals to deal with a substantive terror threat after repeated attempts to work through them.

We need no one's permission to make war.

For the handful of countries where we have undertaken drone attacks against terror targets, we have engaged in war-like actions against terrorists and terror-cells while hovering over foreign airspace - sometimes with permission and sometimes not - but never engaging in war-like actions against those governments nor intentionally causing collateral damage and casualties to innocent persons in close proximity to those targets. Insofar as I am aware, anyway.

"...Or just countries filled with brown people?..."

When we find a White People country sheltering Radical Islamist terrorists and terror cells on a large or dangerous scale, which cannot or will not deal with the problem on their own, then I am sure that we will contemplate drone-attacks there as well. Until then...

"...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?"

If France ever deteriorates to the point where the Government has all but lost control of one of its provinces (such as the Pakistani Government has largely lost control of the mountainous tribal regions of Waziristan), and Religious Fundamentalist anti-American and anti-Western terror cells begin operating from that lost French province, and if the French Army is afraid to go in there to get the bad guys because it's tried on numerous occasions and been driven back, well... come find me, and we'll talk about it seriously at that time.

 

[Freewill]

Collateral damage under Bush came from "shock and awe" and civilians who were targeted by the enemy for collaborating with the Americans

I prefer drones

what BS.......

snip-

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/w...ith-defense-policies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nobody got a free ride like Bush

All because Obama refused to prosecute

Prosecute what? Rendition? Too bad Obama didn't that would give us more reason to try Obama for the killing of at least 4 Americans.

 

[Freewill]

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. ....

Once you have been deemed an enemy combatant you can be killed as part of the military action authorized by Congress,

whether you're an American or not.

Who does this "deeming?"

 

[Kondor3]

Define the alternatives and what civilian casualties would incur in those cases

- armed invasions

- manned air strikes

- do nothing and allow unrestricted terrorist control in those areas

I'll take the drones

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. ....

Once you have been deemed an enemy combatant you can be killed as part of the military action authorized by Congress,

whether you're an American or not.

Who does this "deeming?"

Congress.