|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-23-2012, 09:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The CIA has requested more drones in the war against terror... 
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938) When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets. Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680) 
|
|
#2
10-23-2012, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#3
10-24-2012, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-24-2012, 06:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
who needs gitmo when you just kill people? don't you think it's better that way? all the innocent bystanders taken out-well, they should have been living near a better sort of people.
|
|
#5
10-24-2012, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
innocent bystanders = militants
|
|
#6
10-24-2012, 07:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
10-24-2012, 07:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/is_drone_war_moral/
Protocol I of the Geneva Convention clearly states that there is a legal requirement to accept the surrender of an individual who expresses the intent to surrender himself. Such a person is literally considered “outside of combat” and thus even if he is a combatant at the point where he surrenders he is as illegitimate a target as any other civilian. Drone warfare, of course, offers no inherent facility to deal with such individuals, save for killing them or conversely allowing them safe passage — the latter being an extremely unlikely outcome in most cases. The oft-horrific result of such a circumstance has been noted by the people most intimately familiar with the program itself. As former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright put it, “To me, the weakness in the drone activity is that if there’s no one on the ground, and the person puts his hands out, he can’t surrender … What makes it worse with a Predator is you’re actually watching it. You know when he puts his hands up.” Roughly speaking, there are two types of drone strikes that can be carried out: ones where the identity of the target is known and ones where it is not. The latter are known as “signature strikes” – drone strikes that are carried out against targets whose names, ages, occupations and political sympathies are completely unknown but who are still killed based on the opinions of those observing from abroad as to whether they are connected to militant activity. Behavior that may arouse such suspicion includes a group of males meeting together in an area considered hostile, a car driving in an area where militants are believed to be operating and other highly speculative and unverifiable rationales. In the revelations about the Obama administration’s secret “kill lists,” it also came out what exactly the official definition of a “militant” is from the White House’s perspective: “All military-age males in a strike zone.” In other words: Every man killed by a drone is by official definition a militant according to the U.S. government and correspondingly the news organizations who release reports regularly citing “militant” deaths. As many have noted, this policy of “kill first, ask questions later” is tantamount to extra-judicial murder and the supposed moral benefit of firing accurate missiles is greatly reduced when you don’t even know who is on the other end of them.
|
|
#8
10-24-2012, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the same people saying bush should be 'on trial for war crimes' say nothing about obama and his use of 'signature' strikes. bush was bad because he ordered captured militants to gitmo and other bases.
but obama-he just kills them and others with drone strikes, so it's all okey-dokey.
|
Hybrid Mode
