Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook' condemned by human rights groups - Polidicks

[QUOTE]article: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/25/obama-drone-warfare-rulebook[/url] President Barack Obama's administration is in the process of drawing up a formal rulebook that will set out the circumstances in which targeted assassination by unmanned drones is justified, according to reports. The New York Times, citing two unnamed sources, said explicit guidelines were being drawn up amid disagreement between the CIA and the departments of defense, justice and state over when lethal action is acceptable. Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified, said the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing its drone operations. "To say they are rewriting the rulebook implies that there is already a rulebook" said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Center for Democracy. "But what they are already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that has been in place since [the second world war]." He said the news was "frustrating", because it relied on "self-serving sources". The New York Times piece was written by one of the journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House "kill list", in May.[/QUOTE] Drones.. drones. Are these the drones you were looking for ?... ... perhaps not.

Isn't it better for there to be guidelines than no guidelines at all? It's not like the US is going to stop drone attacks because of Amnesty Intl. or another human rights organization.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;38593488]Isn't it better for there to be guidelines than no guidelines at all? It's not like the US is going to stop drone attacks because of Amnesty Intl. or another human rights organization.[/QUOTE] Since when has the US stoped anything because a small organisation complained?

why does it matter which methods are used in an assassination? If they didn't use an unmanned drone they'd just find another way

[quote] "But what they are already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that has been in place since [the second world war]. [/quote] I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2. And, if anything. Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2. And, if anything. Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.[/QUOTE] And drones have the capability of flying over a target for hours. This increases the chances of positive identification of a target and minimizes collateral damage.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2. And, if anything. Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.[/QUOTE] and the public wouldn't give a damn about drone attacks simply because there's no caskets returning to their home country. Yeah, cynical but-

[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;38593518]why does it matter which methods are used in an assassination? If they didn't use an unmanned drone they'd just find another way[/QUOTE] If I had to take a guess, it'd be that they are worried that drone warfare will trivializes war by lowering the value of human life or more specifically lowers the hesitation/risk of ordering an assassination. There's not much human risk (on your own side) when you bomb something or someone from 5,000 feet high using an unmanned drone, because in the worst case scenario the drone is shot down. But if you have to order a hit squad or a tank to assassinate a target, you have human risk on your own side. A squad can be killed or captured during a mission, and a tank can be disabled (and the crew likewise killed or captured).

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2. And, if anything. Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.[/QUOTE] ya cuz when u kill women and children god forbid the murderer gets hurt

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593790]ya cuz when u kill women and children god forbid the murderer gets hurt[/QUOTE] Shitass cynic responses detract from actual arguments.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593790]ya cuz when u kill women and children god forbid the murderer gets hurt[/QUOTE] Yes I'm sure the drone operators purposefully target women and children, because everyone in the military is just pure evil like that.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38593844]Yes I'm sure the drone operators purposefully target women and children, because everyone in the military is just pure evil like that.[/QUOTE] it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life. i mean the policy is obviously at fault. im just pointing out how stupid and ignorant it is to call drone strikes "humane" because they don't pose risk to the operator.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593790]ya cuz when u kill women and children god forbid the murderer gets hurt[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;38593877]it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life. i mean the policy is obviously at fault. im just pointing out how stupid and ignorant it is to call drone strikes "humane" because they don't pose risk to the operator.[/QUOTE] Great contribution as always. How about you read the part where it says drones minimize collateral damage and reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm? Of course it isn't "humane" but it sure as shit is better than hundreds of civilian casualties due to direct military intervention.

[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;38593518]why does it matter which methods are used in an assassination? If they didn't use an unmanned drone they'd just find another way[/QUOTE] Apparently, you have to kill people nicely. This is just like hollow points in war. You can't use them because it will increase the risk of fatalities in a war. ....what the fuck is war supposed to do then? I thought you went to war to (in a simple answer) kill people, not give them a bruise good enough to come back.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593877][B]it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life. [/B][/QUOTE] This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. So you're putting them at place with the Soviet Union , Nazi Germany, Libya before the revolution? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? I could go on.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38593883]Great contribution as always. How about you read the part where it says drones minimize collateral damage and reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm? Of course it isn't "humane" but it sure as shit is better than hundreds of civilian casualties due to direct military intervention.[/QUOTE] yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593877]it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life. i mean the policy is obviously at fault. im just pointing out how stupid and ignorant it is to call drone strikes "humane" because they don't pose risk to the operator.[/QUOTE] The only reason civilians have died thus far is because the drones have been used in the wrong situations, which will hopefully be rectified in this rewriting of the rule book. It's not the drones that are the problem it's just how the US uses them, which is pretty ham handed at the moment.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593940]yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people[/QUOTE] oh well then i guess we should call all the governments and tell them to stop going to war

[QUOTE=dass;38593908]Apparently, you have to kill people nicely. This is just like hollow points in war. You can't use them because it will increase the risk of fatalities in a war. ....what the fuck is war supposed to do then? I thought you went to war to (in a simple answer) kill people, not give them a bruise good enough to come back.[/QUOTE] Well no, in war you shoot to get rid of the threat, not to kill. That's why they're obliged to help enemy soldiers if they're found wounded and such.

I honestly want to know where Yawman went full retard? Because he used to make fairly decent arguments and now its slowly going down the drain.

[QUOTE=Swilly;38593934]This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. So you're putting them at place with the Soviet Union , Nazi Germany, Libya before the revolution? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? I could go on.[/QUOTE] well would you say that mao and hitler are on the same level with regards to their evilness? would you say that mussolini and stalin are on the exact same level? in the same way you can use simple critical thinking skills to decide how bad a dictator is, you can use your critical thinking skills to compare and contrast the usa with the ussr and find out that while the usa is a better place to live, they have been much more ruthless regarding foreign policy. while the usa has not launched a genocide against jews as hitler had, the usa has sanctioned genocide and slaughtering innocent people when it fits their agenda so yea, the usa can be compared to any other world power because every major power is an evil organization. they might not be the same amount of evil(something hard to objectively quantify anyways), but they are undoubtedly evil unless your definition of evil doesnt include murder or oppression.

[QUOTE=dass;38593908]Apparently, you have to kill people nicely. This is just like hollow points in war. You can't use them because it will increase the risk of fatalities in a war. ....what the fuck is war supposed to do then? I thought you went to war to (in a simple answer) kill people, not give them a bruise good enough to come back.[/QUOTE] Yes, I say we go back to hitting each other with large sticks. Course if someone gets hit too hard and dies his friends will show up the next day with sharpened sticks seeking revenge. If you [B]have [/B]to fight, make it a fight the enemy can't win.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38593883]Great contribution as always. How about you read the part where it says drones minimize collateral damage and reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm? Of course it isn't "humane" but it sure as shit is better than hundreds of civilian casualties due to direct military intervention.[/QUOTE] how does blowing up entire housing complexes and firing into crowds where an insurgent is suspected to be at minimize collateral damage lol [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38593967]oh well then i guess we should call all the governments and tell them to stop going to war[/QUOTE] we can do that? i'm on board, this war sucks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593940]yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people[/QUOTE] That goes on the balance of national security versus safety of innocent people. In a perfect world, innocent people wouldn't ever be put in harms way. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and there are organizations that focus on damaging the United States. For a country, nothing is more important than the security of its citizens, and if some innocent people around the world have to die so that American civilians can stay safe, it's justifiable to the state. Obviously, there's certain operating guidelines. We aren't simply going to gas cities in hopes that we can eliminate the opposition, but the unfortunate reality is that sometimes innocent people get killed. I'm not trying to justify the current operation of drones. In fact there's a lot of problems with the current framework for drone strikes (as in, anyone that is deemed a militant can be targeted regardless if actual confirmation), but drones are incredibly effective at minimizing collateral damage. If anything, this rulebook will establish a legal framework and correct the failings of the current system. Besides, this: [quote]it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life.[/quote] Is a crock of shit. The US government doesn't necessarily value human life the same way as you do, but to say the United States has a complete disregard for human life is a flat out lie.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594013]well would you say that mao and hitler are on the same level with regards to their evilness? would you say that mussolini and stalin are on the exact same level? in the same way you can use simple critical thinking skills to decide how bad a dictator is, you can use your critical thinking skills to compare and contrast the usa with the ussr and find out that while the usa is a better place to live, they have been much more ruthless regarding foreign policy. while the usa has not launched a genocide against jews as hitler had, the usa has sanctioned genocide and slaughtering innocent people when it fits their agenda so yea, the usa can be compared to any other world power because every major power is an evil organization. they might not be the same amount of evil(something hard to objectively quantify anyways), but they are undoubtedly evil unless your definition of evil doesnt include murder or oppression.[/QUOTE] So what do you think should be done then? By your logic every single government in the world is guilty of murder and oppression. Unless of course you live in some crazy idealized world where war and corruption don't exist. [QUOTE=Kopimi;38594056]how does blowing up entire housing complexes and firing into crowds where an insurgent is suspected to be at minimize collateral damage lol we can do that? i'm on board, this war sucks[/QUOTE] I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that sending drones to attack specific targets is better than leveling entire fucking cities in a full-scale invasion that would get thousands of innocents killed (e.g. 2004 Iraq invasion). Not saying that innocents wouldn't get killed, but it would still be [I]way[/I] less than what would come of a full military attack.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593940]yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people[/QUOTE] Well maybe if the bad guys stopped being dirty rotten cheaters that hide in civilian populations....

I asked this in another thread but I have to ask. [B]Did facepunch take a load of crazy pills?[/B] I am quite confused as to what is going on now.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38594083]So what do you think should be done then? By your logic every single government in the world is guilty of murder and oppression. Unless of course you live in some crazy idealized world where war and corruption don't exist.[/QUOTE] if we lived in a world that didnt incentivize war and corruption then war and corruption would be the exception, rather than the rule it doesnt even matter what my idealized alternative is anyways. what matters is that we should be moving towards a more humane society. drone strikes are not humane and should not be part of any humane society so we should learn to live without them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594111]if we lived in a world that didnt incentivize war and corruption then war and corruption would be the exception, rather than the rule it doesnt even matter what my idealized alternative is anyways. what matters is that we should be moving towards a more humane society. drone strikes are not humane and should not be part of any humane society so we should learn to live without them.[/QUOTE] For christ's sake. The American government isn't even that fucking corrupt. It doesn't even have that much power. ITS SMALLER THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE. You're placing a blanket over the entire US government sayings it evil. You're calling every cop, fireman, teacher, federal and state level worker is only out to be evil corrupt assholes trying make our lives living hell. Because they're the ones that enforce shit, not the few people in actual power.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594111]if we lived in a world that didnt incentivize war and corruption then war and corruption would be the exception, rather than the rule it doesnt even matter what my idealized alternative is anyways. what matters is that we should be moving towards a more humane society. drone strikes are not humane and should not be part of any humane society so we should learn to live without them.[/QUOTE] Except we very much are moving towards that. 400 years ago, war was the norm. Hell, even less than 100 years ago, war was the norm. As time moves on, humanity tends to shy away from things like war and destruction. The United Nations and the EU are perfect examples of such a case. Surely, we aren't at the point where global peace is norm and drone strikes are a clear example of that fact, but we aren't going to get there overnight. These processes take time, and if war is still a thing of the present, why not try an minimize the death of innocents by making your weapons more accurate?