Killing With Drones is Not Evil

[marshabar1]

At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.

There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance.

What matters is that Koh said it.

Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?



Koh’s lecture—warmly applauded by the conventioneers—demonstrates once again the amazing elasticity of international law when it comes to the prerogatives of great powers. Koh’s lecture also demonstrates the accommodating suppleness of several international lawyers who, once strong critics of George W. Bush’s anti-terror policies, now see things differently from inside the Obama administration.



For Harold Koh had been one of the strongest and most prestigious voices raised against the post-9/11 policies of Bush and Cheney.


It was inevitable that Koh would dutifully come up with legal rationales for whatever the Obama administration decided to do. Part of this is the nature of his job; part of it is to be found plainly written in his own scholarship. . .

www.amconmag.com/article/2010/jun/01/00034

Interesting read. Elasticity and suppleness. Yes. Situational ethics. What won't they do?

[handyman2]

The answer to this is are you asking the senders or the recievers? The guys on the receiving end would have a different opinion I would think. But it is just an advancement in modern warfare.

[djAdvocate]

no. drones are not sentient beings, so they are neither evil nor good.

when drones kill civilians, however, it is hard to argue they are good.

[marshabar1]

And yet Koh, the liberal intellectual, said they are lawful. Presumably they are therefor not evil. Like abortion.

I'll modify the title to read: Killing with Drones is Not Evil

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2011 18:09:09 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

And yet Koh, the liberal intellectual, said they are lawful. Presumably they are therefor not evil. Like abortion.

I'll modify the title to read: Killing with Drones is Not Evil

it depends on whether you are a relativist or not.

i am not.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Killing enemy combatants is part of war. Some would say that this is "good."

Killing innocent bystanders or civilians, unfortunately, is also part of war. Far fewer people would say that this is "good."

Drones, manned aircraft, missiles, guns .... all are weapons used by men to kill others. They are tools. It's how and when they are used that matters.

[djAdvocate]

PS- i think that his argument is built on a false premise.

the killing of suspected terrorists is wrong (without due process), imo.
therefore, using drones to do it is also wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2011 18:18:55 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Killing enemy combatants is part of war. Some would say that this is "good.".

only if you think war is good.

not too many would argue that.

[Deleted]

So they think if we blow people to bits with drones there is no moral issue? No eye contact? What?? Same thing, folks. Either support your POTUS killing people, or do not, but don't try to blur the line. Dead is dead, whether an American soldier did it or an American drone did it.

[Deleted]

I missed the part where Libya is a threat to the USA.. silly me..can't find it anywhere..

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2011 19:20:52 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

So they think if we blow people to bits with drones there is no moral issue? No eye contact? What?? Same thing, folks. Either support your POTUS killing people, or do not, but don't try to blur the line. Dead is dead, whether an American soldier did it or an American drone did it.

i don't support it. Obama is a war criminal, imo. send him to the Hague. then Bush. then Clinton. then Papa Bush. then Carter.

[mmhmm]

A drone, as I see it, is nothing more than a lesser evil in a host of evils. War sucks!

[marshabar1]

Jun 25, 2011 18:18:55 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Killing enemy combatants is part of war. Some would say that this is "good."

Killing innocent bystanders or civilians, unfortunately, is also part of war. Far fewer people would say that this is "good."

Drones, manned aircraft, missiles, guns .... all are weapons used by men to kill others. They are tools. It's how and when they are used that matters.

It seems, Molly, that the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan find the drones especially ominous and evil. It is extremely scary when you think about this soulless thing hunting you down. Now our military is really going gung ho with drones of all sizes. There's something sinister and monstrous about them, like aliens.

I remember though when our soldiers were first going into Iraq and we didn't know what was waiting for them, nuclear or biological weapons seemed quite possible at the time, I did spend time thinking about armor and robots and bugs that I wished could replace our soldiers. That was an extremely frightening time.

The drones are responsible for maybe the majority of ill will felt toward the U.S. in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

During a lull in drone activity:

“For the first time in months we haven’t heard any ‘buzz-buzz’ overhead for weeks,” says a physician in the town of Mir Ali, referring to the distinctive noise that turbo-prop UAVs make when circling overhead. “We thought the reason was the low, cloudy skies.”

[deziloooooo]

Jun 25, 2011 19:36:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 25, 2011 19:20:52 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

So they think if we blow people to bits with drones there is no moral issue? No eye contact? What?? Same thing, folks. Either support your POTUS killing people, or do not, but don't try to blur the line. Dead is dead, whether an American soldier did it or an American drone did it.

i don't support it. Obama is a war criminal, imo. send him to the Hague. then Bush. then Clinton. then Papa Bush. then Carter.

War was declared on us , actually way before 9/11 but lets assume this was the definitive act of war declared, the other attacks, World trade center bombing in the basement, our embassy's in Africa, the Cole..all those were something else..or just not recognized as a war declaration,

{In a way I can see a meeting in some cave some where in the mountains and the argument as they sat around discussing what has been happening going along the lines .

" What is with these dumb Americans, they are ignoring us, don't they realize we have declared Holy War on them , these dumb asses, imbecills..what do we have to do to get their attention?

Blow up the Pentagon, one of their sky scrapers in New York, their White House , their Congress ? What do we have to do to get their attent...., mmmm, wait a minute, please, you who are taking notes there , abu..read back what I was saying, I just had a idea, did I mention sky scrapers, Pentagon, Whi...mmmmmm"

The war was declared, we finally got it..if the ones we are at war with are known to be in a certain place, encamp is a certain way, show weapons, are known to gather together and we know where they are..then they are enemy combatents..and open for retaliation and attack. If there are civilians in their midst , always present, if the target is important enough , then they may also be hurt..it has been that way since wars have been fought, pre middle ages , middle ages, soldiers met in battle, the winners, the spoils, the rapes, the stealing of loot, even the occupying of territory and making it their own at times..in modern times, we had 'Bomber Harris " from Britain, we had Dresden, Coventry, Amsterdam, London, Berlin.. Warsaw, Stalingrad..civilians also hurt and worse..

More recent times , some thing called a "free fire zone", any thing that breezed in those area, mosquitoes, water Buffalo's, mama San, papa San, children and the enemy, all fair game..fired on, killed...no second thought given, or at least official thought given to the #'s beyond body counts...

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 25, 2011 21:35:07 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 25, 2011 19:36:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't support it. Obama is a war criminal, imo. send him to the Hague. then Bush. then Clinton. then Papa Bush. then Carter.

War was declared on us , actually way before 9/11 but lets assume this was the definitive act of war declared, the other attacks, World trade center bombing in the basement, our embassy's in Africa, the Cole..all those were something else..or just not recognized as a war declaration,

{In a way I can see a meeting in some cave some where in the mountains and the argument as they sat around discussing what has been happening going along the lines .

" What is with these dumb Americans, they are ignoring us, don't they realize we have declared Holy War on them , these dumb asses, imbecills..what do we have to do to get their attention?

Blow up the Pentagon, one of their sky scrapers in New York, their White House , their Congress ? What do we have to do to get their attent...., mmmm, wait a minute, please, you who are taking notes there , abu..read back what I was saying, I just had a idea, did I mention sky scrapers, Pentagon, Whi...mmmmmm"

The war was declared, we finally got it..if the ones we are at war with are known to be in a certain place, encamp is a certain way, show weapons, are known to gather together and we know where they are..then they are enemy combatents..and open for retaliation and attack. If there are civilians in their midst , always present, if the target is important enough , then they may also be hurt..it has been that way since wars have been fought, pre middle ages , middle ages, soldiers met in battle, the winners, the spoils, the rapes, the stealing of loot, even the occupying of territory and making it their own at times..in modern times, we had 'Bomber Harris " from Britain, we had Dresden, Coventry, Amsterdam, London, Berlin.. Warsaw, Stalingrad..civilians also hurt and worse..

More recent times , some thing called a "free fire zone", any thing that breezed in those area, mosquitoes, water Buffalo's, mama San, papa San, children and the enemy, all fair game..fired on, killed...no second thought given, or at least official thought given to the #'s beyond body counts...

Not by Libya, I don't think a state of war existed between the united states and Libya prior to Obama authorizing attacks against the sovereign nation of Libya. It can be argued that a state of war existed with Afghanistan since 9-11 came from there, but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is at issue since both where approved by Congress, the branch of our government authorized to declare war.

[ed1066]

In related news, liberals now love drone attacks. Bad under Bush, good under Obama. Just like torture, wars with no congressional approval, high gas prices and tax cuts. So predictable...

[deziloooooo]

Jun 25, 2011 23:12:10 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

In related news, liberals now love drone attacks. Bad under Bush, good under Obama. Just like torture, wars with no congressional approval, high gas prices and tax cuts. So predictable...

You have a link for that?

[cereb]

Jun 25, 2011 23:12:10 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

In related news, liberals now love drone attacks. Bad under Bush, good under Obama. Just like torture, wars with no congressional approval, high gas prices and tax cuts. So predictable...

Hmmm really? Don't suppose you actually have anything to back up that ridiculous statement eh?

Talk about predictable...

[ed1066]

Jun 26, 2011 0:57:35 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 25, 2011 23:12:10 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

In related news, liberals now love drone attacks. Bad under Bush, good under Obama. Just like torture, wars with no congressional approval, high gas prices and tax cuts. So predictable...

You have a link for that?

Don't need one. Just find me a post from a liberal here criticizing Obama for any of the above...


...waiting...waiting...waiting...

[marshabar1]

Jun 26, 2011 21:58:57 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 26, 2011 0:57:35 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

You have a link for that?

Don't need one. Just find me a post from a liberal here criticizing Obama for any of the above...


...waiting...waiting...waiting...

Poor Bammer, ed, Code Pink and other pinkos don't like his pet drones. . . Even if Koh shoves a camel through the eye of a needle and tells them it ;D A-OKAY !!

[txbo]

I love Drones, the more Drones the less U.S. soldiers in harms way. Unbelievable the far right war hawks are now against war, the same people that couldn’t wait to get into Iraq for no reason at all.

[reasonfreedom]

Jun 27, 2011 2:55:00 GMT -5 txbo said:

I love Drones, the more Drones the less U.S. soldiers in harms way. Unbelievable the far right war hawks are now against war, the same people that couldn’t wait to get into Iraq for no reason at all.

Actually if you are far right you should be conservative\constitutional, which just goes to show that republicans are hypocrites in the aspects of war. The only war that was constitutionally correct was WWII when we were bombed at pearl harbor.

As far as Koh I think the he is obviously biased. I do agree with txbo that it will save American soldiers lives which is a plus about the drones.

As far as Dezi's comments, an act of terrorism is not an act of war IMO otherwise we would be at war with ourselves with all of the radical groups like Michigan militia, and environmentalist groups. Just because a terrorist group declares a holy war, does not make it a holy war. Now the crusades were a holy war, back then Muslims co-existing with Christians was a rarity the same can't be said for today. The other thing you have to look at is that the terrorist group has multiple operatives everywhere, but you only see us occupying two countries. If anybody has declared war that would be us.

[marshabar1]

I'm a conservative and I'm all for destroying wicked bastards who hide behind their women and children, sell their daughters, whore their son, train their babies to hate and die and sneak around trying to destroy everything that is good in this world.

How about you?

Liberals like to think they are above it. But Obama clearly demonstrates an unprecedented relish for at least the drone type of killing all the while talking about drawdowns to appease the tender hearted. Too bad he's as transparent as a picture window. Nowhere to hide now.

[reasonfreedom]

Jun 27, 2011 9:12:47 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

I'm a conservative and I'm all for destroying wicked bastards who hide behind their women and children, sell their daughters, whore their son, train their babies to hate and die and sneak around trying to destroy everything that is good in this world.

How about you?

Liberals like to think they are above it. But Obama clearly demonstrates an unprecedented relish for at least the drone type of killing all the while talking about drawdowns to appease the tender hearted. Too bad he's as transparent as a picture window. Nowhere to hide now.

I agree with destroying wicked people like them, but there are people like that all over this world. There are multiple countries that have people like that in Africa, do you think we should occupy them all? There will always be wicked people like this in the world, you suggest we keep on having wars to rid this world of evil and should our country have the most troop participation to do this?

[marshabar1]

Jun 27, 2011 9:41:49 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jun 27, 2011 9:12:47 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

I'm a conservative and I'm all for destroying wicked bastards who hide behind their women and children, sell their daughters, whore their son, train their babies to hate and die and sneak around trying to destroy everything that is good in this world.

How about you?

Liberals like to think they are above it. But Obama clearly demonstrates an unprecedented relish for at least the drone type of killing all the while talking about drawdowns to appease the tender hearted. Too bad he's as transparent as a picture window. Nowhere to hide now.

I agree with destroying wicked people like them, but there are people like that all over this world. There are multiple countries that have people like that in Africa, do you think we should occupy them all? There will always be wicked people like this in the world, you suggest we keep on having wars to rid this world of evil and should our country have the most troop participation to do this?

No I don't. Not at all. We are being bled dry by the escalating evil in the world and the escalating evil in our own government. As far as I'm concerned we need a new plan. One that involves healing this nation first.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 27, 2011 2:55:00 GMT -5 txbo said:

I love Drones, the more Drones the less U.S. soldiers in harms way. Unbelievable the far right war hawks are now against war, the same people that couldn’t wait to get into Iraq for no reason at all.

There were reasons and Congress agreed with them, having given the President Congressional approval.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 27, 2011 9:54:14 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

Jun 27, 2011 9:41:49 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

I agree with destroying wicked people like them, but there are people like that all over this world. There are multiple countries that have people like that in Africa, do you think we should occupy them all? There will always be wicked people like this in the world, you suggest we keep on having wars to rid this world of evil and should our country have the most troop participation to do this?

No I don't. Not at all. We are being bled dry by the escalating evil in the world and the escalating evil in our own government. As far as I'm concerned we need a new plan. One that involves healing this nation first.

With all respect Marsha, "One that involves healing this nation first."
when I read your , and I really don't bother much any more, first three words and I see where your going, but for those who do, your continuouse rants, not true criticisms of programs and his ideas and policies, but personal attacks on all things Obama, how can you then post such a statement, it does not compute.

I think your post of a need for healing is just a statement put up with no thought behind it..words with no meaning, unless your idea of healing is 100 % political support for one political side and all others who may not agree, just stay in the back ground and keep their mouths, well ..then you would have your idea of "healing "..