|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Drone Warfare
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It does seem that someone is a criminal on one patch of ground or a legitimate military target on another.
Rules of engagement are always fluid in warfare. Drone strikes provide easy propaganda points to any opponent. The only hope is that the opponent eventually comes to realise that holding out against more and more advanced technology is futile.
At present it is virtually impossible to know how, when or if that point will be reached.
The lesson of Vietnam is that holding out against advanced technokilling is merely a matter of time.
The lesson of Russia in Afghanistan is get someone to fund the other side.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Look, this isn't difficult. Take this news story as just one of dozens of examples.
Are these men criminals, or members of an opposing army, or spies, or what?
The English legal system has them as criminals, hence their trial in a civilian court and the sentences handed down fully within the criminal code. Yet two of their fellows were assassinated by drone in Syria, for allegedly committing similar crimes.
Thanks, that's a helpful illustration.
(No, it wasn't difficult, was it? Hard to see why it took 3 days to get even an approximation to a straight answer. Apparently "we" means "UK authorities". Still, no sign of you being included in the original "we", since if there's some part of the war fighting you want, you're not telling.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
My gut reaction is that there is a legally ambiguous game that governments play in terms of combatants vs terrorists vs criminals.
However I'm not sure this story nails it. These guys were UK citizens planning an attack in the UK and were arrested and tried in the UK. The fact that some other people were assassinated in Syria doesn't seem to me to prove an inconsistency.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
We have other wars, like those on drugs.
If I was caught with half a kilo of top-grade cocaine at a UK airport, I'd expect to see the inside of a prison cell. If I was carrying that same amount towards a South American airport on my way to the UK, would I expect a drone strike?
(Dave W. Clearly, some of us have lives...)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
South America isn't like Syria. Drugs in Columbia might be described as a war zone, but actually they aren't. On the other hand Syria really is a war zone.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
No, it's not. But the expectation is that my government won't try to kill me for an offence that would otherwise get me gaol time. We don't have a death penalty. Except that we clearly do, outside of any Act passed in parliament, because drones make it easy to circumvent the usual procedures and rules of governance.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The English legal system has them as criminals, hence their trial in a civilian court and the sentences handed down fully within the criminal code. Yet two of their fellows were assassinated by drone in Syria, for allegedly committing similar crimes.
Would you feel better if the two men in question had been classed as enemy spies, found guilty by a military tribunal, and then shot?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We have other wars, like those on drugs.
If I was caught with half a kilo of top-grade cocaine at a UK airport, I'd expect to see the inside of a prison cell. If I was carrying that same amount towards a South American airport on my way to the UK, would I expect a drone strike?
(Dave W. Clearly, some of us have lives...)
I think you'd probably expect to deal with the local law enforcement agency. That doesn't seem to be an option in Raqqa.
I don't think the difference in treatment is as novel as you seem to think. If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
Seriously? That's your analogy? The whole point of this part of the conversation, as far as I'm concerned, is to explore the disparity of treatment of UK nationals based on where they are, as opposed to what they're doing.
Then you wheel out WWII where we hanged traitors. The laws that allowed for that were later repealed, when they weren't needed. They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think the difference in treatment is as novel as you seem to think. If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
Of course not - but the huge difference is that he would have been taking part in a formal conflict under which he would have been covered by the various international and national laws of conduct in wartime (modulo the exceptions mentioned above which no longer exist).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
Because we can. Because it is easy. Because it is there, and not here. Because many UK and US citizens don't consider Muslims "true" countryman. Because it happens in places that are full of dirty, nasty foreigners who all hate us and all would kill us if they could.
Pick whichever reason(s) suit,
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
Because we can. Because it is easy. Because it is there, and not here. Because many UK and US citizens don't consider Muslims "true" countryman. Because it happens in places that are full of dirty, nasty foreigners who all hate us and all would kill us if they could.
Pick whichever reason(s) suit,
I thought also it was a trial run. Try several assassinations, and see what the reaction is. We know that the media will mostly react favourably, e.g. 'Kill, kill, kill the murdering bastards', or something like that. But how will the rest of polite society react?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would guess also that the legality of drones would be extended from the legality of snipers in war situations. Quote, 'The prohibition on assassination does not preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy, whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere'.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/armylaw1992&div=55&id=&page=
Interesting. It would seem to allow shooting of people in drone operating countries.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
Seriously? That's your analogy? The whole point of this part of the conversation, as far as I'm concerned, is to explore the disparity of treatment of UK nationals based on where they are, as opposed to what they're doing.
Then you wheel out WWII where we hanged traitors. The laws that allowed for that were later repealed, when they weren't needed. They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
What's so special about being a UK citizen? You haven't kept the death penalty for foreigners who commit crimes in the UK, have you? And British soldiers are still expected to shoot people without getting individualized court orders, aren't they?
I don't see the principled objection to killing UK nationals in Raqqa as opposed to anyone else who there who isn't a UK national.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
[same as above]
Of course not - but the huge difference is that he would have been taking part in a formal conflict under which he would have been covered by the various international and national laws of conduct in wartime (modulo the exceptions mentioned above which no longer exist).
To be sure, though he'd have had to comply with a number of restrictions on his own behavior to avail himself of some of those protections.
But my point is that he would not have enjoyed, by virtue of his UK citizenship, some special protection against being shot in an attack by Allied forces.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
What on earth does being a UK citizen have anything to do with anything? Are you suggesting it's OK to shoot a foreigner who's driving around in an ISIS truck terrorising people, but not OK to shoot a Britisher?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pick whichever reason(s) suit,
I'm not wild about military action full stop but I don't see that a useful understanding of the situation can be gained by picking reasons that suit.
I think we should allow that some people really believe that military action is justified given the threat and that this is part of it. There isn't a need to paint them all as psychopaths.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
Why you don't understand is a matter for you.
But you need to consider why a UK passport does convey special protection when a UK citizen is found doing the same thing in Luton as some are doing in Raqqa. You've never come up with a cogent response to that.
Do you think we should hang ISIS recruits at Tyburn? If not, why not?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I would say the location and context is more important than the passport.
In other words you could either say it is legitimate to declare military action in Syria and kill enemy combatants regardless of their passport, and regard Luton as an area covered by civil law and therefore arrest and charge people irrespective of their passport.
(Personally I would prefer not to be at war to start with but I'm uncomfortable with giving UK citizens engaged in acts of war in a war zone a privilege that other citizens don't get).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You could declare Syria a war zone in which we're involved. That would, however, mean we have to decide who our enemy is - pick one or more of a dozen competing factions - and at least who we're not intending to bomb.
At that's partially what we've done. Except we killed two UK citizens who'd joined ISIS before that point. And not just "we bombed this target, and a UK national died", but a "we tracked their mobile phone and launched a missile at it in a deliberate targeting, hoping we'd kill him" way.
No civilian courts involved at all. Judge, jury, and executioner. I feel deeply uncomfortable and conflicted about that. No one's saying these were good people. No one's saying that it was possible to go and arrest them.
But if belonging to ISIS is a capital crime, why aren't we executing people caught going to Syria?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The logic behind shooting an enemy combatant is not that being an enemy combatant is a crime punishable by death, but that the options are that or concede a strategic advantage with attendant further loss of life/territory/wealth/whatever the government has decided is more important than peace.
But I agree with your deep discomfort. Where we disagree is that I don't see the logical inconsistency in not denying human rights in the UK where the options are different.
The issue at heart is whether the means justify the ends in the sense of killing people where due process is not an option. I am not a total pacifist, although on utilitarian grounds I am quite close in that I think the outcomes of war are almost always worse than one imagined them to be when justifying the war.
I am not in favour of killing anyone in Syria but I don't think those who are need to justify why they don't want to kill people in Luton to be logically consistent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Seems like we need a new thread on the inherent violence of drone warfare.
I haven't been following this thread, and it's possible someone has already pointed this out.
Isn't all warfare inherently violent? Have I missed something? Is there a non-violent form of warfare? How has humanity somehow not spotted this over all the centuries? Is there some agency that can make everybody fight with rolled-up newspapers?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The trouble with that argument is that it can be used to justify cluster bombing civilians and laying landmines across the country. All war is bad but some acts are even worse. Defining a war-crime and having a sanction might restrain some of the extremes of evil that humans have to offer.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
Why you don't understand is a matter for you.
Or, alternatively, a matter for you to explain (if you care to) since it's your position and this is a discussion board. What are your grounds for thinking so? quote:
But you need to consider why a UK passport does convey special protection when a UK citizen is found doing the same thing in Luton as some are doing in Raqqa. You've never come up with a cogent response to that.
I don't accept the premise of your question; I don't believe that it does provide special protection.
I'm open to correction, however. Are foreigners accused of crimes in the UK supposed to be treated differently from UK nationals?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Extradition is difficult for the UK government to effect in Syria.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yes, of course. That's the Human Rights Act's doing. And since we've signed Protocol 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we've given up the use of the death penalty even in times of war.
About those drones...?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I've no idea what you are talking about although clearly it is something clever and sarcastic.
But I think it is ISIS that makes extradition tricky rather than anything abstract.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Aaaand someone who's never heard of extradition... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What's this supposed to mean? Being a UK national gives you special protection against extradition? Or a special right to extradition?
Or the UK really should be trying to extradite these guys from Syria rather than attacking them with drones? But then what difference would it make whether they're UK nationals or not?
Really, Doc Tor, you're hardly in a position to be complaining about a lack of cogent replies.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I have only limited time and energy to waste on you, Dave W. If you want to actually engage, then please do better.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, other people are also concerned about murder charges being laid on forces personnel. MPs, for example.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
At the risk (OK, with the intention) of junior hosting... what board is this?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
One where we take a much dimmer view of junior hosting than we do of arguments running a bit hot sometimes.
In other news Hell is, as I understand it, open for business.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
You're the boss, boss.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one's saying these were good people. No one's saying that it was possible to go and arrest them.
But if belonging to ISIS is a capital crime, why aren't we executing people caught going to Syria?
I still think that what we're talking about is best thought of as a grey area between policing criminal activity on the one hand and on the other hand military action against a hostile country that is actively threatening one's own.
Discussing what rules of engagement might be appropriate for that grey area is entirely reasonable. The sort of deliberate obtuseness that insists on trying to apply the crime paradigm as if there were no other option comes across as less reasonable...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So war is a Christian option?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
military action against a hostile country that is actively threatening one's own
This keeps on being wheeled out as a reason. Except when we insist ISIS aren't a state.
There's a huge unwillingness to grapple with the moral complexities and contradictions of this situation. We say one thing for domestic consumption (ISIS are criminals, they're not a state), do another thing (we've declared war on ISIS, anyone in their territory is a target), gaol ISIS sympathisers here, order targeted assassinations of them abroad...
At least the cross-party Human Rights Committee are trying to tackle them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This keeps on being wheeled out as a reason. Except when we insist ISIS aren't a state.
It seems that the following are options:
1. ISIS is a state (or state-like enough to be treated as one).
2. ISIS are a group of insurrectionists engaged in civil war in multiple countries in the Middle East.
I think either of those options makes engaging in combat operations against them possible.
I don't think it makes any sense to describe them as "criminals" implying that they are some sort of street gang or Mafia. I could hope that the use of the word "criminals" by certain parties is intended to imply 2 rather than 1, and not intend to imply that they're a kind of Muslim Mafia.
ETA: People who blow up airports and the like in Europe in support of ISIS are fifth columnists and criminals.
[ 18. May 2016, 00:40: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have only limited time and energy to waste on you, Dave W. If you want to actually engage, then please do better.
You're right, it does seem rather pointless. Still, I felt certain that if we just tried we could reach a common understanding, and so we have: we both agree that one of us is utterly failing to engage.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
gaol ISIS sympathisers here, order targeted assassinations of them abroad...
This is the bit I was trying to engage in. I didn't really get your last few replies, but I thought I'd made a reasonable argument as to why this wasn't necessarily inconsistent.
To clarify further, is being an ISIS sympathiser actually a crime? Putting "I have a soft spot for ISIS" on my blog wouldn't lead to criminal proceedings would it? (Although I can see how I might end up with some surveillance attention). It must be plans to contribute somehow or recruit to the cause or something that are criminal. Likewise I don't think anyone argues that anyone in ISIS territory is a target.
You talk of grappling with complexities, I think simplistic caricatures of the other view are also a way of failing to grapple with complexities.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I agree it's not necessarily inconsistent, but that the legal framework to deal with such inconsistencies isn't in place. And moreover, that situation is being deliberately perpetuated in order to blur the rules of engagement, because it allows what in stricter circumstances would be prohibited.
So we have a situation in which UK citizens have joined ISIS and are actively recruiting for them via social media. In what circumstances does that mean they should be killed? Given (a) we don't have the death penalty and (b) we didn't have authorisation from parliament for military action in Syria at the time (and explicitly that we didn't)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Legally speaking does the PM actually need authorization from parliament before authorizing the military to kill citizens of any country that are judged to be a threat?
My impression is that you couldn't run a military without that degree of flexibility which is one of the reasons why I'm against war. But legally speaking I don't know that there's a problem for the powers that be here.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So we have a situation in which UK citizens have joined ISIS and are actively recruiting for them via social media. In what circumstances does that mean they should be killed?
I don't think the fact that these people are UK citizens makes a difference. If we shouldn't order a drone strike against someone from Birmingham who is up to no good in the Middle East, we equally shouldn't order a drone strike against his friend from Baghdad who is doing exactly the same thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So we have a situation in which UK citizens have joined ISIS and are actively recruiting for them via social media. In what circumstances does that mean they should be killed?
I don't think the fact that these people are UK citizens makes a difference.
Agree that their citizenship shouldn't make a difference. But where they carry out their activities does, for practical rather than moral reasons.
Imagine it's a century ago.
Someone who is caught in England deliberately aiding the German war effort might be arrested and tried by a jury of their peers under English law. Which might be for treason and might incur the death penalty, but might not.
Someone who is caught in the British trenches deliberately aiding the German war effort might if apparently unarmed be captured. If in a German uniform they would be a POW and imprisoned until the end of the war. If not in uniform they could be executed by firing squad as a spy.
If someone is seen on the other side of the lines deliberately aiding the German war effort, they might be targeted by sniper, artillery or aircraft. But there would be no realistic possibility of capture and no process of law.
Where you are makes a difference.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
All war is bad but some acts are even worse. Defining a war-crime and having a sanction might restrain some of the extremes of evil that humans have to offer.
I get this, but time and time again we see in warfare a fight that begins with the gloves on and often ends with the gloves off.
Examples being that of gas use in WW1 and the indiscriminate area bombing of civilians in WW2.
While Drone use does make the struggle against terror extremists look very one-sided, and unethical, this will no longer appear the case if/when the opponent acquires and deploys nuclear technology,(as much as we hope such a day never arrives).
History will long wrangle as to who provoked who in the war on terror. War ISTM is a lethal game of raising the stakes. A game once started that is notoriously difficult to stop.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
While Drone use does make the struggle against terror extremists look very one-sided, and unethical, this will no longer appear the case if/when the opponent acquires and deploys nuclear technology,(as much as we hope such a day never arrives).
When you say one-sided it sounds as if taking advantage of superior technology isn't fair. But I think that isn't what you mean judging by your other posts?
I think drones are unethical if they kill civilians and engage in assassinations outside the Geneva convention, but not simply because they deliver a strategic advantage.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
While Drone use does make the struggle against terror extremists look very one-sided, and unethical, this will no longer appear the case if/when the opponent acquires and deploys nuclear technology,(as much as we hope such a day never arrives).
History will long wrangle as to who provoked who in the war on terror. War ISTM is a lethal game of raising the stakes. A game once started that is notoriously difficult to stop.
What would you say then of the use of Greek Fire by the Eastern Empire? A technological advantage if ever there were on. The invention of siege engines is another example.
Quite what do you mean please by the second paragraph I have quoted? That is not really a consequence of the use of drones.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I'm sort of saying , probably in a convoluted way, that drones are a weapon of choice as is the suicide bomber. The day the latter is armed with a nuke is the one before a drone does something similar
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I suppose that a similarity is that suicide bombers and drones both commonly deliver their weapons at some distance from the supporting country. when technology reaches the stage when your suggested events occurs, we may already have some superior method of detection before the event.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I'm sort of saying , probably in a convoluted way, that drones are a weapon of choice as is the suicide bomber.
I don't see this. Drones are being chosen by governments who aim for targeted assassinations, suicide bombers by terrorists who want to kill innocent bystanders. The are arguments about the morality and accuracy of both methods, but I don't see any sense in which the choices can be compared.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Drones are being chosen by governments who aim for targeted assassinations, suicide bombers by terrorists who want to kill innocent bystanders. There are arguments about the morality and accuracy of both methods, but I don't see any sense in which the choices can be compared.
They are comparable insomuch as those doing the directing, and issuing of instructions have aims.
AFAIUI, the all-encompassing term "Terrorist" is currently applied to groups determined to undermine Western interests, this is their aim and they will use tactics, methods, and the resources at their disposal to try and achieve it.
The aim of the West is to protect it's interests without causing moral outrage among wider communities or creating unpopularity at home with returning body-bags
Drones warfare is solution of sorts in the absence a diplomatic solution, and there seems precious little sign of that. In fact, given the diversity of Radical extremism, the pessimist in me says a diplomatic solution is nigh on impossible.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
