• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

Henry David said:
Nonsense. The Global War On Terror is a fraud of epic proportions and a hoax upon the American people.
Click to expand...

Did you forget for a moment that you are in one of the legitimate forums and not your conspiracy theory home?
 
Gardener said:
Did you forget for a moment that you are in one of the legitimate forums and not your conspiracy theory home?
Click to expand...

Did you forget for a moment that you are not talking to a gullible child? :peace
 
jonny5 said:
Not officially. The war on terror is official though, and simply self defense.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's an offensive, occupational war. Any claim to self defense flew out the window when we left Afghanistan to invade other countries. Now it's just forever war so we can have our two minutes of hate.
 
Henry David said:
Did you forget for a moment that you are not talking to a gullible child? :peace
Click to expand...

No, I remembered such.


Your ability to gobble up any silly conspiracy theory designed to appeal to children lacking critical thinking skills is right up there with the best of them.
 
Bob0627 said:
The Nuremburg Principles for one, that the US is a signatory to:

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

The Geneva Conventions for another:

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

WHERE in those treaties does it say that droning irregular combatants is ILLEGAL?

See, that's what I'm asking you.

I don't need to be directed to an assorted list of international conventions on war.

I can easily Google that.

You're saying that "it is clearly a war crime".

Okay, show me EXACTLY where it's so clear.

Thanks.
 
Gardener said:
No, I remembered such.


Your ability to gobble up any silly conspiracy theory designed to appeal to children lacking critical thinking skills is right up there with the best of them.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as good as the government's and the media's.
 
soot said:
WHERE in those treaties does it say that droning irregular combatants is ILLEGAL?

See, that's what I'm asking you.

I don't need to be directed to an assorted list of international conventions on war.

I can easily Google that.

You're saying that "it is clearly a war crime".

Okay, show me EXACTLY where it's so clear.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Irregular combatants, LOL. :lamo

That kinda reminds of Charlie, the almost affectionate term we used to describe those Vietnamese who objected to the white man taking their country.
 
jonny5 said:
Our judicial system only extends to cases under the constitution. Foreign enemies do not get the same protections. And we are at war with terrorism wherever that may be. I havent seen any treaties or laws that would prohibit us from defending ourselves by killing enemies in their homes. In fact the UN charter allows a state to defend itself. The ICC even stated that collateral damage was not a crime.
Click to expand...


So you argue that al Qaeda supporters in the US can be killed by Drone strike without due process? What about if they are in England? Canada?
 
soot said:
WHERE in those treaties does it say that droning irregular combatants is ILLEGAL?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it's not my job to interpret treaties written in English for you. What in the world is an "irregular combatant"?

See, that's what I'm asking you.
Click to expand...

You originally asked me to provide you with treaties. Did you change your mind?

I don't need to be directed to an assorted list of international conventions on war.
Click to expand...

You asked me to provide you with treaties and that's what I did. Are you confused?

I can easily Google that.
Click to expand...

So why did you ask me to provide you with treaties then? Why didn't you Google that yourself?

You're saying that "it is clearly a war crime".

Okay, show me EXACTLY where it's so clear.
Click to expand...

I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink it. If you can't figure it out for yourself, I can't help you. Is there something in the treaties you don't understand about the descriptions/definitions of war crimes? Again, I'm not here to interpret plain English language for you.
 
Henry David said:
Irregular combatants, LOL. :lamo

That kinda reminds of Charlie, the almost affectionate term we used to describe those Vietnamese who objected to the white man taking their country.
Click to expand...

The term "irregular" (a fairly common term, used even by the ICRC, to describe militia or volunteer military forces and to contrast them to the organized "regular" military) REALLY "reminds" you of "Charlie" (a racist slur)?

Seriously?

What a profoundly stupid thing to say.
 
Bob0627 said:
I'm sorry but it's not my job to interpret treaties written in English for you.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you've been talking out of your ass and have no actual basis for making the claims you did.

No worries, that's a fairly common tactic around here.

What in the world is an "irregular combatant"?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone) would actually weigh in on this topic without knowing what that word means.

Read this: Customary IHL - Rule 4. Definition of Armed Forces

The Red Cross explains it pretty well.

It's a pretty common term, sorta a catch-all for terms like insurgent, freedom fighter, guerrilla, revolutionary, and etc...

The "regular" military is is the official military of a state or country, and "irregular" forces are anyone else that carries out military-like missions.

You originally asked me to provide you with treaties. Did you change your mind?
Click to expand...

:roll:

You have yet to demonstrate that droning irregular forces is "clearly a war crime".

YOU made the claim.

I questioned it.

You can either substantiate your claim or you can't.

At this point I'm inclined to believe that you can't.

No worries.

You asked me to provide you with treaties and that's what I did. Are you confused?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

I'm confused over how you can make a pretty clear-cut claim and then have absolutely no earthly idea how to go about backing up that claim beyond linking to a general article on Wikipedia.

You see how you asked me above what "irregulars" were so I provided you with a fairly authoritative source describing the term and then explained it in my own words in case you can't be bothered to reference the source?

That's what I expect from you.

You use a term or make a claim and you stand behind it and substantiate your use of the term or the basis for the claim.

That's how educated adults have a conversation about controversial topics.

I'm confused that another adult wouldn't get that.

I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink it.
Click to expand...

Thing is, you didn't actually lead anything anywhere.

What you did is tantamount to pointing in the general direction of the Atlantic Ocean and saying, "I don't really know exactly where the water is, but I kinda think it's over in that direction somewhere".

Lazy and sloppy is what you did.

And I understand now that you did it that way because you think we're talking about a crime here, or you buy into the conventional wisdom that we must be talking about a crime, but you don't have enough knowledge of the topic or enough of an understanding to really explain why we're talking about a crime.

And there's no shame in that.

If you can't figure it out for yourself, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

If you knew what you were talking about you could easily help me.

People who understand things teach other people, who are ignorant of that understanding, new things every day.

Bottom line is that you don't have a firm enough grasp on this to teach anything.

So you make drive-by comments and then refuse to stand behind them.

Is there something in the treaties you don't understand about the descriptions/definitions of war crimes?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I don't understand how they CLEARLY point to the killing of irregular forces amounting to a war crime.

This is something that lawyers have been arguing about for the better part of the last decade, heck, probably for the better part of the last century in one form or another.

I've read papers written by Justice Department lawyers, Fordham University lawyers, Berkley Lawyers, The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, heck, all kinds of papers.

And if there is ANYTHING that can be said about this topic it is that it is ANYTHING but clear cut.

So what I don't understand is how you, some anonymous guy on the Internet, are so sure about this when pretty much the entire legal universe has failed to come to a consensus.
 
soot said:
So in other words, you've been talking out of your ass and have no actual basis for making the claims you did.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you're here to attack me because you don't understand what a war crime is. No problem, end of discussion.
 
Ikari said:
No it's not. It's an offensive, occupational war. Any claim to self defense flew out the window when we left Afghanistan to invade other countries. Now it's just forever war so we can have our two minutes of hate.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Islamic terrorists keep attacking us. And the 2001 AUF has not changed.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Click to expand...
 
jmotivator said:
So you argue that al Qaeda supporters in the US can be killed by Drone strike without due process? What about if they are in England? Canada?
Click to expand...

Not freely, no. There are some laws that control it. I was simply arguing that droning so far has been legal (except for on americans in foreign countries.)
 
jonny5 said:
Convince me with logic and reasoning, not just rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I don't know if fraud is the word I'd use, but clearly there is no nation that can be attacked to end it. So essentially you're talking about elevating individuals and groups to the importance of war status. Now, we might is the little "w," like a war on drugs. And we might be just as ineffective at such a war. For example, much of what we're doing is excess and largely ineffective. We likely created more future terrorist than we've killed or discouraged. And we have lowered our standards to the point of decreasing the difference between us and them (not saying there is no difference). We've excused torture, assassination, aggression, and domestic spying. This has not made us either better nor safer.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't know if fraud is the word I'd use, but clearly there is no nation that can be attacked to end it. So essentially you're talking about elevating individuals and groups to the importance of war status. Now, we might is the little "w," like a war on drugs. And we might be just as ineffective at such a war. For example, much of what we're doing is excess and largely ineffective. We likely created more future terrorist than we've killed or discouraged. And we have lowered our standards to the point of decreasing the difference between us and them (not saying there is no difference). We've excused torture, assassination, aggression, and domestic spying. This has not made us either better nor safer.
Click to expand...

I dont think there is anything to excuse. We condemn domestic spying and torture, and theres nothing wrong with assassination, interrogation, aggression, etc so long as its confined to enemies. However, you make an entirely reasonable point that the way we go about defending the lives of american citizens may not be effective. I dont totally agree, but thats politics. The primary job of the federal govt is to ensure our rights by defending our lives. Terrorists still want to kill us, so we have to do something to stop them.

If you think ignoring them or retreating might stop them from trying to kill us, then maybe there is something to it. I certainly think we need to remove our military from almost everywhere in the world and concentrate on defending our home borders. But I dont think we need to stop killing them where we find them.
 
jonny5 said:
Yes it is. Islamic terrorists keep attacking us. And the 2001 AUF has not changed.
Click to expand...

Where are they attacking us then? In the same countries we're blowing them up in?

Terrorists keep attacking us :roll:
 
jonny5 said:
I dont think there is anything to excuse. We condemn domestic spying and torture, and theres nothing wrong with assassination, interrogation, aggression, etc so long as its confined to enemies. However, you make an entirely reasonable point that the way we go about defending the lives of american citizens may not be effective. I dont totally agree, but thats politics. The primary job of the federal govt is to ensure our rights by defending our lives. Terrorists still want to kill us, so we have to do something to stop them.

If you think ignoring them or retreating might stop them from trying to kill us, then maybe there is something to it. I certainly think we need to remove our military from almost everywhere in the world and concentrate on defending our home borders. But I dont think we need to stop killing them where we find them.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is something wrong with assassination. It's both illegal and immoral. And I didn't say interrogation. I said torture. Calling torture interrogation is simple lying. And torture is immoral and illegal as well. Aggression makes us more imperialistic, like the evil empire in star wars.

And no one said anything about ignoring them or retreating (though I don't know from where we'd retreat from). I said to combat them as they are, individuals and groups, not countries. They is no one we can invade, no government we can overthrow, no single group we can destroy to end terrorism. The premise was flawed from the beginning.
 
Boo Radley said:
The premise was flawed from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Not really. It was deliberately contrived to create an excuse for endless war to create a massive profit center for a select few.
 
jonny5 said:
Convince me with logic and reasoning, not just rhetoric.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand it 13 years in, I fear you will never understand it. :peace

13 years in, if you still believe the sophistry of the AUMF, you will never understand it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, there is something wrong with assassination. It's both illegal and immoral. And I didn't say interrogation. I said torture. Calling torture interrogation is simple lying. And torture is immoral and illegal as well. Aggression makes us more imperialistic, like the evil empire in star wars.

And no one said anything about ignoring them or retreating (though I don't know from where we'd retreat from). I said to combat them as they are, individuals and groups, not countries. They is no one we can invade, no government we can overthrow, no single group we can destroy to end terrorism. The premise was flawed from the beginning.
Click to expand...

And I said torture as well. I simply dont consider as torture the same things as you do. But it seems you agree with droning them, since its combating individuals, not countries.
 
Henry David said:
If you don't understand it 13 years in, I fear you will never understand it. :peace

13 years in, if you still believe the sophistry of the AUMF, you will never understand it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are on the wrong website then. This is a debate forum. If you just want to declare things and insult people, this is not the place.:ninja:
 
jonny5 said:
Perhaps you are on the wrong website then. This is a debate forum. If you just want to declare things and insult people, this is not the place.:ninja:
Click to expand...

I'm not insulting anybody. I am merely stating what is perhaps a minority opinion.

Are your posts really debate? Or just disproven government talking points? Sounds like a Sunday Morning Talking Heads show to me. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom