Oops, turns out Arafat probably was murdered after all..

[Sava]

Morally is debatable, legally it's definitely illegal to assassinate people, outside of a legitimate war. The matter of civilian casualties doesn't come up.

So your issue is more about the US not officially declaring war?

Ever since dealing with the Barbary pirates, the US has dealt with non-state actors in military operations. Worldwide counter-terror efforts aren't any different.

[Sava]

If you are obsessed with legality, poisoning with radioactive material is either murder or a war crime for use of WMD, by the US definition

I've been specifically talking about US drone policy, not the Arafat case.

[C0ckney]

Murder isn't applicable in war. War is a political exercise. Arafat's death, if murder, was political.

The discussion then becomes about whether or not political leaders are legitimate targets.

this is just guff. if arafat was poisoned, he was murdered. it's really that simple. if you want to debate the morality of it, then fine, whatever, but the legality is crystal clear.

[MikeH]

So your issue is more about the US not officially declaring war?

Ever since dealing with the Barbary pirates, the US has dealt with non-state actors in military operations. Worldwide counter-terror efforts aren't any different.

Drone strikes haven't been confined to war zones.

[MikeH]

So your issue is more about the US not officially declaring war?

Ever since dealing with the Barbary pirates, the US has dealt with non-state actors in military operations. Worldwide counter-terror efforts aren't any different.

Piracy is a specific case where actually that's legal.

[Sava]

this is just guff. if arafat was poisoned, he was murdered. it's really that simple. if you want to debate the morality of it, then fine, whatever, but the legality is crystal clear.

You seem more concerned about the semantics... like the conservatives in the US who want to call the Fort Hood shooting terrorism instead of a workplace incident.

That's fine. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't change anything.

[Sava]

Drone strikes haven't been confined to war zones.

There really haven't been clearly defined battlefields since WW1. Ever since civilian populations became "legitimate" targets, the "battlefield" is basically the whole world.

[Sava]

Piracy is a specific case where actually that's legal.

But in your mind, people determined to commit attacks on civilians for political purposes, using military weapons... that's not a case where such a response is justified?

[C0ckney]

You seem more concerned about the semantics... like the conservatives in the US who want to call the Fort Hood shooting terrorism instead of a workplace incident.

That's fine. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't change anything.

who said this?

Murder isn't applicable in war. War is a political exercise. Arafat's death, if murder, was political.

The discussion then becomes about whether or not political leaders are legitimate targets.

sorry, i just prefer to call things what they are, rather than write meaningless waffle about them.

[Sava]

sorry, i just prefer to call things what they are, rather than write meaningless waffle about them.

Oh. So you just want to say WAHHH WAHHH THIS IS MURDER and not actually debate the issue.

That's fine.

[kentonio]

There really haven't been clearly defined battlefields since WW1. Ever since civilian populations became "legitimate" targets, the "battlefield" is basically the whole world.

Civilian populations never became 'legitimate' targets in the wider sense, which is why so many treaties and conventions were passed to stop the excesses of the two world wars from happening again.

As for 'the "battlefield" is basically the whole world' do you honestly believe you have some moral or legal right to kill any human on earth, as long as someone tells you there was a terrorist nearby?

[C0ckney]

Oh. So you just want to say WAHHH WAHHH THIS IS MURDER and not actually debate the issue.

That's fine.

uh huh.

Murder has a distinct definition. It's incorrect to use the term when discussing abortion. It's also incorrect to use it with regards to civilian casualties in military/counter-terror operations. It's pointless to discuss this topic with anyone who throws around the term so thoughtlessly.

No. It's not. Not morally. Not legally. Learn what words mean, please.

this is the internet, you see. everyone can see who wrote what.

[Sava]

this is the internet, you see. everyone can see who wrote what.

I don't quite understand the point you are making... besides the fact that discussing this topic with you is pointless. All internet discussion is pointless. I realize that.

[Sava]

Civilian populations never became 'legitimate' targets in the wider sense, which is why so many treaties and conventions were passed to stop the excesses of the two world wars from happening again.

No treaty in the world stops war. The reality of mutually assured destruction does. Once someone invents effective missile defense and the technology proliferates, there will probably be another massive war. War hasn't really stopped since the advent of nuclear weapons. It just means the major powers are too scared of being destroyed.

All your fancy morals and rules of war don't mean shit when the first shot is fired... which, in the next war, might be a city getting wiped off the face of the Earth.

As for 'the "battlefield" is basically the whole world' do you honestly believe you have some moral or legal right to kill any human on earth, as long as someone tells you there was a terrorist nearby?

Morality and legality are irrelevant. I'm not arguing any of that. Morality is subjective. Unless God comes down and tells everyone in plain language what the rules are, morality is just someone's opinion. Legality is just that opinion put through the ringer of a government process... so that we can know who to punish for what and feel justified in doing so.

My personal strategy in dealing with threats to my own life involve avoiding such conflict. I don't believe in pre-emptive action unless there is evidence of an imminent attack.

But forcing political change to US drone policy? I'm not about to go out and protest it. I may disagree with it. But the most effort I'll put forth is voting for the person who is likely to change it... or use it in an intelligent manner. However, politics in America boils down to bat**** crazy versus idealistic incompetence... with both sides generally being beholden to corporate masters.

And drone policy doesn't piss me off enough to waste my time complaining about it.

[kentonio]

No treaty in the world stops war. The reality of mutually assured destruction does. Once someone invents effective missile defense and the technology proliferates, there will probably be another massive war.

I didn't say stops war, I said 'stop the excesses of the two world wars from happening again'. In reality even that is wildly optimistic, but it certainly disproves your comment about civilians targets having been legitimized by the wars.

Morality and legality are irrelevant. I'm not arguing any of that. Morality is subjective. Unless God comes down and tells everyone in plain language what the rules are, morality is just someone's opinion. Legality is just that opinion put through the ringer of a government process... so that we can know who to punish for what and feel justified in doing so.

Ok, so if morality and legality are irrelevant, what do we have left? Might is right?

My personal strategy in dealing with threats to my own life involve avoiding such conflict. I don't believe in pre-emptive action unless there is evidence of an imminent attack.

But forcing political change to US drone policy? I'm not about to go out and protest it. I may disagree with it. But the most effort I'll put forth is voting for the person who is likely to change it... or use it in an intelligent manner. However, politics in America boils down to bat**** crazy versus idealistic incompetence... with both sides generally being beholden to corporate masters.

And drone policy doesn't piss me off enough to waste my time complaining about it.

Of course not, you're not one of the people whose family members are getting their limbs blown off by it. Of course if it leads to another 9/11 you might start wishing you'd spoken up earlier.