Drone Strikes Moral?

[dairygirl4u2c]

seems like u r backpedling on the killing hitler Lee etc point. at first u said we can't kill Lee if he was at a wedding but seem to be saying we could kill hitler if he was. we were at war with both of em.

 

i dont think anyone thinks indiscriminate killing is a good thing. the question is whether the judicial branch needs to be involved. im sure thered be to some extent self checks on obama generals etc and overall it wouldnt be a free for all kill fest.

 

i think this debate mostly ighlights the philsosphical differences between war and self defense. why is it ok to kill hitler at a weeding in war but not in self defense if hes not immediateky killing anyone etc and we werent technically at war?  i understand the arguments involved its just peculiar that a theory can mean the difference between whether we practicall can kill him or not when at the end of the day he's a bad guy about to kill as best he can. (kind of goes back to whether we should try to capture maim etc hitler instead of killig him etc even in war as is iften argued w self defense theories, to be somewhat more consistent)

 

it also highlights it seems to me that u seems to think this is a self defense issue w imminency arguments involved. at least that's the implicit statement u r making, as u ren't explicitly arguing why it's one and not the other etc... just hounding on checks and balances and proper understanding of immiency. i think its al queda and could be argued a war issue. it's not talked about much but the press release of obama cited Just War theory and self defense imminency theory. even if he fails in the defense theory he could prob be vindicated in Just war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/us-drone-strike-policy-just-war-or-just-targeted-killing/2013/02/07/239e0696-712e-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

Edited February 10, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

itd seem to me that if u have significant enuff certainty that the person u r trying to caoture woud fight back etc and its not a sure fire capture w out casualty... that u shoudnt have to try to capture etc first, go straight for the kill. like preemptive war... this is preemptive self defense.

otherwise wed just be falling back to orthodox understandings and ignoring the underkying truths involved at the expense of innocent lives

[Aloysius]

I didn't backpedal, I merely pointed out that we were actually at war with Germany as just another sign for how absurd the whole situation is.  by no means do I think it's justified to bomb a random family reunion because Hitler happens to be there (though there are extreme exceptional circumstances where I could understand the mitigating factors of desperation to try to end the war, if we had bombed Hitler at a family reunion out of an exceptional desperation to end the war I won't say that it was necessarily justified but I would say that it was understandable, and possibly had mitigating factors; but such exceptions can never be the rule, as they have become)

 

the imminence of the attack is an issue raised by the DOJ memo, which basically said that even though the legal justification is based on the idea that you're attacking someone who is an immanent threat to you, there is no need for any intelligence or evidence to be pointing to their involvement in an active plot against the US.  ie, we can kill them by assassination even if we don't have a shred of evidence that they're plotting to attack us.

 

I think the ACLU is demanding that we at least require some kind of assassination warrant signed by a FISA judge, at least then there'd be a semblance of due process and oversight so that at least we'd only be targeting people that we definitely had evidence against (right now we're targeting people without having any evidence against them).

 

"Preemptive self-defense"... that's a new one.  It's unbelievable that you would consider not adopting your position to be the thing that would spare the expense of innocent lives.  It is the drones that are killing innocent people, they are regularly indiscriminately killing large numbers of innocent people.  when you make "pre-emption" the rule, you are the bad guy, you are the terrorist, because you're acting based on what you think someone else might do and therefore YOU are the aggressor.  What the hell are we even fighting for when we do stuff like that?  It's clear to me that our current policy on drones makes the USA the terrorist in these situations... if anyone else were doing things like we were doing, we'd call them terrorists, because it's targeting civilian centers and bombing them to try to terrorize a population.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont know why if we are at war with hitler etc that we cant kill him at a wedding, even though in a few hours he will be back to warring with us.id venture this is counter conventional orthodox thoghts on the matter. it also to me ignores the underlying truths involved to fulfill arbitrary thoughts of what proper

 

it's not lke im against judges etc being involved. i guess i just trust the executive more than others..... and again it seems more like war situation than a self defense situatuion. but sure do it the ACLUs way.

 

it is a new one preemtive self defense but i googled it and its actuaky not completely unheard of

"In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self-defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self-defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person."

admitedly this is a step beyond going to someone u know will attack at some point. but id argue close enuff.... sometimes it's just clear. osama was gonna kil again regardless of if we are at war with him or he tries to fight back. if we're certain enough of him not surrendering nonviolently.... preemption all the way. sometimes it's just clear cut. (like id argue tiller and certain abortionists) i admit it's not always clear cut and so couldnt always be employed, but often it is.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Bernk_rr&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=hp&cp=14&gs_id=15&xhr=t&q=preemptive+self+defense&es_nrs=true&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22preemptive+se&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.aWM&fp=72bf9325becb8e42&biw=1280&bih=546
 

 

also 2 b clear am not arguing for sloppy drone strikes that cause innocents to die too mch. i too adhere to proportionality and mimimizng casualty. but also justifying any casualty of innocents as bush did, principle of double effect