Obama's war crimes

[Jacobtm]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

[Mr. Morden]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?

[Jacobtm]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?

So you can continuously kill civilians as long as you promise it was an accident, over and over, for years and years?

Sounds ridiculous

[k-onmmunist]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

[Zioneer]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

Actually, I'm not voting for Obama specifically because of his war crimes and extension of Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. Nor am I voting for Romney, because he'd be worse. I'm voting for the Green Party candidate for President because I can't stand Obama's civil liberties violations.

Otherwise I support Democrats, though usually the most progressive ones. Obama is definitely not a progressive or liberal.

[k-onmmunist]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

Actually, I'm not voting for Obama specifically because of his war crimes and extension of Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. Nor am I voting for Romney, because he'd be worse. I'm voting for the Green Party candidate for President because I can't stand Obama's civil liberties violations.

Otherwise I support Democrats, though usually the most progressive ones. Obama is definitely not a progressive or liberal.

I understand this attitude. I just wish more progressives would realize how little of a difference Obama is to Bush or the Republicans.

[dead0man]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

(I'm probably going to regret this but....)

So...huh....how would you go about killing the people that need killing?

<bites tongue instead of poisoning the well>

[Donerail]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

Actually, I'm not voting for Obama specifically because of his war crimes and extension of Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. Nor am I voting for Romney, because he'd be worse. I'm voting for the Green Libertarian Party candidate for President because I can't stand Obama's civil liberties violations.

Otherwise I support Democrats, though usually the most progressive ones. Obama is definitely not a progressive or liberal.

This is pretty much my position on the issue as well.

[danny]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?

So you can continuously kill civilians as long as you promise it was an accident, over and over, for years and years?

Sounds ridiculous

If you have a military target in mind than yes. If the very fact that civilians die during wars would make it a war crime, than all wars would be war crime, since civilians always die in wars.

[The Mikado]

"Civilians" that take up arms and engage in warfare (Taliban etc.) are not civilians per the Geneva Convention.

[patrick1]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

(I'm probably going to regret this but....)

So...huh....how would you go about killing the people that need killing?

<bites tongue instead of poisoning the well>

In some circles it is only American or Western civilians who can be killed and then excused away as chickens coming home to roost or something.

[Vosem]

Oh my God, not you again.

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

No, it's not a war crime. I'm going to put in very simple terms for your understanding: we're bombing Taliban bases because the Taliban kill and oppress ordinary Afghans, and if they win they will snap at the opportunity to kill and oppress even more. In addition, the Taliban have supported terrorist acts against the US and American allies in the past, resulting in the cumulative deaths of thousands.

Drones are an effective way to fight the Taliban, therefore we use drones. Of course civilians die in a war, that's how it works. The American government is trying to minimize casualties, and the Taliban aren't.

Engaging in warfare should not mean prosecution.

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?

So you can continuously kill civilians as long as you promise it was an accident, over and over, for years and years?

Sounds ridiculous

To my knowledge, it's only a war crime if civilians are the intended targets -- when you begin a bombing campaign, even if you have knowledge that civilians will get hurt but enemy combatants, not civilians, are the key targets, that is legal under international law. But the US, to my knowledge, doesn't even do that on a particularly large scale.

[Mr. Morden]

The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?

So you can continuously kill civilians as long as you promise it was an accident, over and over, for years and years?

So you're suggesting that civilians are being targeted on purpose, and Obama is lying about it?  To what end?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

Actually, I'm not voting for Obama specifically because of his war crimes and extension of Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. Nor am I voting for Romney, because he'd be worse. I'm voting for the Green Party candidate for President because I can't stand Obama's civil liberties violations.

Otherwise I support Democrats, though usually the most progressive ones. Obama is definitely not a progressive or liberal.

Rocky! 

[Hatman 🍁]

all wars would be war crime

I think you might be on to something...

[Donerail]

It is a war crime yes, but don't expect anyone on this website to take you seriously for saying it. Obama can't do anything wrong dontcha know.

Actually, I'm not voting for Obama specifically because of his war crimes and extension of Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. Nor am I voting for Romney, because he'd be worse. I'm voting for the Green Party candidate for President because I can't stand Obama's civil liberties violations.

Otherwise I support Democrats, though usually the most progressive ones. Obama is definitely not a progressive or liberal.

Rocky! 

Gary! 

[Jacobtm]

So...huh....how would you go about killing the people that need killing?

<bites tongue instead of poisoning the well>

I can't think of a good reason to be bombing anyone anywhere. All our bombing is just for fun at this point, and will cause much more blowback than we will gain in security from maybe killing some people who aim to harm us sometimes.

The whole cause of people wanting to kill us is this:


"WASHINGTON (IPS) - Strong majorities of people in predominantly Muslim countries reject terrorism but support key goals of al-Qaeda, notably expelling United States military forces from the Islamic world, according to a major new study of public opinion in seven nations and the Palestinian territories released here Wednesday.

Nearly 90 percent of Egyptian respondents, 65 percent of Indonesians, 62 percent of Pakistanis, and 72 percent of Moroccans said they agreed with al-Qaeda’s goal of “push(ing) the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” according to a detailed survey carried out late last summer by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

"The U.S. faces a conundrum," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA's WorldPublicOpinion.org. "U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most (Muslims) reject its terrorist methods."

Indeed, only small minorities in all seven of the countries surveyed - ranging from six percent in Azerbaijan to 15 percent in Jordan - said they approved of attacks on U.S. civilians working in Islamic countries

Among the three countries that were polled in 2007, especially Pakistan, where U.S. missile attacks on al Qaeda and Taliban [read: and civilians] targets have drawn strong protests, popular support for attacks on civilians increased over the past two years, while rejection of such tactics fell, according to the study."

http://ipsnews.net/africa/wap/news.asp?idnews=45887

I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.

[Vosem]

The reason we attacked Afghanistan was because the government there wanted to kill us, and the reason we're still there is that if we leave that government will be restored. The main job of the American government is to ensure foreign governments don't kill us, after all. You've also edited the article rather selectively, in particular you leaving out lines like:

Majorities or pluralities of respondents in five of the eight countries - the Palestinian territories (90 percent), Egypt (83 percent), Jordan (72 percent) and Morocco (68 percent), and Turkey (40 percent) - said they approved of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Slightly lower percentages in each of those countries said they approved of attacks on U.S. military forces elsewhere in the Gulf and in Afghanistan.

Indeed, only small minorities in all seven of the countries surveyed - ranging from six percent in Azerbaijan to 15 percent in Jordan - said they approved of attacks on U.S. civilians working in Islamic countries. Respondents in the Palestinian territories, however, said they approved of such attacks, although 50 percent said they opposed them, and another 18 percent said they had mixed views on the question. To be fair, this line is written rather bizarrely -- 50 against, 32 for does not equal 'the Palestinian Territories approve of such attacks'

Among the three countries that were polled in 2007, especially Pakistan, where U.S. missile attacks on al Qaeda and Taliban targets have drawn strong protests, popular support for attacks on civilians increased over the past two years, while rejection of such tactics fell, according to the study. You notice that Pakistan seems to approve of at least Bush's "war crimes"?

/\/\/

I can't think of a good reason to be bombing anyone anywhere. All our bombing is just for fun

No? What about when the government of an area wants to kill Americans, and is actively engaged in doing so? What about when the people of an area want to kill Americans, and are actively engaged in doing so? You clearly have absolutely no knowledge of geopolitics, whatsoever. Literally none. Drone attacks from the US are bad, but rocket launches from Hamas are a-OK.

I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.

Well, first off, note polling results from Pakistan, which seems to approve of such notions, or at least did back in 2007. But this doesn't explain why, say, the Taliban government supported a terrorist attack against the US in 2001. We do need to bomb people who intend to bring the Taliban back to power. I can't see why you don't understand such an incredibly simple concept.

Arguing with you is a Sisyphian labor.

EDIT: Thank you for putting me in your sig. However, so as to more accurately represent my views in that sentence, could you please put the word civilians in quotes? Like this: "civilians"

Thxalot

[Jacobtm]

I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.

But this doesn't explain why, say, the Taliban government supported a terrorist attack against the US in 2001. We do need to bomb people who intend to bring the Taliban back to power. I can't see why you don't understand such an incredibly simple concept.

The attack against the U.S. on September 11 was not out of nowhere. Bin Laden had been incredibly specific about his reasoning for the attack. U.S. occupation of muslim lands, especially military bases near the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, but more generally its occupation of many muslim countries, was his chief complaint.

[Mr. Morden]

Should Bill Clinton be prosecuted for bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Serbia, etc?  By this logic, every American president is a war criminal, not to mention every head of government of a NATO country, plus other allied countries like Australia.

[k-onmmunist]

Should Bill Clinton be prosecuted for bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Serbia, etc?  By this logic, every American president is a war criminal, not to mention every head of government of a NATO country, plus other allied countries like Australia.

I'd agree.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The reason we attacked Afghanistan was because the government there wanted to kill us, and the reason we're still there is that if we leave that government will be restored. The main job of the American government is to ensure foreign governments don't kill us, after all. You've also edited the article rather selectively, in particular you leaving out lines like:

That's little more complicated. I'm very far from saying anything remotely close to friendly about the Taliban regime, but neither the regime nor any Afghan citizen took place in the 9/11 attacks, which was a work of a foreign terrorist organization. Surely, Taliban regime was guilty of hosting Bin Laden and not handing him over, but asylum is a sacred thing in Muslim tradition and culture. From our point of view, that makes Taliban at least little guilty, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the United States should think what is causing these sentiments and try to do something about it, rather than continue to deal exclusively with the consequences, which never solved a thing.

If we're talking about Iraq, we're talking about foreign military forces occupying an independent country and by many citizens of other Arab countries this is considered as an attack on the entire Arab world. Try to put yourself in their place for a moment.

The U.S. in Iraq were an occupying power. And I say the people of Iraq and the neighbouring countries had a darn good reason to be pissed off about this.

[batmacumba]

The problem here is that, unintentionally or not, the armed forces leaded by the USA government had consistently attacked civilian targets. While the death of civilians is a collateral effect of most types of warfare, the targetting of civilians and nonmilitary facilities is only logical (on a warring point of view, obviously) under a terrorist stance. One do It to cause panic and/or dissatisfaction on the people under whom one's enemy relies politically, in order to weak your enemy.

So, there are reports of attacks to hospitals, residential areas, nonmilitary infrastructure, etc. since Clinton's government military action (as there happened heavily in Vietnam), while little to nothing has been done to overturn this.

So, from a military logic, either the USA is willingly using of terrorism or there is a complete lack of respect to military action conventions (and of good administration, once resources are being spent on It).

Believing that the US Armed Forces are simply doing their job properly and attacking directly the enemy the whole time is nothing but wishful thinking. It ignores almost 20 years of good media job.

[Purch]

If there were no labels over the candidates this year and they were just debating about their foreign policy I'd consider everyone running this year (outside of Ron Paul) A neo-con. Obama.s foreign policy is overly aggressive to say the least which is why I find it amazing when guys like Romney claim he hasn't been aggresive enough

[Purch]

I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.

But this doesn't explain why, say, the Taliban government supported a terrorist attack against the US in 2001. We do need to bomb people who intend to bring the Taliban back to power. I can't see why you don't understand such an incredibly simple concept.

The attack against the U.S. on September 11 was not out of nowhere. Bin Laden had been incredibly specific about his reasoning for the attack. U.S. occupation of muslim lands, especially military bases near the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, but more generally its occupation of many muslim countries, was his chief complaint.

This. It's just a cycle of blowback which we refuse to stop.