Are US drone pilots war criminals?

[Apex]

Even if he didn't, why would anyone expect you to be anymore equipped?

You do not need to be some kind of expert to get it. Anyone who thinks that it is immoral to kill the enemy using a method that keeps your people safe as opposed to using a method that puts your people in danger of being killed needs to reevaluate the situation.

 

[Apex]

What war?

That question is irrelevant to his statement.

 

[McBell]

That question is irrelevant to his statement.

Which is completely irrelevant because it was not asked in reply to his statement, he asked it in reply to yours...

 

[dust1n]

You do not need to be some kind of expert to get it. Anyone who thinks that it is immoral to kill the enemy using a method that keeps your people safe as opposed to using a method that puts your people in danger of being killed needs to reevaluate the situation.

What does morality have to do with the point of war? I asked if Luis did not know the point of war, why you would be more equipped to know the point of war (or more specifically, why would anyone expect this). I did not, however, ask under what circumstances of ethical judgments do you claim individuals in need of reevaluating the situation.

If you rather not answer my question, just say so.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Falklands was an interesting example of modern warfare.
Britain had removed most of their defencive capability from the territory lusted by Argentina. Inevitably it was invaded and over run.

Britain mounted a counter offencive from the other side of the world using mainly civilian ships as troop carriers and support vessels. It had no back up, so it was a one shot go.
The islands were within range of Argentine attack aircraft who also controlled the island air strip.

During the initial approach the ship carrying the helicopters was sunk as was one of the main attack ships using exocet missiles. And with the loss of many British troops.
The Battleship Belgrano was sunk by a nuclear submarine to prevent it entering the fray as is could have overwhelmed the remaining British ships.

The remaining British troops, with the support of a flight of jump jets made an otherwise unsupported old fashioned ( mainly special forces) overland on foot attack and recaptured the Island. Comparatively few of the forces on either side were killed in the battle.

Today, we could not mount a similar invasion, as we no longer have the necessary ships and aircraft. However we would still be able to use less conventional weapons including missiles and drones against selected mainland targets and ships. A land attack would seem unlikely indeed. Defence of the Falklands seems to be part reliant on the garrison and part on deterrent.

 

[Apex]

Which is completely irrelevant because it was not asked in reply to his statement, he asked it in reply to yours...

My comment was not in reply to any war.

 

[McBell]

My comment was not in reply to any war.

Yet you were the one who mentioned war:

I beg to differ. Drones, as well as missiles, are definitely worse than trench combat from a moral standpoint. To the point of being automatically criminal, in fact.

I don't think you understand the point of war...

What war?

That question is irrelevant to his statement.

Which is completely irrelevant because it was not asked in reply to his statement, he asked it in reply to yours...

So it does seem that your comment "I don't think you understand the point of war..." is the start of the irrelevancy and Mr. Penguin was merely pointing that out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My comment was not in reply to any war.

Fair enough. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that the drone strikes we're talking about aren't part of any war. I know you weren't the first person to mention war in the thread, but it seemed to me to be a good post to use to bring up the issue.

While drones are weapons that can be used in war, what we're talking about here isn't war; it's a program of actions carried out in the territory of allies against civilians.

When everything goes perfectly, these drone strikes are the deliberate killing of criminals without trial, which is considered murder by the laws of the United States and most other countries. When things don't go perfectly - and it seems that they often don't - innocent people die.

I have major difficulty making a moral distinction between these drone strikes and terrorist tactics like IEDs. To me, the drone strikes just seem like a more elaborate and expensive version of a similar idea.

 

[Apex]

Yet you were the one who mentioned war:So it does seem that your comment "I don't think you understand the point of war..." is the start of the irrelevancy and Mr. Penguin was merely pointing that out.

There is a difference in mentioning war in the general sense, and mentioning a specific war.

 

[Apex]

What does morality have to do with the point of war? I asked if Luis did not know the point of war, why you would be more equipped to know the point of war (or more specifically, why would anyone expect this). I did not, however, ask under what circumstances of ethical judgments do you claim individuals in need of reevaluating the situation.

If you rather not answer my question, just say so.

My reply was calling out that Luis' comment of trench warfare being more ethical than drone strikes was completely nonsensical. Do you disagree with this?

 

[dust1n]

My reply was calling out that Luis' comment of trench warfare being more ethical than drone strikes was completely nonsensical. Do you disagree with this?

What's that have to do with the point of war? That's what I am asking about. You insinuated you understood the point of war, the point in as the purpose or the goal of war. I was asking why you would know that batter. If I wanted to know something about ethics, I would have asked it.

Don't worry about it though. If you don't want to answer the question, you don't have to.

 

[Apex]

What's that have to do with the point of war? That's what I am asking about. You insinuated you understood the point of war, the point in as the purpose or the goal of war. I was asking why you would know that batter. If I wanted to know something about ethics, I would have asked it.

Don't worry about it though. If you don't want to answer the question, you don't have to.

I really think we care about two completely different things here. But whatever.

The point of war is to win. And you do not do that by needlessly putting your own people at risk when safer options are available.

And if you are going to be a broken record about this, I am active duty military. So I have actually had formal training on this subject as opposed to your average person.

Now you answer my question:
Do you think it is more ethical, as a commander, to order your men into battle (such as trench warfare), rather than using methods that would keep them completely safe?

 

[Curious George]

I would think that this is a relatively easy question. Did the acts constitute a breach the accepted rules of war? and did the pilots knowingly commit an the act?

if the answer is yes to both questions then the answer yes they are war criminals. If the answer is no to either question then they are not. killing innocents is not against any rules.

What is the breach? what did they do that violated international rules of war?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would think that this is a relatively easy question. Did the acts constitute a breach the accepted rules of war? and did the pilots knowingly commit an the act?

if the answer is yes to both questions then the answer yes they are war criminals. If the answer is no to either question then they are not. killing innocents is not against any rules.

What is the breach? what did they do that violated international rules of war?

They didn't violate any rules of war because THERE'S NO WAR. If you click on the link in the OP, you'll see that the article is talking about drone strikes carried out by the CIA in the territory of allies of the US against people who are not soldiers in any nation's army.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I believe it is classified as an act of aggression and thus is technically a war crime even were none but the target harmed (A war crime does not require the existence of a declared war) - it is merely that the relevant UN amendments have not been enacted yet (and probably will not until the balance of world power begins to shift - when the US and EU will be pushing to have those enacted as other powers begin to flex their might) let alone enforced. Though if it makes you feel better no American is likely to be prosecuted for a war crime any time within the next 50 years - because they are willing to invade the Netherlands to prevent facing the same courts they require others to face.

 

[LuisDantas]

I really think we care about two completely different things here. But whatever.

The point of war is to win. And you do not do that by needlessly putting your own people at risk when safer options are available.

What is "winning", and why is it a good thing? Why is it morally acceptable?

 

[Apex]

What is "winning", and why is it a good thing? Why is it morally acceptable?

What is the meaning of life?

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the meaning of life?

To learn not to end up trapped in senseless aggression and violence?

 

[McBell]

What is "winning", and why is it a good thing?

Achieving your goal.
No idea.

Why is it morally acceptable?

What is it you are asking the morality of?
winning? The actions done to win?

What does morality have to do with it?

 

[McBell]

What is the meaning of life?

the meaning of life is different for each entity.