|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:Weapons intended to maim are bad, which is what all prototype man portable laser guns have been up to this point (in an antipersonnel context). Just glorified laser pointers. It's been a while since I taught on this but LOAC basically boils down to 4 principles: Distinction (have to be able to distinguish between military and non military targets. Collateral damage happens, but civilians can't be the target. Proportionality: Harm must be proportionate to military advantage (this is the one a lot of people have a hard time understanding and is mis-cited a lot re Israel/Palestine. It doesn't mean if their tactics suck, yours have to, too. It means you can't, for example, wipe out an entire village to kill one soldier.) Humanity: Kind of self explainatory...this is where lasers have been deemed a LOAC violation in the past for the reasons you gave, and Necessity: there has to be a concrete military gain. No torturing people. No mistreating POWs. (whoops.) So I guess lasers that make your head explode instantly good, lasers that make your head explode slowly bad. holocaust bloopers posted:LoAC is about proportionality. That actually isn't a proportionality problem. If under LOAC I'm justified to kill someone with a handgun, I'm also justified to kill them with a nuke. Proportionality deals more with the collateral damage. the nuke isn't disproportionate because it's a nuke...it's disproportionate because it killed way more people than it was worth. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Dec 11, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I thought the law of armed conflict said we couldn't shoot a person, but we could shoot military equipment. Like the uniform they were wearing and well.. poo poo happens when some cloth can't stop bullet travel. That's a myth, there's nothing in the LOAC about "only shooting 'equipment' *wink wink*." Provided you hit the four principles AR laid out, and you meet the ROE, you can shoot (or otherwise kill) someone even if they're naked. Also regarding lasers, there's the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, but that really only applies to utilizing lasers in a fashion intended to blind/maim (LRDs and the like) not lasers that make poo poo blow up (the navy weapon). e: ActusRhesus posted:That actually isn't a proportionality problem. If under LOAC I'm justified to kill someone with a handgun, I'm also justified to kill them with a nuke. Proportionality deals more with the collateral damage. the nuke isn't disproportionate because it's a nuke...it's disproportionate because it killed way more people than it was worth. Although to be pedantic when you're talking about WMDs there are portions of international law that would argue that some weapons are so heinous that their use can never be proportional and as such their use is always illegal under LOAC (possibly outside of a second strike response, depending on how you interpret the specific protocols and conventions.) This is more focused on bio-chem since nukes have other political concerns that mean they will never* be utilized as commonly (relatively speaking) as bio-chem weapons have been regardless of international law considerations. All that doesn't take away from the general concept of the proportionality point you laid out, I just felt like being pedantic. * Never say never, yadda yadda yadda iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:That's a myth, there's nothing in the LOAC about "only shooting 'equipment' *wink wink*." Provided you hit the four principles AR laid out, and you meet the ROE, you can shoot (or otherwise kill) someone even if they're naked. though depending on *how* it blew poo poo up you might still have a humanity problem. Also, fun fact: Thanks to the convention on chemical weapons, you can't pepper spray someone trying to come onto your quarterdeck in a recognized theater of conflict. But you can shoot them in the face. Outside a theater of combat, pepper spray is okay again because the convention only applies to armed conflict. lawyers  And yeah, a recognized combatant? You can shoot them on the toilet if that's where you find them. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Whatever. The only poo poo I killed was ozone and sea life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And yeah, a recognized combatant? You can shoot them on the toilet if that's where you find them. Insert story here about the two guys that got JDAM'd while loving in an Afghan drainage ditch. I think it was OGA that posted that story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And yeah, a recognized combatant? You can shoot them on the toilet if that's where you find them. Paging Charles Askins... will Colonel Charles Askins report to the thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I'm reading the book "Dirty Wars: The World As A Battlefield" about the GWOT and CIA/SOCOM misadventures, it comes back to lawmakers deciding stuff like "is it legal under US law to drone this foreign combatant designated a terrorist in a sovereign nation?" I will never understand our nation's obsession with justifying poo poo like that as "legal" or "illegal". May Freddie Mercury bless us with total war, namaste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Obama Africanus posted:I still know how to get a hold of Grover, if he wants us to. I'm kind of disappointed that it doesn't shoot a visible beam like in movies, but that actually makes it even scarier. And more awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:I'm reading the book "Dirty Wars: The World As A Battlefield" about the GWOT and CIA/SOCOM misadventures, it comes back to lawmakers deciding stuff like "is it legal under US law to drone this foreign combatant designated a terrorist in a sovereign nation?" I will never understand our nation's obsession with justifying poo poo like that as "legal" or "illegal". May Freddie Mercury bless us with total war, namaste. I'm just curious how the administration and its supporters are going to condemn John Yoo, etc. When you have Jeh Johnson on your team. I met him. Listening to his excusing the drone policy made me physically ill. Plus he was kind of an rear end. But, you know...Harvard Law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm just curious how the administration and its supporters are going to condemn John Yoo, etc. When you have Jeh Johnson on your team. I met him. Listening to his excusing the drone policy made me physically ill. Plus he was kind of an rear end. I'm just baffled that laws are brought in to the equation in the first place. I understand why it's done, but my brain starts to just shut down when I think about it in depth. If you're using drones to strike people in sovereign countries, sometimes without their permission, how is coming back to "Well it's legal under US law" a valid point, unless US law is "We will do whatever we want whenever to whomever". Which I wish we'd just come out and say instead of all this bullshit rigamarole. Did Jeh Johnson helpfully explain why it's totally cool to drone to death US citizens? I'm sure he had a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm just curious how the administration and its supporters are going to condemn John Yoo, etc. When you have Jeh Johnson on your team. I met him. Listening to his excusing the drone policy made me physically ill. Plus he was kind of an rear end. I thought that Johnson's legal justification was post hoc, something that he threw together to make wasting Americans with drones sound dubiously legal after we wasted al-Awlaki and that propagandist butt boy of his from Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Honestly you really should just stop posting there. By posting you're giving them exactly what they want, which is a perceived threat that they can all dogpile on and yell at to make themselves feel better. Without that, they start tearing each other apart in a more-progressive-than-thou thunderdome, which is a lot funnier to watch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:I'm just baffled that laws are brought in to the equation in the first place. I understand why it's done, but my brain starts to just shut down when I think about it in depth. If you're using drones to strike people in sovereign countries, sometimes without their permission, how is coming back to "Well it's legal under US law" a valid point, unless US law is "We will do whatever we want whenever to whomever". Which I wish we'd just come out and say instead of all this bullshit rigamarole. As I recall the conversation, it was basically "A lot of people smarter than you are, like me, decided it's legal. I'd explain further, but you wouldn't understand  " I mentioned I was writing a paper on the Due Process implications of the policy for my counter-terrorism class at the war college and got *deathstare* followed by "Well the US hasn't acknowledged responsibility for anything (this was before it was admitted that we schwacked Al-Anwaki, but after the NYT said we did) so I hope your paper doesn't have any CLASSIFIED INFORMATION in it." What I wanted to say was "are you trying to threaten me with accusations of leaking classified information if I write a paper calling your policy bullshit...for a course I'm taking through the loving war college?" (heh...I guess I got to take war college classes too, not just LT worthlesspants) What I actually said was "Uh...no. Open source reporting with citations, only." Take home point, the man is an insufferable dickmitten. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Honestly you really should just stop posting there. By posting you're giving them exactly what they want, which is a perceived threat that they can all dogpile on and yell at to make themselves feel better. Without that, they start tearing each other apart in a more-progressive-than-thou thunderdome, which is a lot funnier to watch. Well, in that case... I will do what I can for the betterment of this fine nation, even if that is to do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I thought that Johnson's legal justification was post hoc, something that he threw together to make wasting Americans with drones sound dubiously legal after we wasted al-Awlaki and that propagandist butt boy of his from Virginia. I'm slightly confused on why it's such a big problem in the first place. Wouldn't the fact that they're hanging around people you're authorized to waste and aiding those people be enough? I mean just don't write in the Log at the fart trailer at Nellis that he was the main target. I feel like I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:I'm slightly confused on why it's such a big problem in the first place. Wouldn't the fact that they're hanging around people you're authorized to waste and aiding those people be enough? I mean just don't write in the Log at the far trailer at Nellis that he was the main target. the problem comes down to the question of whether or not he was in fact an authorized target under LOAC, which boils down to whether or not you believe in the concept of a borderless "global war" which Obama said he doesn't, or whether LOAC requires a recognized theater of armed conflict, and what exactly classifies someone as a belligerent vs. a run of the mill criminal. And then there's the moral "US citizen" angle. I could go on and on about this if you want. But it would be 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
/\ The basically endless AUMF plays a pretty big part there /\maffew buildings posted:I'm just baffled that laws are brought in to the equation in the first place. I understand why it's done, but my brain starts to just shut down when I think about it in depth. If you're using drones to strike people in sovereign countries, sometimes without their permission, how is coming back to "Well it's legal under US law" a valid point, unless US law is "We will do whatever we want whenever to whomever". Which I wish we'd just come out and say instead of all this bullshit rigamarole. The first part (striking people in sovereign countries maybe without the country's permission) has to do with international law/concept of a nation-state; as far as US law is concerned it falls under external armed conflict and as such US law doesn't really give a poo poo about it* as long as you aren't doing way out there poo poo like torture (lol). The second part (whether or not it is legal to strike those individuals, particularly when it comes to US citizens) has to do with restrictions we choose (in theory) to place on ourselves with regard to how we use armed force as an instrument of state power. * I'm way oversimplifying here but that's the general idea Zeroisanumber posted:I thought that Johnson's legal justification was post hoc, something that he threw together to make wasting Americans with drones sound dubiously legal after we wasted al-Awlaki and that propagandist butt boy of his from Virginia. Nope, it was penned before the al-Awlaki strike. Also yeah Jeh Johnson's logic is legitimately scary. Taken to the logical conclusion it basically is "the executive can kill anyone they want, anywhere they want, based on criteria determined solely by the executive without any Congressional oversight; the target having US citizenship changes nothing about this process." iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Yeah, it wasn't post-hoc, but it was definitely outcome-driven reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the problem comes down to the question of whether or not he was in fact an authorized target under LOAC, which boils down to whether or not you believe in the concept of a borderless "global war" which Obama said he doesn't, or whether LOAC requires a recognized theater of armed conflict, and what exactly classifies someone as a belligerent vs. a run of the mill criminal. And then there's the moral "US citizen" angle. I could go on and on about this if you want. But it would be Ah I see. I just remember having to to this argument for a law school final and going with its legal via AUMF and such...got a B- or B I think. FWIW this was back when it was theoretical and what his name hadn't been to the Hell fire Club yet. Going back to my earlier point what if the official target is someone else and oh darn shitlord happens to be there? Both wink wink and oh wow look who the hell we got too, does that change the calculus at all in your view? Edit I generally don't view citizenship as driving a big part of the process...but I'm also presuming the person is aiding or part of the enemy force in a combat zone. It's not like you could have just let drones handle people some goofs in the US outside of some weird scenarios that are more the realm of action movies. Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The first part (striking people in sovereign countries maybe without the country's permission) has to do with international law/concept of a nation-state; as far as US law is concerned it falls under external armed conflict and as such US law doesn't really give a poo poo about it* as long as you aren't doing way out there poo poo like torture (lol). God this poo poo is gay nuke everything I wish our leaders would just have a press conference on a carrier deck where the President comes out chomping on a cigar and says "gently caress y'all, 'Merica!" then does some bitchin' donuts in a fighter jet and takes off and JDAMs a wedding to clarify our foreign policy to the rest of the world maffew buildings fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also yeah Jeh Johnson's logic is legitimately scary. Taken to the logical conclusion it basically is "the executive can kill anyone they want, anywhere they want, based on criteria determined solely by the executive without any Congressional oversight; the target having US citizenship changes nothing about this process." This one always got to me, it's opening the pandoras box of awful stuff. Are there US citizens abroad doing not cool stuff detrimental to our nation? Sure. But fuckin' waxing them, that's the proverbial bridge too far for me. All floods start out small, it's opening the door to progressively worse things and we have to rely on our elected officials not to gently caress up the judgement calls and that right there is a horrible thing. I feel like that video footage of Bush on the links should have an Obama counterpart where he says "Now watch this Predator drone footage"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Ah I see. I just remember having to to this argument for a law school final and going with its legal via AUMF and such...got a B- or B I think. FWIW this was back when it was theoretical and what his name hadn't been to the Hell fire Club yet. I'm not sure AUMF really does though. AUMF explicitly addressed military action against (1) those responsible for 9-11, a proposition of questionable legal merit and (2) the Taliban government that harbored them, a clearly valid declaration or force against a group that would have a lot of overlap with group 1. Generally (and this is where traditional LOAC becomes problematic as we are seeing more and more "non-state" actors with the capability to engage in large scale warfare like activity) we declare war on nations, not concepts, and not gangs. So AUMF's legitimacy was that it was essentially a declaration of war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan (which had a lot of crossover with AQ). Even if group 1 were a legit category to include in the AUMF, Al-Anwaki was part of AQAP. So now we have to have an in depth look at whether or not AQAP is the same as AQ Mesopotamia and AQ Afghanistan. If it's not, then the AUMF doesn't cover it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I think my argument was he was part of the AQ brand and pledged loyalty to Osama and AQ. The pledge of fealty was akin to placing himself and AQAP under the AQ command structure. Not the best argument, but somewhat workable at the time. There is also the issue of if you are assisting an ally (in their country) who is allowing your presence and to conduct military operations against a mutual enemy. I'm pretty sure for example the "legitimate" Somalia government gives us carte blanc, and we bought Pakistans and Yemen. I haven't heard that one formally argued (well besides Somalia for obvious reasons), but it could be another way to allow a bite at the apple. Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:As I recall the conversation, it was basically "A lot of people smarter than you are, like me, decided it's legal. I'd explain further, but you wouldn't understand Saying things like dickmitten adds to your male mystique.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
not sure if this belongs here or in the drunk thread http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/64046095/My-4-year-old-got-drunk-at-preschool-Mum somehow a 4 year old at preschool got wasted to the point of being 4 times the legal driving limit kid owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Edit I generally don't view citizenship as driving a big part of the process...but I'm also presuming the person is aiding or part of the enemy force in a combat zone. It's not like you could have just let drones handle people some goofs in the US outside of some weird scenarios that are more the realm of action movies. It's only a driving point from a moral perspective, not a legal one, as the fifth amendment also applies to non-citizens. The bigger question is "how do we define combat zone?" and "do we have the authorization to use force outside a combat zone?" (OK, so that's 2 questions.) But (and I hate slippery slope arguments) if it's OK to whack an AQ propagandist in Yemen, how about an ELF blogger in Toronto? Johnson's logic makes no distinction between the two. It's basically "look, bitches, we can kill who we want. Don't question it. We're smarter." ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Cole posted:Saying things like dickmitten adds to your male mystique. oddly, the first person I heard say dickmitten was a lesbian circa 2003. (though she's a goon too) Other favorites: twatwaffle douchecanoe cockmonger Canadian
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:oddly, the first person I heard say dickmitten was a lesbian circa 2003. (though she's a goon too) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gjA5Z0QZcs
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:oddly, the first person I heard say dickmitten was a lesbian circa 2003. (though she's a goon too) I'm rather partial to "cock jockey", myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Yeah. You're right. I just use nuke as an oversimplified example because it's the obvious fill in for [example or really powerful weapon system that has a ton of collateral damage].
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:I'm rather partial to "cock jockey", myself. oh. and cockgobbler. followed by nomnomnom pantomime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:oddly, the first person I heard say dickmitten was a lesbian circa 2003. (though she's a goon too) Also, cuntelope
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
zombie303 posted:Also, cuntelope You would enjoy one of my rugby team's drinking games: loving animals. You had to go around the circle taking an animal's name and turning it into a profanity. If you couldn't come up with one, you had to drink. Examples: Phalligator, its cousin the cockodile, praying man-tits, etc. etc. Now cuntelope. Honorable mentions to titmouse and blue footed boobie. Because they were already pervy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
RichardNixon.txt B&E, Illegal Arms deals, Torture, Robot-murder. President's gonna get away with it because he's the President, and the hill is too incompetent or guilty by association to call him on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You would enjoy one of my rugby team's drinking games: I always considered it as a fruit like twattermelon, but that works too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Re: law chat Does the AUMF cover the strike into Pakistan for Bin Laden? As far as I know, Americans have been strictly forbidden from operating in Pakistan, even in a limited cross border capacity a-la Vietnam and Cambodia with the Ho Chi Mihn trail. Im curious about the legalese surrounding that or if there was any? E: ground forces forbidden not drones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:Re: law chat need to get in my car before commute turns to poo poo...valid question. will answer when I get home tonight. long answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:RichardNixon.txt In this case guilt by association is basically it. Every warhawk in congress secretly cheers for this type of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:need to get in my car before commute turns to poo poo...valid question. will answer when I get home tonight. long answer. In my mind the short version is "don't loving care if it's legal we loving got osama."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:In my mind the short version is "don't loving care if it's legal we loving got osama." Option 1) A poo poo ton of JDAMS Option 2) A ninja raid across the border I'd like to think there was no option 3. Edit: I hope in 8 or whatever years we get a memoir of who in the cabinet was for what option. TCD fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:34
|
|
