1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Drones and Extra-Judicial Killings

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by PlacidCasual, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,542

    Location: Cambridge

    Exactly, who knows. We don't even really know much about the woman. At the very least, she should be convicted of a crime in her absence based on the evidence produce in a court of law before we pass judgement.

    If she's proven to be a member of a known terrorist organisation that the UK is at war with, she's fair game.
     
  2. jimjamuk

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 30, 2007

    Posts: 2,819

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Too me there is not a lot of difference whether a plane launches the missile of the drone does - these days its all done from a good distance away and the intelligence is the same for both. If its cheaper and safer for a drone to do the work then its probably more preferable to use them. I doubt the collateral deaths are much different between the two options

    If you are in a war zone, siding with the "enemy" then you have to expect someone to take a pot shot at you at some point - regardless if you are proven guilty or not. If you are stupid enough to take your family with you then you are putting them in direct danger. Sad but I have no sympathy for her in this case
     
  3. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,579

    To be blunt I think you're misusing the term extra-judicial killings. The death of an enemy combatant during a war is simply that, it doesn't matter if the enemy defected from your side or not.
     
  4. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,024

    Lets be clear it's not about Sally-Anne Jones its about the UK and US states deciding to kill people who may not be combatants (ie not shooting at our soldiers) through no clear judicial process. No charges, no judge, no defence, no prosecution. The case is much clearer for the top guys who fulfil the same roles as any combatant generals but some of the people being targeted are clearly criminals but not necessarily combatants. We didn't routinely kill IRA terrorists if we caught then not in the act of committing terror. We have dropped our standards, we now accept we can kill with no due process because they're bad people. We are the ones diminished not the terrorists.

    The sentiment that they deserve to die is easily shared I am not exercised by the deaths so much as the fact we no longer act to a set of ideals/standards we set ourselves and championed. In fact the hypocrisy is we would condemn the Russians if they behaved in the same way for their enemies of the state because clearly our judgement is right and theirs is wrong thanks to our Olympian objectivity.
     
  5. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,579

    You mean like bombing tank factories in WW2?

    Not everyone shoots at our soldiers, the fact remains these people are part of the group that is at war with us, they may not be firing the bullets but they are helping to put them in the guns/etc.
     
  6. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    how about generals, logistics, surveillance etc? are those to be protected as well? military requires a huge number of people that don't directly kill.

    i still don't get your point of singling out drones, a person and now people who don't directly fire.
    if its not about Sally-Anne Jones perhaps you should give some examples of criminals that have zero active involvement in the war and we have targeted.
     
  7. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,579

    I do but this thread isn't about them. It's about the legality/morality of killing non-combatant members of enemy armies and terrorist groups without trial/etc, which I think is fine just as it always has been.
     
  8. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,579

    There are other threads for that, this is about the legality of using drones to assassinate criminals operating as part of enemy terrorist/military forces and whether or not they count as legitimate military targets even though their role in the enemy forces is not that of a soldier.
     
  9. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,060

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    The alternative is you equip someone with a licence to kill (as fictionalised by Ian Fleming), send him / her out to do the job.

    The morality has not really changed, the decision makers have not changed, the tools and the people doing it has.
     
  10. IronWarrior

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 8, 2009

    Posts: 4,424

    He wasn't innocent. Him and all the other children was being trained in warfare, they was known as the "Cubs of the Caliphate" and have been seen in a few ISIS execution videos.

    There is least 3-4 videos of the kids showing them in training exercises, the first I saw is them cutting the heads of teddy bears with large knifes. The second was a group of them hunting bound prisoners in a underground cave system shooting them dead with pistols, the next video is them hunting bound prisoners in a large building and shooting them dead. One of the prisoners choose to jump over the building then let them kill him. When they came down to the ground, they shot his corpse still.

    Then there is the video of the American boy and am pretty sure I seen a video of one boy cutting one guy with a knife, can't remember if they was stabbed him or they took his head off. There is other video that I now remember of one kid shooting a guy in the back of the head., it's been a while.

    I'm pretty sure I can still find all the working links, would you like to see the videos in gorgeous HD that puts Hollywood (cuckwood) to shame?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  11. Uther

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 16, 2005

    Posts: 9,743

    No I'm more disturbed that you would want to watch those videos tbh.
     
  12. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,579

    Were they learning to transform into battleships or is that exclusive to little girls? :p
     
  13. Terminal_Boy

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 13, 2013

    Posts: 7,086

    Location: La France

    This. Big Boy’s/Girl’s Rules apply.
     
  14. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,024

    Certainly it was my intention to discuss the legality and morality of using drones to assassinate criminals.

    Earlier WW2 was mentioned and I agree there was collateral damage as part of the industrial denial bombing strategies. We were however formally at war with Germany in whatever passes for a legal sense. We are not formally at war with IS and weren't formally at war with the Provisional IRA for instance. We have typically treated such people as criminals and not operated a pre-emptive kill policy. I accept that numerous cases occurred but they were not the general policy. In the UK we arrest terrorists where physically possible we only kill them if we think they are an immediate threat. That calculus has changed with drones.
     
  15. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2013

    Posts: 19,163

    Why the hell are you watching sick videos like that?
     
  16. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,316

    Mission creep. Is that not always the case though?

    Local council were given snooping powers for a good reason and after a couple of years they are abusing those same powers.
     
  17. Roar87

    Soldato

    Joined: May 10, 2012

    Posts: 5,564

    Location: Leeds

    She wasn't a criminal, she was a member of an organisation we are at war with in an active warzone. Her organisation burns civilians alive and blows children up. Frankly the death she got was generous.
     
  18. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 13,813

    It's not worth the risk to our troops trying bring some scumbag like her in alive, so drone em. These people are likely to blow themselves up if anyone gets close to them anyway. Which is what the Iraqi troops experience.

    A disposable drone and a missile is much less of a price to pay than some dead UK soldiers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  19. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,024

    But we don't have troops in Syria, and if we did and it was a matter of protection in combat I think a drone is as reasonable as any other form of artillery. What is happening is we're killing people who are probably not an imminent threat to UK troops or the UK itself which is a change to our historic position.

    I shouldn't infer too much from this forum but I doubt if it is hugely misrepresentative but we're also happy as a nation for politicians to decide who lives and dies as long as it's out of sight.
     
  20. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 13,813

    But they are a threat, they are actively recuiting people to attack us at home and abroad. As well as our allies.