The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Targeted Killing in Afghanistan

The Guardian has a piece titled "Britain faces legal challenge over secret US 'kill list' in Afghanistan:  Afghan man who lost relatives in missile strike says UK role in supplying information to US military may be unlawful".  The reporter is Nick Hopkins and the publication date is Thursday 9 August 2012.  So some Brit lawyers are representing a man who lost five relatives in a drone attack—an attack that might have hit the wrong targets.

Given that the drone was a US asset, this eventually tracks back to us.

My question is if the lawyers have located equivelent Taliban offices, where inquiries can be made as to the legitimacy of targets for acid throwing, IEDs and suicide bombers.  Are all the targets legitimate under international law?

In the mean time, yes, UK and US Government authorities need to be held to the highest standards in ordering DrOne attacks.

Yes, let the lawyers proceed, but first let a rapacious press go after those lawyers regarding the flip side of this question.  Then, when good answers have been provided, let the lawyers go forth.

Regads  —  Cliff

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am always amazed by the ability of humans to speak of war in moral, ethical, and legal terms. When things get to the point that one group decides it is in their interest to kill another group....for whatever reason...then reason, morality, ethics, law pretty much are side issues...for the aggressor and the defender.

Killing generally succeeds greed and avarice. You have something, I want it, or I feel entitled to it, you won't give it to me on MY terms, so I'll try to take it. It is the story of civilization which has over the millenia been anything but civil. About the only time the world has enjoyed peace is when two sides of a conflict are reloading.

Fast forward to the 'stan. The current handwringing stems from this sense that war is wrong and in order to assuage the accompanying national guilt for doing something horrific.....like dropping the atomic bomb....we retreat into legalisms and feigned moral indignation. The Brits have a long and sordid history of despicable acts against someone else, but they have institutionalized it in such a way as to be nationally insulated from such behavior. We largely make laws to either justify or condemn behavior that a majority of folks....or at least...the ones who have control of the microphone....decide they want.

It comes down to one simple question....and one that is eternal. "If you decide to go to war, do you want to win quickly and decisively and absolutely?" If the answer is "No," you have no business in the war business.

The entire basis of the cold war doctrine of MAD was to convince the other guys that going to war was just too costly...and thus...we largely avoided it. Having said that, the other guys have not suddenly gotten "religion." They will go for our throats when they feel they can win...and win decisively, quickly and at minimal cost to them.