Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

The CIA is playing an increasing role in drone attacks with no transparency or demonstrated accountability, Human Rights Watch said. Pending transfer of command for drone strikes to the military, the Obama administration should ensure and publicly affirm that the CIA is bound by international law in conducting its drone operations.

While the laws of war do not prohibit intelligence agencies from participating in combat operations, states are obligated to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and provide redress for victims of unlawful attacks. The US government’s refusal to acknowledge the CIA’s international legal obligations or provide information on strikes where there have been credible allegations of laws-of-war violations leaves little basis for determining whether the US is meeting its international legal obligations, Human Rights Watch said.

The lawfulness of a targeted killing hinges in part on the applicable international law, which is determined by the context in which the attack takes place. The laws of war permit attacks during situations of armed conflict only against valid military targets. Attacks causing disproportionate loss of civilian life or property are prohibited.

In situations outside of armed conflict, the use of lethal force is addressed by international human rights law, which permits the use of lethal force only when necessary to save human life. In these law-enforcement situations, individuals cannot be targeted with lethal force merely because of past unlawful behavior, but only for imminent or other grave threats to life when arrest is not reasonably possible.

The US government has downplayed the applicability of international human rights law to drone attacks in situations in which there is no evident armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said.

“The Obama administration seems to have decided that wherever it conducts a targeted killing, it is by definition engaged in armed conflict, even far from any obvious battlefield,” Ross said. “What would the US say if Russia or China took the same approach to attack perceived enemies in the streets of New York or Washington?”

When you refer to: "a lot of people with viewpoints I thought were long extinct", do you mean expressions of support for further aggressive interference in middle eastern countries (& others) , support of drone attacks, etc ..?

I'd be interested to know in what context these views arise. The coming US election?

I think A2k exists in a very rarefied space.

Far more than you'd like to believe, Deb. Sometimes even some otherwise apparently intelligent people suddenly reveal themselves as Libertarians.

Msolga,

News reports today suggest that Russia is sending some attack helicopters to Syria. I don't know the authenticity of these reports, or how imminent the reported delivery may be, but, as this is reportedly based on statements made bo our Secretary of State, it should be treated with some credibility.

If these reports are verified, do you believe the USA or any other nations should take actions to prevent the delivery of these aircraft which could be devastatingly effective in suppressing all public activity throughout Syria?

News reports today suggest that Russia is sending some attack helicopters to Syria.

Msolga,

News reports today suggest that Russia is sending some attack helicopters to Syria. I don't know the authenticity of these reports, or how imminent the reported delivery may be, but, as this is reportedly based on statements made bo our Secretary of State, it should be treated with some credibility.

If these reports are verified, do you believe the USA or any other nations should take actions to prevent the delivery of these aircraft which could be devastatingly effective in suppressing all public activity throughout Syria?

go visit freeper.com

Quote:

Msolga,

News reports today suggest that Russia is sending some attack helicopters to Syria. I don't know the authenticity of these reports, or how imminent the reported delivery may be, but, as this is reportedly based on statements made bo our Secretary of State, it should be treated with some credibility.

If these reports are verified, do you believe the USA or any other nations should take actions to prevent the delivery of these aircraft which could be devastatingly effective in suppressing all public activity throughout Syria?

It depends on what you mean by taking action, George.
If you're talking but some form of sanctions in the UN under its current charter, all that Russia has to do is veto any such move as a permanent member of the Security Council. (that's why I've argued on the Syria thread for UN reform). Same as the other four permanent members when the same could, or has applied to them.

And if you're suggesting that other countries arm the Syrian rebel fighters ... what would that achieve but a full scale civil war? ... which some observers believe is already underway.

So we could have Russia, Iran & co supplying arms to the Assad government, while the "good guys" do the same for the rebel forces.
What would that achieve but escalate the scale of the conflict which already exists?
What would that do but make life even more hazardous for the ordinary civilians who are the meat in the sandwich between the two?

I wish I had the answer, George, but I don't.
What about you? What would you suggest should be done?
It is like asking what action should have been taken against the UK for supplying arms to Gaddifi which he used against his own people in Libya.
Or what action should be taken against the US for supplying the Israeli government with the arms to attack Palestinian residents of Gaza.
Or what action could have been taken against those countries which financed the military in Egypt for so long, leading to years of repression for ordinary Egyptians.
So many other examples ...

To me, the key lies in making the arms suppliers much more accountable.
They are profiting from a trade that is making the lives of ordinary, defenseless people in some of the poorest countries in the world intolerable.
But how do we achieve that when the arms trade is making obscene amounts of profit for so many who choose not to acknowledge the consequences of it?
All I know is that we ordinary people of good will just have to keep plugging away at making our own governments much more accountable for their actions .... & demand transparency, not accept secrecy ... in democracies we have every right to that.

Is see it as the US protecting it's people and it's interests from the avowed threat of a group of extremists in lands that cannot or will not do the job for us.