Help me out here: "The Marathon Bombing is Different than a Drone Strike Because..."

[wtmusic]

1) The MB was totally random; a DS is mostly pretty much, or at least, intended to be non-random.
Not wowing me.

2) The MB was a political act, a DS is part of the War on Terror™.
I know, the WOT is a political act, but it's our political act
justified by 9/11
by fear
Going nowhere.

3) The MB was an act of terror.
Like the terror part, we have a war going on against it right now (see #2). Checking FBI's definition:

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

Not bad, the assassination part isn't a slam dunk. OK here goes:

4) The intent of a DS is not to influence policy, just to assassinate.
Pressure cookers filled with gunpowder and nails were pushing a specific political agenda, which was (?) Lame.

5) The MB was responsible for multiple indiscriminate murders, whereas DS's
Non-starter.

6) The victims of the MB looked like me, they were citizens of America, a Christian nation, and spoke English, and didn't leave bereaved families behind (at least I've never heard of any).
Echh.

Ideas?

[Leslie Valley]

1. The president got a legal opinion from his DOJ justifying drone strikes

before implementing them?

[G_j]

2. +1000

[wtmusic]

4. Good point...did the Tsarnaevs consult a lawyer?

Little T said he couldn't even afford one!

I think we're onto something here.

[yurbud]

31. that's why so few leaders of any country are tried for war crimes

because if they order it, it ain't a crime.

Hitler

Pol Pot

Idi Amin

and others probably felt the same way.

[msongs]

38. just like everything Hitler did was made legal before he did it. your argument is invalid nt

[Leslie Valley]

44. You thought I was justifying it?

Better get your irony meter calibrated.

For cripes sake!

[Recursion]

3. #1

I don't really care if it wows you or not, that's the legal and moral difference.

They're also, in fact, entirely non-random.

[wtmusic]

5. Love it. Putting yourself above the law always, always works.

[Recursion]

7. Uhmmm.... ok

Non sequiturs always persuade....

[wtmusic]

11. OK I'll make it easier for you.

Drone strikes are entirely non-random.

"Fewer than 2 percent of drone-strike victims in Pakistan are senior al Qaeda leaders

Despite White House assurances that its lethal drone policy merely targets "senior operational leaders" of al Qaeda and its associates, a new McClatchy report finds that the majority of drone targets in Pakistan include a mix of unidentified "extremists" and lower-level Afghan and Pakistani militants...

According to McClatchy, the documents "show that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing," which raises questions about Barack Obama's assurances that lethal killings are "not speculative" and that targets must be plotting "imminent" attacks on America. If you don't even know the identity of the target, how is the decision not "speculative"?

Some advocates of the drone program trust the administration's judgment, and feel that the White House deeming targets dangerous -- even if they had no association with al Qaeda -- is sufficient. But for others, the McClatchy report may only confirm allegations that terror suspects are killed with an insufficient degree of background information and oversight."

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/10/fewer_than_2_percent_of_drone_strike_victims_in_pakistan_are_senior_al_qaeda_leaders

[Recursion]

13. You have that backwards

Don't feel bad, most of DU did.

2% of casualties were post facto id'd as HVTs.

95% or so of drone strikes hit HVTs.

It's not difficult but DU seems to have trouble accepting that both of those are true.

[wtmusic]

15. Strangely I don't feel bad at all.

98% of casualties were IVs? ("Innocent victims" - got your trick of using acronyms to make it seem more sanitary).

[Recursion]

16. Nope

98% were not positively identified after the attack as high value targets.

See the difference?

(And I used the acronyms because you were saying DS and MB.)

[wtmusic]

17. So they might have been HVTs...that's a relief.

I guess the MB perps could have said the same thing, but a one-out-of-fifty chance is a lot higher than one-out-of-whatever!

Little T will get much better than a 2% chance at a fair trial before he gets the death penalty. I'd say it's damn close to 100%.

I wonder why the percent is so much lower when kiling poor non-Christian brown people far away.

[randome]

6. "...a DS is mostly pretty much, or at least, ..."

Talk about redundancies! You're obviously trying to find a way to put this point in a bad light.

I don't agree with drone strikes. I want them to stop. But they are undertaken PRIMARILY to stop crazed killers. That's a major difference between the Marathon Bombing and drone strikes on a field of war. Their use actually lessens the killing of civilians.

[wtmusic]

9. Not bad.

"Primarily", in caps, is effective messaging.

But we don't have any evidence that these so-called lieutenants of al Qaeda have ever personally killed anyone. Their org has, sure, but so has the U.S. Calling this a war puts us on equal footing.

Where's the "field" in your field of war? In the past it's been anywhere the U.S. wants it to be. The Brothers Tsarnaev sort of made Boylston Street their field, didn't they?

[randome]

10. And the Brothers were pursued and apprehended.

Not so easily done in remote mountains of Pakistan.

So far as I know, no one in the military needs to check with you or me to define 'evidence'. I don't think we should call what we are doing a state of war but since we are, it's still a military matter.

[wtmusic]

12. I wouldn't be so presumptious as to think the military needs to check with me on anything.

I'm concerned whether they're checking with anyone.

[FarCenter]

8. None targeted by the MB have harmed or intended to harm Islam

Whereas, the targets of a DS have harmed or are members of a conspiracy to harm the US.

[wtmusic]

14. Someone was targeted in the MB?

When 2% of DS victims are confirmed al Qaeda conspirators, I guess we do have a slightly better chance at justice.

Still, a pretty shitty track record.

[Katashi_itto]

18. A sovereign nation's operation (right or wrong) vs a pair of politically unaffiliated morons?

Thaere seems to be a wee bit of difference there

[wtmusic]

21. Excellent. Let's level the playing field

by assuming the Tsarnaevs were brilliant and vocal Islamic activists (Islam, after all, regards itself as a global state independent of national boundaries).

I'm trying to see where "sovereign" fits in here, or whether the differences have any moral implications. (?)

[Katashi_itto]

24. But their not. So again no equivalence.

sov·er·eign/ˈsɒvrɪn, ˈsɒvərɪn, ˈsʌv-/ Show Spelled [sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Show IPA
noun
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has supreme power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4. a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.
adjective
5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereign authority; royal.
6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc

However you could say morality is relative.

In that light a churchgoer is as equally moral as a cannibal.

The society they occupy judges whether an action is "moral" or not.

After all the Nazis viewed themselves as rightous.

In the end it's the winning civilization that gets to proclaim if it was "Just" or not.

[wtmusic]

26. You would agree that "might makes right", then.

That's problematic, as it implies that when the Nazis were victorious they were in the right.

There are many who believe the crowning achievement of civilization has been proving the notion of moral relativism false.

Back to the drawing board.

[Katashi_itto]

27. Yes, and no. I view cultures in Darwinian fashion. "Might Makes Right" is usually

good for short term survival of a culture. Not long term.

[wtmusic]

29. That idea occurred to me too

How long is long term?

If by some fluke of nuclear terrorism Muslims were able to turn the world into a global caliphate, how long would it have to go on before stoning adulterers and burying women in holes would be a just punishment...decades? Centuries?

Call me naive, but I believe fundamental compassion makes possible a morality which is independent of power.

[Katashi_itto]

32. First Muslim Terrorist grabbing a nuke would garner nothing but a bunch of

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

fresh glass parking lots.

Global Nuclear extortion, would likely create a lot of dead Muslims.

Russia would simply start executing it's populace. "Oh want to backmail us?...How about we elimimate our Muslims instead"

Again short term.

[wtmusic]

35. Agree, a remote possibility.

The Spanish Inquisition went on for four hundred years, and in its sphere they had a pretty twisted view of what's right.

But I think what I'm getting from your POV is that justice ultimately triumphs in the long term. (?)

[Katashi_itto]

41. Justice...sometimes...It's a long term survival trait.

People tend to support a culture that either promotes or gives the illusion it supports Justice.

The Chinese Dynasty lasted five thousand years, they promoted law and order. They only fell from outside forces.

Its' like Stock Markets.

You want a legit stock market to play in. if it loses legitamacy. It's lost everything.

The Current stock markets volume is a shadow of what it once was. because people no longer believe it's legit.

[yurbud]

33. what's the difference for the innocents blown up?

[Katashi_itto]

34. Nothing really for them, dead is dead.

[The2ndWheel]

19. ...might makes right?

The US Government can basically do whatever it wants to do, and nothing will be done about it. Nothing official anyway, by some other state or anything. Not in the reality that we live in on April 23rd, 2013.

Two young adults who took it upon themselves to do something illegal? There's not much of anything backing their actions.

We keep trying to find answers, and come up with reasons, but the simple truth of the matter is that might has always made right. Maybe not always morally, or always ethically, or whatever, but whichever side has more power than the other pretty much always comes out on top, and people complaining about it have to take a back seat.

The trick is that the definition of might/power/strength can be many things. It doesn't have to be the size of the military, and it doesn't always have to be negative either. It's just usually associated with that.

[wtmusic]

22. You're not helping at all.

But of course, correct.

[treestar]

20. 8 year old boy, two young women

Not known members of any terrorist organization intent on killing Muslims.

[wtmusic]

23. Living Under Drones

[Coyotl]

25. If the President does it, it is not a crime!

Everyone knows that. Or, in a police state, they should.

[woo me with science]

28. Why do you hate America?

K&R

[emulatorloo]

30. Take it over to Freerepublic. This bullshit might fly over there.

[clarice]

36. For a newbies benefit...

WT. Not trying to start a fight, but, please come right out
and tell us what you are trying to say. A simple, barebones
description of what your agenda is.

Thanks.

[wtmusic]

39. Sure.

Using my unique and overworked style of irony, I'm trying to highlight the rank hypocrisy of our culture with respect to the extrajudicial killing of people we view as dangerous.

[clarice]

46. Oh thanks.....that cleared it up ! lol.nt

[Taverner]

37. Here's one: The BM Bombing only killed 3 people

Drones have killed hundreds

[clarice]

40. Sorry, you lost me on this one...... ? nt

[Taverner]

43. Drone Strikes have killed hundreds of people

We got "the bad guys" but we also got a bunch of collateral damage, aka innocent civilians

All dead

Marathon Bombings killed three people (sorry my number was off)

I am sure the brothers would love to have taken out the entire city, but they didn't have that capability.

[clarice]

45. Thanks. nt

[wtmusic]

42. That's terrible.

I hope you're not in marketing.

( )

[woo me with science]

47. K&R

[SlipperySlope]

48. Because a Drone Strike is carried out by the State

Terrorism is defined in 22 USC 2656f(d)(2):

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

Since the United States is a nation (and not a subnational group), the actions of the United States by definition can never be construed as terrorism.




I'm not exactly sure where to put the sarcasm tag in the above...

[Downwinder]

49. The marathon bombers were present at the scene,

not holed up in a trailer 5,000+ miles away.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. I can complete #5 for you: "never intentionally cause civilian casualties".

The Boston bombings were a deliberate attempt to kill innocent civilians.

Drone strikes sometimes kill innocent civilians by accident, despite trying not to.

Suggesting moral equivalence is willful blindness, I think.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Oh bullshit, what do you call "militants" (aka males between teens and middle aged that get hit)

or "insurgents" (aka folks that weren't studding us at all until we occupied their country)?

What are the people on the wrong end of a double tap?

These folks are innocent civilians that we have re-defined solely in order to legitimize their state sanctioned murders.

What the hell are we doing in Yemen aside from propping up some fuckers in exchange for considerations?

The phony "morality" is nothing but the privileged perspective of folks on the trigger end of an empire.

[wtmusic]

57. Bravo.

[stevenleser]

53. I agree. That makes the difference for me. nt

[wtmusic]

55. Agree, they aren't morally equivalent

in the same way that killing someone by accidentally striking them with a car is not the same as intentionally running them over. The first is a crime nonetheless, and is punishable as involuntary manslaughter.

When they're hurtling Hellfire missiles from 5,000 ft up against unknown/unseen/incompletely evaluated targets, when does carelessness become criminal?

Of course this would never be tolerated in the U.S., and it's a crime the second they push the button.

[Dr. Strange]

51. The Tsarnaevs have never won a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Sheepshank]

54. Theoretically, MB could have been taken out by a DS

I'm thinking one act can be legally justified by the other illegal act.

Your sensitive moral compass notwithstanding, Drones in a conflict zones trying to mow down mass killers and leaders of mass killers, is not the same as a couple of punk kids with no particular enemy in mind, just indiscriminant killing and chaos.

[wtmusic]

56. They wouldn't be though, would they.

The U.S. would (and did) use far more caution in Boston. Hence the hypocrisy.