Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (570136)	6/4/2010 8:43:00 AM
From: one_less	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579680

Under the old rules “murder in violation of the laws of war” was defined as killings by people who did not meet “the requirements for lawful combatancy,” which would have suggested that CIA drone operators – who are not members of the military and do not wear a military uniform – could be charged with war crimes for killing individuals using drones. 'Individuals' in the case in point are Al Qaeda combatants also not wearing uniforms. The circumstances of war have changed a lot since men lined up toe to toe pointing muskets at one another, one side wearing blue the other red. I realize the heart of concern is over innocent bistanders but policy needs to take the each variable into account not just one and in this case there is a colonization of diverse variables. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged last week that the Obama administration changed a new manual on military commissions rules to accommodate its illegal drone program. The manual needs to be revised continually in response to changing circumstance, if it is to be relevant at all. Personally I don't think they are doing nearly enough if that is all that was done.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (570136)	6/4/2010 10:47:54 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

Broken Clock, nice puff piece from an "antiwar forum," but no proof that we specifically target civilians or "send drones in on a goat herder's word." > These developments come in the wake of a scathing report by the U.S. military on the deaths of 23 Afghan civilians, saying that “inaccurate and unprofessional” reporting by Predator drone operators helped lead to an airstrike in February on a group of innocent men, women, and children. The report said that four U.S. officers, including a brigade and battalion commander, had been reprimanded, and that two junior officers had also been disciplined. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai after the attack, announced a series of training measures intended to reduce the chances of similar events. This not enough for you? Tenchusatsu

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (570136)	6/4/2010 10:58:10 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

So along the lines of our other discussion, you have several points of intersection if your goal is to effect change. I'm making that assumption but feel free to correct me if it is wrong. The simplest links in the chain begin with actions which must comport to the operational guidelines. Operations must be legal. Laws supporting operations which must map to policy. Policy must be in line with principle. At the highest level you can disagree and criticise circumstance on principle, which you have done. You haven't been successful in getting left wingers or right wingers to change their perspective but you have found areas of agreement with both. I think that may be, at least in part, because your labeling convention is too loose, as I pointed out with your use of the term 'right'. You can also throw a monkey wrench where you see cartographic distortions somewhere between actions and principle, if you think that serves a purpose. What is right? (Morally right or wrong) What is right? (According to law) What is right? (Social mores) What is right? (just and good) What is being right? (Who judges) What is right? (on Principle) What is right? (left or right politically) What is right? (Human rights) What is right? (Right treatment of an issue or treatment of others) What is right? (The right perspective to have) I think I could make a list in the hundreds if I had the time. The point is, if you want to make 'right' a topic you have to carefully define the parameters of the discussion or it blows out in every direction until meaningfulness is lost.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (570136)	12/11/2010 9:01:52 AM
From: Peter Dierks	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

The Collapse of the Guantanamo Myth This week a Democrat Congress ratified Bush-era policy by refusing to fund any effort to shut the detention facility. By JOHN C. YOO AND ROBERT J. DELAHUNTY DECEMBER 11, 2010. When announcing in 2002 that the U.S. would detain al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously described the base as "the best, least worst place." Mr. Rumsfeld's quip distilled a truth: The U.S. would capture enemy fighters and leaders, and their detention, while messy, was of great military value. For two years, President Barack Obama has pretended that terrorism is a crime, that prisoners are unwanted, and that Gitmo is unneeded. As a presidential candidate, he declared: "It's time to show the world . . . we're not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with." Upon taking office, he ordered Gitmo closed within the year. But the president's embrace of the left's terrorism-as-crime theories collided with ... Message 27020235