A part of drone strikes are done by CIA pilots at Langley. I think you are being generous with "military, does this and thus it is ok".
But no matter how generous you are, stretching "military" for CIA agents at Langely who kill kids herding goats by day and pick up their kids for soccer practice in the evening is a little too silly for my taste.
The CIA explicitly has no law enforcement capability. Their killing therefore does not represent the enforcement of any law and as such does not require a trial. Their killing is therefore a military action.
Gangs, civilians, and terrorists are not governmental entities and therefore not military. A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. Organized violence against a foreign country by citizens of another is also referred to as military (e.g. [1])
> A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state.
The U.S., at least, claims that it wouldn't be. According to the U.S., state-sanctioned terrorism is still terrorism, not legitimate military action, and a violation of international law. Therefore the U.S. maintains a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism", countries that it alleges engage in such unlawful tactics, either directly or via proxies. For example, it placed Libya on the list after the Lockerbie bombing.
Don't be reading anything into that list. Terrorism is mostly just a label used to shut down discussion. Funding for the IRA occurred in the US in a big way. The US has also backed even more violent struggles against elected governments. And if shooting down civilian airliners isn't direct terrorism, what it? This is a discussion on murdering people with drone strikes though, and I suppose that's pretty much the same.
Kind of like how congress doesn't need to approve things that are "armed conflicts" as opposed to "wars"? Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians.
Congress has approved this "armed conflict". Though, it's not actually legally clear that the President may not use any military force anywhere without Congress's say so.
> Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians.
Obviously, but that is true for essentially every war ever. It's one of the reasons war is bad, if it only affected those who volunteered for it it would simply be another sporting event...
Show me a war in which these civilians died. As far as i remember there no war has been declared between USA and Pakistan. So these civilians were killed outside of war zone.
Exactly, also the more well known attack in Yemen. Also not a war zone.
Firing missiles on civilians, or "combatants" that aren't engaged in any conflict with you is a war crime.
Would you accept this, if the US fired a missile into a Canadian cafe because they thought a terrorist was in there and everyone around him must ALSO be a terrorist (and thus an enemy combatant)?
The various international laws and treaties covering the Law of Armed Conflict actually allow for a neutral country to permit military action against unlawful combatants that have taken refuge in their territory. There is no need for them to be camping out in a 'war zone' with a 'Please Bomb Me' sign hooked up to their building.
Otherwise, what legal basis would nations have for taking military action against pirates on the high seas (the other famous example of non-state actors at war with nations)?
Pakistan claims they don't permit the strikes, fwiw, although they seem to de facto go along with them, and may secretly consent. Not that that necessarily makes a difference either way.
There is the Abbottabad Commission Report the Pakistanis did on the Bin Laden raid that goes into depth of the politics involved[1]. There is a history of political infighting over US relations between the civilian government, military and intelligence community of Pakistan. This report was compiled by the Pakistani government. It is shortsighted to think they are any more transparent than the US. There are other reports, one by the UN, that estimate wildly the numbers[2]. The actual article[3] with the document looks like a photo caption in the Salon article. Totally glanced over it the first time. It is hard to have a discussion when the truth is obscured by time and distance, the government claims state secrets, and the only people raising concerns use terms like "indiscriminate civilian killings." We aren't fire bombing cities here. There is an immediate need for transparency and greater oversight and discretion with the drone program. I fear a future where warfare is cheap and with out risk.
That's because the military is supposed to only attack where the trial is a foregone conclusion -- i.e. a soldier actively fighting a war with you. Kinda like the cops also shoot at someone with a gun the moment they raise it at them. There is no trial needed when there is clear and present danger, or a formal declaration of war and uniforms.
But of course, with terrorism it's all so complicated and confusing, why not just wear lampshades and drink a lot instead of bothering to figure out what is what.
The problem is that we have seen this all before. It is freaking scary to pick up a history book after reading the news.
"The Algerian War of Independence does provide such similarities in terms of geography and topography, social makeup, as well as military and insurgent forces at play. The French, however, lost Algeria after eight years of bitter fighting and the subject is further obscured by the emotions surrounding the atrocities by both sides, thus making the collation of objective testimonies difficult. Most confusing, though, are the circumstances specific to a troubled France at the time, such as the profound tensions that existed between citizens in the métropole and French immigrants in Algeria proper, the continued effort to resume its former place as a major power in the world, the collapse of the Fourth Republic in 1958,..."[1]
The technology might improve and the tactics might go through a revision or two but what is the possibility of similar outcomes? Is unilateral, and sometimes excessive, force the only possibility?
