Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Nope. And, all apologies to Kurt Vonnegut, Dresden was a legitimate military target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II Tokyo, I think we can all agree, was as well.

Were civilians deliberately targeted? Only Bomber Harris and Churchill can know as to Dresden; Curtis LeMay and FDR as to Tokyo can answer that, but it seems (other than to revisionist historians and well, understandably, the Germans and Japanese) clear that there were legitimate military reasons for targeting those two towns.

A better analogy might be the deliberate assasination of Admiral Yamamoto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

To all of which I say, whatever. The biggest shame of WWII for the US is not Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki -- it was the concentration camps blessed by the Korematsu decison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Spot-on. Despite the reliance on Wikipedia.

The dilemma we are facing now is that we have a set of "rules of war" that arose from a civilization, such as it was, where wars were fought by professional soldiers carrying out their duties and obligations as citizens. It was okay to kill them on the battlefield, but if captured you had to treat them a certain way because they were no longer combatants and they shouldn't be personally punished for doing their national duty. In contrast, if they were out of uniform then all bets (or most) were off. As wars expanded to become "total" -- i.e., where the entire nation, including its industrial base, was part of the war effort -- then the rules expanded to include bombing of Dresden, etc.

But what we face now is entirely different. The Taliban are closer to the Barbary Coast pirates than to anything that existed at the time of the Geneva Conventions. And technology has created possibilities that never existed before, beyond the theoretical level.

What's it mean? Fucked if I know. Gitmo was a PR disaster for the US and I would like to see it closed, but it won't happen if Obama can't transfer the prisoners somewhere and the possibility of trials is remote given how the situation was created and handled. The hole was dug so deep that it's likely no one will crawl out of it alive. I do find the idea of locking people up and throwing away the key -- particularly some (not all, by a long shot) of the bit or non-players in Gitmo -- reprehensible. I find targetted killings a lot less so.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

There is no question that what happened in Dresden should not have happened.

There is plenty of question on that, sorry.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Spot-on. Despite the reliance on Wikipedia.

The dilemma we are facing now is that we have a set of "rules of war" that arose from a civilization, such as it was, where wars were fought by professional soldiers carrying out their duties and obligations as citizens. It was okay to kill them on the battlefield, but if captured you had to treat them a certain way because they were no longer combatants and they shouldn't be personally punished for doing their national duty. In contrast, if they were out of uniform then all bets (or most) were off. As wars expanded to become "total" -- i.e., where the entire nation, including its industrial base, was part of the war effort -- then the rules expanded to include bombing of Dresden, etc.

But what we face now is entirely different. The Taliban are closer to the Barbary Coast pirates than to anything that existed at the time of the Geneva Conventions. And technology has created possibilities that never existed before, beyond the theoretical level.

What's it mean? Fucked if I know. Gitmo was a PR disaster for the US and I would like to see it closed, but it won't happen if Obama can't transfer the prisoners somewhere and the possibility of trials is remote given how the situation was created and handled. The hole was dug so deep that it's likely no one will crawl out of it alive. I do find the idea of locking people up and throwing away the key -- particularly some (not all, by a long shot) of the bit or non-players in Gitmo -- reprehensible. I find targetted killings a lot less so.

We created this mess by treating the fight against AQ as war instead of lawlessness.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

We created this mess by treating the fight against AQ as war instead of lawlessness.

What body of law would have covered a fight against AQ? The laws of war weren't written with stateless actors in mind.

[Adder]

Just how allied are the fundamentalist Sunni Persian mullahs of Iran with the secular Baathist Arab dictator of a predominantly Sunni Syria?

Obviously, they've got some enemies to unite against, but it does seem that there are certain barriers too being to close. But I don't know.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

What body of law would have covered a fight against AQ? The laws of war weren't written with stateless actors in mind.

Criminal.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Criminal.

That's a fantasy. You might as well say bunnies and rainbows.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Spot-on. Despite the reliance on Wikipedia.

Whoa, in a Keanu-like way. That's precisely what Judge Throckmotten said to me after my brilliant dissection of the plaintiff's res ipsa locquitor claim at a hearing last week.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I was one of those who agreed with you on Dresden and Tokyo. I don't kmow that I would ban it entirely, but I would want to make damn sure there was some sort of process involved, preferably one that allowed for an advocate for the target.

But to tell the truth, even where I agreed with you that the killing was justifiable, I would never fool myself into thinking it was anything other than a murder. Assassination is a time-honored tradition. But the fact that we can do it as easily as my son can blow up pretty much anywhere on his X-Box still won't allow me to fool myself into thinking it's anyhing but common murder.

I'm not sure I really disagree with this.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

This board was pathetic a year ago, but now anyone who disagrees with your party line, or anyone voicing it, is a troll. Why not make the board private and only allow some posters access, like the adult board?

Hey, Hank. This whole thing started with me defending you as not a troll (something you are making it hard to do right now). Please don't make me regret that.

And second, I am about as far from having a party line as anyone you will ever meet. I am a supporter of Obama, but I have spent a large part of the last several months condemning him for being a murderer. I have been consistentt in my criticism of Romney and Ryan, but that's because Romney has been consistently a lying, privileged asshole and Ryan has been bending so far over backward to disassociate himself from his prior positions in order to present a more attractive package.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want. Go ahead and call me stupid or imply that I don't understand what you're saying. But don't accuse me of being intolerant of other peoples' right to express their opinion.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure I really disagree with this.

Nor am I not uncertain that I do not agree with those who may differ with the converse of this, nay even the opposite of that!

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Nope. And, all apologies to Kurt Vonnegut, Dresden was a legitimate military target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II Tokyo, I think we can all agree, was as well.

Were civilians deliberately targeted? Only Bomber Harris and Churchill can know as to Dresden; Curtis LeMay and FDR as to Tokyo can answer that, but it seems (other than to revisionist historians and well, understandably, the Germans and Japanese) clear that there were legitimate military reasons for targeting those two towns.

A better analogy might be the deliberate assasination of Admiral Yamamoto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

To all of which I say, whatever. The biggest shame of WWII for the US is not Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki -- it was the concentration camps blessed by the Korematsu decison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I agree with you on Korematsu.

I'm afraid we part company on Dresden and Tokyo, though. The aim of both campaigns was to fiebomb the cities out of existence, knowing that there were large concetrations of civilians, especially women, children, and the elderly. It was the 1940s version of shock and awe. The objective was to both horrify and terrify the German and Japanese people into turning against their leaders and forcing them to sue for peace. The civilians were the targets. The attack on them was justified by a belief that the massive killing of civilians would utterly demoralize the enemy and bring about an earlier end to the war, thus saving hundreds of thousands of Allied troops. Plus it was one of the early examples of US use of overwhelming firepower, sent from a distance, to blast an opponent into submission with as little loss of American life as possible.

It was an example of us deciding that American lives were more valuable than others and that fact alone justified our attack on targets for nonmilitary reasons.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

bending over backward to present a more attractive package.

This would make a great thread title, but I'm not sure if it's more appropriate here or on the FB.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Literally a devil's advocate? As to whether Dresden or Tokyo should have been bombed? You have got to be kidding.

No. Literally a devil's advocate as to whether or not we should send a drone into a village to take out an American citizen who is supporting terrorists politically, but has never actually taken up arms against America. Or a 16 year-old kid, also an Amerian citizen, who is just looking for his father.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Spot-on. Despite the reliance on Wikipedia.

The dilemma we are facing now is that we have a set of "rules of war" that arose from a civilization, such as it was, where wars were fought by professional soldiers carrying out their duties and obligations as citizens. It was okay to kill them on the battlefield, but if captured you had to treat them a certain way because they were no longer combatants and they shouldn't be personally punished for doing their national duty. In contrast, if they were out of uniform then all bets (or most) were off. As wars expanded to become "total" -- i.e., where the entire nation, including its industrial base, was part of the war effort -- then the rules expanded to include bombing of Dresden, etc.

But what we face now is entirely different. The Taliban are closer to the Barbary Coast pirates than to anything that existed at the time of the Geneva Conventions. And technology has created possibilities that never existed before, beyond the theoretical level.

What's it mean? Fucked if I know. Gitmo was a PR disaster for the US and I would like to see it closed, but it won't happen if Obama can't transfer the prisoners somewhere and the possibility of trials is remote given how the situation was created and handled. The hole was dug so deep that it's likely no one will crawl out of it alive. I do find the idea of locking people up and throwing away the key -- particularly some (not all, by a long shot) of the bit or non-players in Gitmo -- reprehensible. I find targetted killings a lot less so.

Read Tom Junod's article in Esquire, The Lethal Presidency. I'm not saying targeted killings are per se wrong. But if the President is answerable to noone, then we have a problem. Our republic is not supposed to function that way.