Everything about the drone strikes other than double-tapping. See: all those weddings he bombed.
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law. While bombing weddings has a clear argument with regards to the immorality of it, it would be difficult to argue that it’s a war crime to target enemy combatants simply because they’re in a civilian context. As the civilian casualty ratio of the drone strikes, as assessed by outside and critical sources, was around 15%-20%, which fits pre-drone strike numbers, it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Supporting Saudi Arabia’s war crime-riddled intervention in Yemen.
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Everything to do with Guantanamo bay.
You mean… trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
Everything to do with Israel.
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I’ve been alive could have easily “just done more” to prevent Israeli war crimes, you’re out of your gourd.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law.
If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime. Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
The CIA’s general counsel, Stephen Preston, in a speech entitled “CIA and the Rule of Law” at Harvard Law School on 10 April 2012, claimed the agency was not bound by the laws of war
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Which is not the only thing America was doing under Obama.
This support involves aerial refueling, which allows coalition aircraft to spend more time over Yemen, and allowing some coalition members to home base aircraft instead of transferring them to Saudi Arabia
In October 2016, Reuters obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing officials had warned that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for its support of Saudi Arabia’s intervention.
According to a March 2016 Human Rights Watch assessment, the U.S. involvement in certain military actions, including as target selection and aerial refueling during Saudi air raids “may make US forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces”.
You mean… trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
Obama did a lot to improve the conditions at Guantanamo bay, but still:
The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them.
This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge. See also:
In March 2009, the administration announced that it would no longer refer to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants, but it also asserted that the president had the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges.
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I’ve been alive could have easily “just done more” to prevent Israeli war crimes, you’re out of your gourd.
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call. US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect. Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.
If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
Killing enemy combatants isn’t a military purpose?
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn’t being fucking carpet bombed.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime.
Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that’s not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article
For instance, one of the emails made a specific reference to a 2013 ruling from the war crimes trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor that significantly widened the international legal definition of aiding and abetting such crimes.
The ruling found that “practical assistance, encouragement or moral support” is sufficient to determine liability for war crimes. Prosecutors do not have to prove a defendant participated in a specific crime, the U.N.-backed court found.
That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.
… and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.
This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge.
The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn’t and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call.
If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I’m going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect.
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn’t being fucking carpet bombed.
These strikes can kill and injure dozens, so when you target someone in a crowded space like a wedding you are going to get a disproportionate amount of civilians, unless the wedding has an Al Qaeda corner. And this is before you even get into whether targeted killing (aka extralegal assassination) is even legal, which is apparently not at all guaranteed.
Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
Surprisingly, bombing weddings is bad (and a war crime) no matter the method of delivery.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that’s not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal.
In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
Duly noted.
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
Leadership of the executive branch and supreme command of the armed forces? Control over foreign diplomacy unless Congress specifically intervenes? Sharing of arms, intelligence, and diplomatic cover is all under the purview of the president.
In 2009, Obama became the first U.S. president to authorize the sale of bunker buster bombs to Israel.
In February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal.
On September 20, 2011, President Obama declared that the U.S. would veto any Palestinian application for statehood at the United Nations, asserting that “there can be no shortcut to peace”.*
n December 2014, Congress passed the United States–Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013.[107] This new category is one notch above the Major Non-NATO Ally classification and adds additional support for defense, energy, and strengthen cooperation business and academics.[108] The bill additionally calls for the U.S. to increase their war reserve stock in Israel $1.8 billion.**
*Effectively giving Israel the cover necessary to continue its occupation of Palestine.
**He presumably could’ve vetoed the bill, or made any sort of objection at all. He shares responsibility for these decisions as the one implementing them.
Admittedly I’m ignoring all the anti-Israel stuff in the article. but he’s still guilty of Israel-related war crimes.
I’m about done with this topic, through no fault of your’s, mind.
My position on drone strikes at weddings (wrong, but not inherently a war crime any more than any targeting of valid enemy combatants in a civilian milieu is; ie that the question is of relative military gain proportional to civilian collateral damage) hasn’t changed, but the broader issue that support of war criminals is enough to qualify as a war crime since 2013 by international law creates a much stronger argument for Obama as a war criminal, I concede.
I additionally note, though, that the question raised was what made Obama the least pro-Israel president of my lifetime, with you citing only a single issue he was anti-Israel on, while the wiki article notes Obama’s much broader opposition to Israel to a satisfactory degree.
Okay let’s see:
Everything about the drone strikes other than double-tapping. See: all those weddings he bombed.
Supporting Saudi Arabia’s war crime-riddled intervention in Yemen.
Everything to do with Guantanamo bay.
Everything to do with Israel.
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law. While bombing weddings has a clear argument with regards to the immorality of it, it would be difficult to argue that it’s a war crime to target enemy combatants simply because they’re in a civilian context. As the civilian casualty ratio of the drone strikes, as assessed by outside and critical sources, was around 15%-20%, which fits pre-drone strike numbers, it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
You mean… trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I’ve been alive could have easily “just done more” to prevent Israeli war crimes, you’re out of your gourd.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime. Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
Which is not the only thing America was doing under Obama.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian–led_operations_in_Yemen
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
Obama did a lot to improve the conditions at Guantanamo bay, but still:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#International_law
This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge. See also:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call. US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect. Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.
Killing enemy combatants isn’t a military purpose?
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn’t being fucking carpet bombed.
Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that’s not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.
I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article
That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.
… and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.
The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.
The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn’t and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?
If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I’m going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations#Obama_administration_(2009–2017)
These strikes can kill and injure dozens, so when you target someone in a crowded space like a wedding you are going to get a disproportionate amount of civilians, unless the wedding has an Al Qaeda corner. And this is before you even get into whether targeted killing (aka extralegal assassination) is even legal, which is apparently not at all guaranteed.
Surprisingly, bombing weddings is bad (and a war crime) no matter the method of delivery.
Well he kept approving those war crimes.
I’ll concede the point on Guantanamo.
Duly noted.
Leadership of the executive branch and supreme command of the armed forces? Control over foreign diplomacy unless Congress specifically intervenes? Sharing of arms, intelligence, and diplomatic cover is all under the purview of the president.
Okay so.
*Effectively giving Israel the cover necessary to continue its occupation of Palestine.
**He presumably could’ve vetoed the bill, or made any sort of objection at all. He shares responsibility for these decisions as the one implementing them.
Admittedly I’m ignoring all the anti-Israel stuff in the article. but he’s still guilty of Israel-related war crimes.
I’m about done with this topic, through no fault of your’s, mind.
My position on drone strikes at weddings (wrong, but not inherently a war crime any more than any targeting of valid enemy combatants in a civilian milieu is; ie that the question is of relative military gain proportional to civilian collateral damage) hasn’t changed, but the broader issue that support of war criminals is enough to qualify as a war crime since 2013 by international law creates a much stronger argument for Obama as a war criminal, I concede.
I additionally note, though, that the question raised was what made Obama the least pro-Israel president of my lifetime, with you citing only a single issue he was anti-Israel on, while the wiki article notes Obama’s much broader opposition to Israel to a satisfactory degree.