quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The burden of proof falls on those who are taking life... Either it be a citizen protecting his own life, a cop doing his duty, and or the military...

Well, again, 'burden of proof' is a legal consideration employed when proving a case. No such considerations are employed on field of war.

None? People in the military have been charged with murder for killing people in the field of battle... The Rules of Engagement can contain such things... Outlying who is considered worthy of deadly force and not...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

Just curious, Tracy................why do you not spell out God? Why spell Him G-D? Not trying to be critical, just curious.

-Dave

I was sort of curious too! I know that Jewish people do this out of reverence for the name of God whether it was God, Yahweh, El or Elohim. They'll leave out or blank out some of the letters. I feel it has something to do with misusing the Lord's name. (3rd Commandment) This is the first time I've run into a Christian using it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If there is no burden how are people convicted of murder on the field of battle? And I am not simply talking about dealing with enemies, but who we do and DON'T shoot at... If there is no burden of proof a soldier can kill at will, which isn't the case... A GI could walk down the streets of Iraq shooting whomever if he didn't have show cause to kill someone...

Again, 'showing cause' and 'burden of proof' are different conceptually. A soldier has to make rapid decisions based on the actions of others; a lawyer must follow a specific set of procedures, that is due process, before he can act. It doesn't mean a soldier has free reign, but the constraints are wholly different.

quote:

Whatever you wish to call things, when anyone, even the military wishes to kill someone they have to have cause, reason, proof the person they are looking to kill is in fact the enemy... If you want to believe the concept of "burden of proof" only resides in a court room setting that is your prerogative, yet if anyone desires to take life the onus is on them to have more than a hunch the person they are putting to death is the right person because with the authority to take life comes that much responsibility...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

no wait, you dislike the military.

Wrong... I was in the military...

So was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

Maybe if the bad guys were required to wear distinctive clothing and carry signs that read: "I'm one of the bad guys"...............Someone should suggest that to Bin Laden and his buds.
-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Whatever you wish to call things, when anyone, even the military wishes to kill someone they have to have cause, reason, proof the person they are looking to kill is in fact the enemy... If you want to believe the concept of "burden of proof" only resides in a court room setting that is your prerogative, yet if anyone desires to take life the onus is on them to have more than a hunch the person they are putting to death is the right person because with the authority to take life comes that much responsibility...

It's not my 'perogative', it is a plain fact. It is a different requirement; certainly there is still such an onus, but it is significantly different.

quote:

It's only "significantly different" depending who might be the collateral damage...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

Perhaps I am mistaken, but sometimes, I get the impression that Americans don't care much about foreign civilian loss of life.

quote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but sometimes, I get the impression that Americans don't care much about foreign civilian loss of life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but sometimes, I get the impression that Americans don't care much about foreign civilian loss of life.

Well, considering hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, and indeed still are dying to protect foreign civilians, I would say you are rather ignorant in that regard. Not to mention the billions that have been spent to help with disasters around the world.

Some Americans of course don't think we should ever expend American lives except to directly protect the homeland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

Perhaps I am mistaken, but sometimes, I get the impression that Americans don't care much about foreign civilian loss of life.

I believe you are mistaken.

1. to blanket the majority of American's with this presumption.
2. The administration and military were operating on the order to shoot down any more flights off course on 9-11 (even with americans on board). Fortunately all were grounded safely (save the flight 93 which was also on shoot down orders).
3. The targets in Samolia are killing mostly people in Samolia. So from a numbers consideration...

quote:

Which is why I said I may be mistaken.

But I have to say that I don't think the average American (those I come in contact anyway) really are too heartbroken about the sufferings of civilians brought about by ostensibly moralistic ventures of US foreign policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It's only "significantly different" depending who might be the collateral damage...

Well, no, the requirements are indeed significantly different, and should be, incidentally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

Yall do realize that a decision to execute an airstrike that may include collateral damage is not the same standard placed on individual soldiers involved in abuses of the enemy or killing not justified by rules of engagement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but sometimes, I get the impression that Americans don't care much about foreign civilian loss of life.

Well, considering hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, and indeed still are dying to protect foreign civilians, I would say you are rather ignorant in that regard. Not to mention the billions that have been spent to help with disasters around the world.

Some Americans of course don't think we should ever expend American lives except to directly protect the homeland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which is why I said I may be mistaken.

But I have to say that I don't think the average American (those I come in contact anyway) really are too heartbroken about the sufferings of civilians brought about by ostensibly moralistic ventures of US foreign policy.

Well, I apparently hang with a different crowd; either way, it's a rather anecdotal consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

As I read the news of this strike, a few things came to mind.

While it's welcome news that senior-ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda are eliminated, I do wonder whether these acts will have tangible results - results that we would like to see, i.e, drastic reductions in the effectiveness of al-Qaeda to organize or to recruit.

AQ is largely amorphous. And resentment of the United States' policies in that area of the world is a recruiting tool for groups like AQ.

And, if innocents were indeed killed in the strike - leaving aside indignation over the deaths of civilians, pro or anti-US foreign policy arguments - what can be bad for us is that people there may see this as a deliberate attack on innocents. We may know it wasn't; the personnel who carried it knew. But those on the ground may not. And it's anger generated by the loss of innocents that fuels groups such as AQ, who utilize anti-American sentiment to garner support - and followers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

As I read the news of this strike, a few things came to mind.

While it's welcome news that senior-ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda are eliminated, I do wonder whether these acts will have tangible results - results that we would like to see, i.e, drastic reductions in the effectiveness of al-Qaeda to organize or to recruit.

AQ is largely amorphous. And resentment of the United States' policies in that area of the world is a recruiting tool for groups like AQ.

And, if innocents were indeed killed in the strike - leaving aside indignation over the deaths of civilians, pro or anti-US foreign policy arguments - what can be bad for us is that people there may see this as a deliberate attack on innocents. We may know it wasn't; the personnel who carried it knew. But those on the ground may not. And it's anger generated by the loss of innocents that fuels groups such as AQ, who utilize anti-American sentiment to garner support - and followers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

Yall do realize that a decision to execute an airstrike that may include collateral damage is not the same standard placed on individual soldiers involved in abuses of the enemy or killing not justified by rules of engagement?

It's all on floating scale and the last thing considered is right and wrong...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

As I read the news of this strike, a few things came to mind.

While it's welcome news that senior-ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda are eliminated, I do wonder whether these acts will have tangible results - results that we would like to see, i.e, drastic reductions in the effectiveness of al-Qaeda to organize or to recruit.

AQ is largely amorphous. And resentment of the United States' policies in that area of the world is a recruiting tool for groups like AQ.

And, if innocents were indeed killed in the strike - leaving aside indignation over the deaths of civilians, pro or anti-US foreign policy arguments - what can be bad for us is that people there may see this as a deliberate attack on innocents. We may know it wasn't; the personnel who carried it knew. But those on the ground may not. And it's anger generated by the loss of innocents that fuels groups such as AQ, who utilize anti-American sentiment to garner support - and followers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Well, they had recruiting tools before we engaged Iraq. They don't like our support of Israel, they don't like the fact that their gov'ts capitulate, ally, or invite us to stage military operations on 'holy ground'. Old allies can become enemies from other foreign actions/or lack of action. But again these wars are waged hopefully taking into account the risks of collateral damage. You who think our strategies (on top of our principles) are bad, we may never know, but maybe time will tell. [I add we may never know, cause some could always argue for instance that we could've ignored WW2 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor and just let the chips fall. Maybe Germans/Japanese would've gotten tired of world domination or maybe they would've liberalized the world under a global Deutsche government.]