Putin: War Criminal; Trump alliance

[DireWolfSpirit]

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The Middle East is a baroque and Byzantine mess, double-dealing and triple-crosses abound. And all the things you say about ISIS funding and their occupation of Mosul and Raqqa can be true while Assad was winking away their growth within his borders. You can criticize the Saudis and Turkey and the Gulf states and US interference all you want, and I'll agree with you, but I was frankly shocked to see DWS defending Assad as a democratically elected fighter of terrorism.

Its an age old trap to fuel the rebels in a country and then claim the leader of said country is killing his own citizens. Its a civil war and I posted that all sides have blood on their hands. The problem I have is with the U.S. and Kerry acting as if they are white knights in this. They are no more a legitimate force for peace in Syria than Assad or Putin, the U.S. is only interested in pursueing its own strategic ends there just the same. Difference being is that one of these three is actually Syrian and has a soveriegn standing to fight in his country.

Were ISIS to fund U.S. born terrorists could we fault the government for fighting those terrorists or should we be stuck on the trap of "Thats killing our own citizens"? We have already faced such a scenario over the drone strikes that took out the U.S. born terrorist in Yemen. He was a U.S. citizen and the U.S. took him out because he was a terrorist, sometimes thats the right call, its not a white knight vs blackhat playing field, its an ugly conflict of factions with very grey standing.

Assad is the President of Syria, he has as much moral authority as anyone else there. Certainly more legal basis than John Kerry's ongoing proxy terror campaign against that country.

The latest group to be accused of using chemical weapons in Syria has been the rebel groups just recently btw.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

32 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Or sending in seal teams to do it without due process?

 You have an issue with the Bin Laden hit? I'll give you the drone strikes, that is an abhorrent policy, but I couldn't give two shits about the rights of a butcher like Bin Laden. 

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the only defense of Putin is "hypocrisy" you're admitting he's a war criminal.

It's a bit more complex than that. It is true that Russia's actions as well as those of every recent US administration certainly violate some of the written conventions of war. However, keep in mind that these were written by the great powers and they were never intended to be used against their creators. Their main targets were countries which had lost a war or could be intimidated and/or persuaded into "regime change" and handing over the previous leadership together with evidence. As a result, there are several obvious problems with charging Putin or a US President with war crimes.

The single most obvious issue is one of enforcement: one would never be able to get any high-ranking citizen of a great power to an outside court. However, it is not the only one. For example, a lot of actions in this thread have Putin's name attached to them, but Putin did not personally do most of them. First, one would have to prove that Russia is in fact responsible. The US media takes this as a given, but it's a lot harder to prove in some cases than others.

Second, one would have to prove that Putin actually had anything to do with it. The Russian government is different from the US one in that there is no viable overt opposition. That is, there is no equivalent of Paul Ryan decrying everything done by the President. However, it is not a homogeneous mass ruled by a single man: covertly, there is a variety of oligarchs, politicians as well as military, paramilitary and intelligence officers and others all fighting for influence. Putin plays them against each other and makes sure that none gets too powerful, but he's far from omniscient or omnipotent within this system. The individual actors can and occasionally do act in ways that he would prefer they did not or without telling him anything. In fact, several of the players are much more independent than their American counterparts: there's no US state as independent of Washington DC as Chechnya is of Moscow.

All of that said, it has to be acknowledged that Putin and other leaders of the great powers have done some very bad things. They're not war criminals and, unless something drastically changes this world, they never will be, but this is a consequence of them being in power rather than anything else. However, to get back to your statement, to single out Putin and Russia and ignore the stuff done by our own government is indeed rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

Illegal and a denial of due process.  Wholely improper for a sitting president in my ernest opinion.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 You have an issue with the Bin Laden hit? I'll give you the drone strikes, that is an abhorrent policy, but I couldn't give two shits about the rights of a butcher like Bin Laden. 

I think it's fairly problematic to send hit squads into sovereign nations, yes.  

It's not so much about Bin Laden, specifically.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I think it's fairly problematic to send hit squads into sovereign nations, yes.  

It's not so much about Bin Laden, specifically.

Fair enough, but in the case of a figure like Bin Laden, I think you throw out the rulebook.

[baxus]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Many former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states seem to have a definite preference.

Iraq and Afghanistan would too, as would Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela etc. That's the whole point - every single major power has a lot of shit in their foreign affairs. It's not just US/Russia, that's been that way ever since humans first started banding together.

That doesn't mean it's okay. I can't stress that enough. Once again, we need to condemn certain types of behavior, not just when those types of behavior is observed in people on the other side.

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There should be Zero finger pointing coming from the U.S. We are simply without any moral authority to judge others until we stop committing the same damn attrocities globally.

I never meant to imply that US citizens shouldn't be pointing fingers, just that they should point fingers to everyone who deserves it, not just people on the other side of the imaginary fence.

The first step to "stop committing the same damn atrocities globally" is to admit someone on your side is committing atrocities in the first place. And to do that, you must point fingers to people who do it.

Trust me on this one, I've been living in a society that turns a blind eye on war crimes "our guys" committed. It's not a good thing and nothing good can come of it. After all is said and done, if you don't get those responsible for such things to court, they will remain living in your society and poison it. Would you like to live next to a war criminal who got a free pass just because he fought "on the right side"? Would anyone?

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 You have an issue with the Bin Laden hit? I'll give you the drone strikes, that is an abhorrent policy, but I couldn't give two shits about the rights of a butcher like Bin Laden. 

Drone hits are not that different from sending seal teams to kill someone, when you think about it. You have someone killed without due process. Whether it's by a Navy seal or a guy operating a drone is irrelevant when you look at the big picture.

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Fair enough, but in the case of a figure like Bin Laden, I think you throw out the rulebook.

"Throwing out the rulebook" for anyone is a slippery slope. It may start with the most wanted terrorist leader with the colorful past, but before you know it it may include political opponents and nosey journalists.

Either way, that's the best example of what I'm saying here. "Throwing out the rulebook" is one of Putin's greatest transgressions according to people in this thread and here you are, saying it's ok in this particular case. It's either ok across the board (which it's not) or it's never ok.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Damn, that Putin/Trump troll really must have gotten under your skin, if you opened a thread for him. A thread he will probably not even bother to read.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Notone said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Damn, that Putin/Trump troll really must have gotten under your skin, if you opened a thread for him. A thread he will probably not even bother to read.

I really, really, really don't care for Putin.  I go to church with a lot of Russians and Serbs and it makes my blood boil when I hear people offering apologia for Putin's actions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

 

Drone hits are not that different from sending seal teams to kill someone, when you think about it. You have someone killed without due process. Whether it's by a Navy seal or a guy operating a drone is irrelevant when you look at the big picture.

"Throwing out the rulebook" for anyone is a slippery slope. It may start with the most wanted terrorist leader with the colorful past, but before you know it it may include political opponents and nosey journalists.

Either way, that's the best example of what I'm saying here. "Throwing out the rulebook" is one of Putin's greatest transgressions according to people in this thread and here you are, saying it's ok in this particular case. It's either ok across the board (which it's not) or it's never ok.

Drone hits are quite different due to the potential for collateral damage. I understand the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. It's an extreme measure that was reserved for an extreme exception. It certainly would not be acceptable to use such means against a journalist or a political opponent, and I don't believe the administration that used it against Bin laden would abuse it in that fashion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Yes, but I meant that Putin/Trump troll from the election thread. That half Stark or what's his face dude. I am somewhat amazed, that he effected you in such a way, that you felt compelled to open a thread for him.

 

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Swordfish,

Illegal and a denial of due process.  Wholely improper for a sitting president in my ernest opinion.

It is neither. Bin Laden is not a criminal figure in this respect. Whether you disagree with that standing is another thing entirely, but there is a whole lot of legal precedent going against you here both nationally and internationally. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

I was thinking more of the American Muslim scholar and his son killed in a drone strike.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

I was thinking more of the American Muslim scholar and his son killed in a drone strike.

Had nothing to do with Bin Laden, however, which was what you were responding to from Swordfish.

Everyone should be REALLY bothered by the drone policy Obama has. Really, really bothered. I desperately hope that whoever is in office in November discontinues it or at least establishes significantly better public oversight for it. But that has very little to do with Bin Laden and the events surrounding his raid and capture. 

[baxus]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Drone hits are quite different due to the potential for collateral damage. I understand the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. It's an extreme measure that was reserved for an extreme exception. It certainly would not be acceptable to use such means against a journalist or a political opponent, and I don't believe the administration that used it against Bin laden would abuse it in that fashion.

You don't have to buy it. The same way some Putin supporter wouldn't buy it. What you believe is also irrelevant. Once that can of worms is opened, it's pretty hard to put them back in it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Again, I wasn't thinking about Bin Laden.  That has more international law problems (violating Pakistani soveriengty) than due process problems.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, baxus said:

You don't have to buy it. The same way some Putin supporter wouldn't buy it. What you believe is also irrelevant. Once that can of worms is opened, it's pretty hard to put them back in it.

I suppose, but that cans of worms has been opened. Do you have any slippery slope examples that have taken place since? 

[baxus]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I suppose, but that cans of worms has been opened. Do you have any slippery slope examples that have taken place since? 

No one said it would happen overnight.

[Kalbear]

Just now, baxus said:

No one said it will happen overnight.

I think in general it's a symptom of a worse problem, which is the unchecked and uncontrolled executive power that exists. Obama happened to use it mostly benevolently (though the drone strikes I think are an example of this not being the case), but the power should not exist as it stands, period. There is too much precedent for abuse of it. Even if you don't believe it has happened yet - which I disagree with - it doesn't take much effort to see that there is very little oversight into what constraints the strikes have, what limits exist, what rules are for engagement, and even what state of warfare allows this to occur. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I think it's unlikely that whoever enters the WH will really change that much about drone strikes and the policies attached to it.

It's simply too convenient. You are basically able to kill/make a military strike without risking any American life. And considering hot badly the US were burnt during the last two real military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, I really don't think there's the political will to commit troops in the middle east (like Syria). At least not if you want to keep the White House.

At least I think, that's at least part of the answer why Obama has not sent troops to Syria, and why the Russians were quite confident in deploying their troops there.