Putin: War Criminal; Trump alliance

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

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

The problem is, who gets to decide when ti's ok to throw out the rulebook, and when it isn't?

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

Agreed.

[Altherion]

The bin Laden hit is against international law for the same reason as the drone strikes. The way to handle those situations according to international law would be to request the extradition of the individuals in question from the currently where they are currently located. Of course, that obviously isn't going to go well in practically all of those cases, so it's understandable why we use special forces and drones instead, but let's not pretend that it's legal or morally superior.

That said the bin Laden assassination had an additional interesting component to it. As part of the surveillance activities, the CIA implemented a fake polio vaccination campaign which quite predictably caused distrust for real campaigns of this nature. To the best of my knowledge, this is not actually covered under international law, but it is still ethically questionable.

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The bin Laden hit is against international law for the same reason as the drone strikes. The way to handle those situations according to international law would be to request the extradition of the individuals in question from the currently where they are currently located. Of course, that obviously isn't going to go well in practically all of those cases, so it's understandable why we use special forces and drones instead, but let's not pretend that it's legal or morally superior.

That said the bin Laden assassination had an additional interesting component to it. As part of the surveillance activities, the CIA implemented a fake polio vaccination campaign which quite predictably caused distrust for real campaigns of this nature. To the best of my knowledge, this is not actually covered under international law, but it is still ethically questionable.

Ethically questionable is generous, IMO.

This is the kind of 'at all costs' stuff that is really, really problematic to me.

 

 

[Weeping Sore]

Extrajudicial killings of people who have killed or are sworn to kill American civilians are different in kind from extrajudicial killings of political opponents, i.e., those who threaten Putin's political position. I'm not condoning the former necessarily but there's a difference between the two types of target.

[BloodRider]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

No, but the deliberate targeting of civilians, doctors, and aid workers in Aleppo does.

Thank you!

[BloodRider]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

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

That makes me super uncomfortable.  Look, its a war, and there is no due process on the battlefield (note I DID NOT SAY "DURING WARTIME", so put down the strawman).  You can take issues with wars, and I can respect that.  I disagree, but only for practical reasons. But your issue then is with war and the violence that comes with it, no?    You can disagree with this particular war, and it's nebulous terms of engagement.  But then your issue is with propaganda surrounding the military, I think....  

So drones, extrajudicial strike teams, and the like should not, in and of themselves, necessarily be a problem.  To me the problem is that we HAVE thrown out the rulebook.  Or more accurately, we never took the time to codify a rulebook.  It is precisely because we don't know when to engage and when to hold back that drones are so terrible; not the drones themselves.

If we are going to go into wars (and we are - for good and bad reasons), why would we forgo things like drones and strike teams which have the potential to minimize loss of life over other previously used methods of killing leaders we cannot otherwise capture.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

Extrajudicial killings of people who have killed or are sworn to kill American civilians are different in kind from extrajudicial killings of political opponents, i.e., those who threaten Putin's political position. I'm not condoning the former necessarily but there's a difference between the two types of target.

I do not entirely disagree with you, but this kind of thinking is precisely the reason why our Constitution has a due process clause. Nobody has ever said "I didn't like this guy and he was politically inconvenient so I got rid of him." It's usually some variant of "This person was a danger to our people and our country so our courageous security forces had to protect all of us by neutralizing him." The whole point of having a trial and so on is to separate the two cases from each other. When a citizen is assassinated via drone strike (and yes, there have been multiple US citizens killed this way), no such analysis is possible. I mean, yes, to my eyes, these people look an awful lot like they had it coming -- but the whole point of the due process clause is that we don't act on appearances until a court signs off on them.

Furthermore, because of the difference in methods of extrajudicial action between Russia and the US, we actually kill a whole lot more people than the intended target:

Quote

 

THE FREQUENCY WITH which “targeted killing” operations hit unnamed bystanders is among the more striking takeaways from the Haymaker slides. The documents show that during a five-month stretch of the campaign, nearly nine out of 10 people who died in airstrikes were not the Americans’ direct targets. By February 2013, Haymaker airstrikes had resulted in no more than 35 “jackpots,” a term used to signal the neutralization of a specific targeted individual, while more than 200 people were declared EKIA — “enemy killed in action.”

In the complex world of remote killing in remote locations, labeling the dead as “enemies” until proven otherwise is commonplace, said an intelligence community source with experience working on high-value targeting missions in Afghanistan, who provided the documents on the Haymaker campaign. The process often depends on assumptions or best guesses in provinces like Kunar or Nuristan, the source said, particularly if the dead include “military-age males,” or MAMs, in military parlance. “If there is no evidence that proves a person killed in a strike was either not a MAM, or was a MAM but not an unlawful enemy combatant, then there is no question,” he said. “They label them EKIA.” In the case of airstrikes in a campaign like Haymaker, the source added, missiles could be fired from a variety of aircraft. “But nine times out of 10 it’s a drone strike.”

 

Unsurprisingly, Pakistan, human rights groups and even the UN disagree with this creative definition of "enemy":

Quote

Last week, a UN investigation found that US drone strikes had killed at least 400 civilians in Pakistan, far more than the US has ever acknowledged.

TLDR: Yes, Russia and the US act differently in their "extrajudicial killings", but it is not at all clear which one of them is worse.

[Zorral]

Both nations have huge amounts to answer for, internationally and domestically. For example, this.  Our nation, to our shame, like Israel, like the Soviets and now the Russians, have been excellent at targeting leaders whose politics we don't like -- not a few times leaders whose politics were good for THEIR countries but inconvenient for the U.S business and politcal interests.

 

[Weeping Sore]

@Altherion

Yes "targeted killings" by drone aren't as targeted as we pretend. And even if we are able to kill people actually intending to do us harm, you would think killing a bunch of innocent people would...create more people who would naturally like to do us harm in retaliation.

I would say if Obama's U.S. is currently worse than Putin's Russia, it's largely a function of scale-

What if Putin were the autocratic leader of the world's largest economy and controlled a military budget ten times as large as he does now?

[sologdin]

On 10/11/2016 at 6:13 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

To get this it's own topic:

Shortstark,

Ah, you're a fan of Putin and his shirtless magisty.  This explains so much.  How is invading a sovereign nation annexing a huge chunk of that nation then fostering and arming a seperatist force in another part of that previously invaded nation not a war crime (particularly when those seperatist use the arms Russia has given them to shoot down a civilian airliner that happens to be flying to Malaysia)?

it's not a 'war crime,' which is plainly defined in article 8 of the rome statute.

you want the crime of aggression, article 8 bis of the rome statute (which is just the updated 'crime against peace' from nuremberg).  the US position at nuremberg, which was adopted by the court, was that is the "supreme international crime."

 

[Future Null Infinity]

I'm not from the usa but I like Obama very much, he's a man of peace, I don't know if he's doing well in USA but internationally he made peace with Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and Myanmar, I consider him the best US president

Trump likes Putin because they are pretty much the same : neo-facists and ultra-nationalists, Putin wants Russia to be great again and Trump wants USA to be great again, if Trump become the president then the day when they turn enemies against each other it's WW3 guaranteed (we already have a mini WW3 in Syria) 

[Weeping Sore]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

it's not a 'war crime,' which is plainly defined in article 8 of the rome statute.

you want the crime of aggression, article 8 bis of the rome statute (which is just the updated 'crime against peace' from nuremberg).  the US position at nuremberg, which was adopted by the court, was that is the "supreme international crime."

 

Doesn't "bis" here denote a repeat of article 8, meaning the section is a re-statement of what a war crime is rather than a separate idea? I read it as a definition of the "crime of war" (when the war is an aggression of choice), while the preceding section describes crimes within the prosecution of war, whether said war is initially legitimate or not. So I don't think it's off to call the initiator of an international aggression a "war criminal", as the act of war defines their crime.*

*whereas in article 8, war is the theater of the crimes defined.

[sologdin]

not quite.  the SICC entered into force in 2002, with the understanding that a separate protocol would follow to define the crime of aggression (see SICC art 5(2)).  at its initial negotiation, the court had jurisdiction only over genocide (art. 6), crimes against humanity (art. 7), and war crimes (art. 8).  the convention otherwise has plenty of numbered articles, and the kampala amendments have not renumbered the entire statute, but have rather inserted thingies such as 8 bis and 15 ter in order to preserve the numbering.

the crime of aggression is conceptually different than the other three items, as it concerns jus ad bellum, rather than jus in bello.

[Weeping Sore]

So we can just call a violator of article 8 bis an "international criminal supreme" then?

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

What if Putin were the autocratic leader of the world's largest economy and controlled a military budget ten times as large as he does now?

It's really hard to say. As a general rule, leaders who have had to create a system from scratch or, as in Putin's case, put a seriously broken one back together, tend to be more competent than those who took over simply because their predecessors retired or died. A lot of US actions are not only evil, they're counterproductive to our interests. It's possible that he would not do that. Of course, it is also possible that he would do something even worse. There's no way to know.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Ah, Putin again.

Can one, in a cold, detached fasion admire his competence, skill and single minded resolve to restore Mother Russia's power and influence in the world, while still disassociating yourself from the collateral damage he has caused as a result? I guess this is the boat I find myself in.

He is a man out of his time. In 2950 of the last 3000 years he would have been an exemplary leader. Are we just going through a temporary 50 year period of delusion, where the idealistic among us wish to believe that the values of power, national self interest and manipulation have been replaced by something more altruistic and admirable?

Will Putin prove everyone wrong, and will the world 50 years from now in fact resemble the world of 50 years ago more than it does the current one, as far as the interactions between various groups of people are concerned (however those groups may be constituted at that point?)

 

 

[Weeping Sore]

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's really hard to say. As a general rule, leaders who have had to create a system from scratch or, as in Putin's case, put a seriously broken one back together, tend to be more competent than those who took over simply because their predecessors retired or died. A lot of US actions are not only evil, they're counterproductive to our interests. It's possible that he would not do that. Of course, it is also possible that he would do something even worse. There's no way to know.

"More competent"? One doesn't have to be competent at things like building consensus or negotiating when you kill or jail the political opposition. Then there was converting the regional governorships to appointed positions rather than elected ones to further erase democratic institutions.

If I had to guess I would say a more powerful Putin would look to annex the former soviet republics just as he is doing in the Ukraine. Because Russia is natural-resource rich, there's less reason to push for hegemony over the Middle East, the goal set out by Cheney et al in Project for the New American Century.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Weeping Sore said:

"More competent"? One doesn't have to be competent at things like building consensus or negotiating when you kill or jail the political opposition. Then there was converting the regional governorships to appointed positions rather than elected ones to further erase democratic institutions.

If I had to guess I would say a more powerful Putin would look to annex the former soviet republics just as he is doing in the Ukraine. Because Russia is natural-resource rich, there's less reason to push for hegemony over the Middle East, the goal set out by Cheney et al in Project for the New American Century.

Putin understands the most important rule of negotiating, which is that you should only negotiate from a position of  power, real or perceived.

In this respect he plays the hand that he was dealt very well. He cannot compete with the West's economic power. But he has a nuclear arsenal, he has a Security Council veto vote, he controls much of Europe's energy supply, he has a powerful military, he has covert agencies at his disposal and he has a much greater monolithic control over his country's resources and actions than any leader in the West' enjoys.

So he uses all of the above in hybrid warfare to further Russia's political interests.

[Jo498]

Just imagine what an American president would be expected to do after a breakdown of the nation, 10 or more years of chaotic economy and political unrest, all of central America as well as Alaska and Quebec joined in allegiance with a inimical superpower. Imagine what the American people would expect from their leader in such a situation and then again evaluate Putin's and Putin's policies.

[Weeping Sore]

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Putin understands the most important rule of negotiating, which is that you should only negotiate from a position of  power, real or perceived.

My point is he doesn't have to negotiate with anyone domestically; he's a ruler not a leader. Russians have almost zero experience with democracy and many are happy to be ruled rather than lead.

And I guess authoritarian bottoms are always going to salivate over his power, so what can I do?