477
Serial killers (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 week ago by [M] to c/aiop@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the reported 68 attacks that killed 223 people constituted crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law.” —United Nations Special Rapporteur, on U.S. killings of so-called “narco-terrorists” at sea https://tinyurl.com/nhcdun97
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Generally killing a member of the armed forces of an enemy nation during a war is not considered or described murder. It's a relevant and important distinction - and it's why Trump and his lickspittles designate the (alleged!) drug-runners as narco-terrorists with whom they can claim to be at war. This itself is an extension of the "war on terror" that extended the definition of combatant from the uniformed service-members of a nation state or at least a defined group in a conflict.

But to be clear, the "narco-terrorist" bullshit is a lot worse than the war-on-terror bullshit, because terrorists are at least explicitly trying to carry out violent acts with a political purpose (which is quite like war!) whereas (alleged! unevidenced!) drug runners are just... running drugs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    This is not worse than the "War on terror bullshit." It is the exact same. Obama's drone strategy involved a kill list that included no due process and signature drone strikes, which killed people without knowing who they were. There did not have to be evidence of the victims ever having committed anything close to a terrorist act. It didn't even matter if the victims were American kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Well, I know that and agree it's bad but don't think it's as bad still, for the simple reason that I think that, if it is true that someone is planning to commit terrorism, it may be justified to kill them, if other methods of preventing them are not practical.

    Drug smuggling doesn't pass even that test. If you can't prevent drugs getting smuggled into your country without killing the smugglers tough shit, accept that there will be drugs in your country and do your best to deal with that. That's true, I think, even if you think that drugs should be illegal.

    So to me that makes a big difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    You are missing the point. The people put on either list have never been accused of anything in a court of law. They were never indicted. They have no way to get off those lists. There is no due process and no congressional oversight. The executive branch decided they should die, so they died. End of story.

    It started in the Middle East with Islamic terrorism. It is currently in Latin America being called narco terrorism. You can see it already happening in the US with peaceful protesters and those who use encription online. There is no difference. It is all equally bad. What Obama did was the exact same thing in the same way as what Trump is doing.

    The next guy, regardless of the color of his tie, will be more than willing to use this unified executive theory product in even more disgusting ways. And for that, we can all say, "Thanks, Obama!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (4 children)

    I'm not "missing the point". I understand that point. I agree the aspect you point out is the same between both phenomena, and that it is really bad.

    I just disagree that each phenomenon is "equally bad" because of the differences which I have pointed out. They are not "exactly the same" because they share some important things in common.

    Can you re-read my previous two comments, look at the sentences and which I point out differences, and say whether you agree that they are differences or not? If you agree that they are differences, perhaps you could change your characterisation of the situation from "they are exactly the same" to "they are not exactly the same, but I think that they are so similar that there is no discernible moral difference."

    Then we will be disagreeing over the relative moral importance of different factors, and can leave the conversation having understood each other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (3 children)

    Here is a quote from you about Obama's kill list and signature drone strike policies: "If it is true that someone is planning to commit terrorism, it may be justified to kill them, if other methods of preventing them are not practical." *You are focusing on terror versus narcoterror. This is missing the point. *

    Obama's kill list and signature drone strike policies did not include any due process to determine if there was any planning to commit terrorism, making the killings completely unjustified. In the case of signature strikes, the person's identity would be unknown, and their behavior would be boiled down to where they were in the world, their gender, and their perceived age, so nothing about their behavior at all.

    *You are ignoring the process by which someone is targeted, which is the entire point. *

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    which is the entire point.

    I have given you ample opportunity to explain why that is not just a point but the entire point as you claim, or else to accept that there is some room for disagreement about what is or isn't included in the point, and you haven't taken it. There's therefore no point in discussing this with you; goodbye. I hope you learn to converse in a more productive manner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (1 child)

    Wow you really don't like it when someone quotes you, do you? haha

    I didn't realize I had to explain why due process is important. You see, little Billy, when anyone can punish you (in these cases, execute you) for anything without proving it, accusing you, or even knowing who you are, then it doesn't matter what crime you are accused of. Justice becomes a fascist tool to be used against anyone who is not in the good graces of those wielding the power.

    You can see then that it matters not if Trump calls them narcoterrorists or if Obama calls them terrorists. Or if the next guy decides jaywalking justifies that force. If there is no due process, the crime is immaterial, regardless of what it is.

    I hope you learn why due process is essential.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago

    Fuck, I forgot to turn off notifications for the comment.

    I actually love when someone quotes me. I really don't like it when someone ignores what I'm saying I agree and disagree with, though. You're (still) doing that, because I said:

    I agree that aspect [lack of due process] ... is really bad.

    but now you're trying to explain, sarcastically, why due process is important. If you think you "have to explain why due process is important" to me, your reading comprehension is shit.

    I'm only explaining all of this to you in more detail because your reply was obnoxious and I have a personality flaw which prevents me from ignoring obnoxious comments that I have read; I'm now going to disable notifications so your next obnoxious comment doesn't trigger that reflex. Here's a challenge, since I'm not going to see your reply: instead of replying, try to understand what it is that you have so far failed to.

    I hope you learn why reading and understanding people you're replying to is essential.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago*

    killing a member of the armed forces of an enemy nation during a war is not considered or described murder

    You have to ask why not. Because "war" as an excuse for industrialized murder doesn't go without rhetorical push back. The reason we are forced to accept it as legitimate mostly boils down to the fact that the people doing it have the power to kill us more easily than we have the power to kill them.

    It’s a relevant and important distinction

    Only if you blandly subscribe to the "They were all Bad Dudes" domestic propaganda that initiated the war to begin with.

    This brings us back to the Obama Era of targeted drone bombings.

    The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

    Alternatively, you can jump back to LBJ/Nixon during the Vietnam War, and their use of Agent Orange and Zippo Raids to conduct genocide in regions of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia where insurgents possibly lived.

    But the distinction is purely of political convenience. We don't extend this rhetorical curtosey to Houthi Rebels in Yemen or ISIS insurgents in Iraq and Syria or North Korean mercenaries working alongside Russia in Ukraine or aligned Central African states. We never gave it to the Taliban or the Vietcong or the North Korean Army.

    Only the US and it's NATO/Israeli/Pacific Rim allies consistently get the benefit of the doubt when it comes time to count war dead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent