Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
from the how-is-this-man-in-power? dept
It appears that Rep. Mike Rogers — beyond his crazy conspiracy theories that the US should prosecute journalists and that Ed Snowden must be a Russian spy — is also so supportive of his buddies in the intelligence community that he’s upset that they have to actually be careful to try to not indiscriminately kill innocent civilians with drones. As you may recall, last year, President Obama put in place some (fairly weak) guidelines for how drones could be used — guidelines that the intelligence community has been resisting, because they had “acquired a taste” for killing people with drones. Prior to that, there were basically no rules at all, and they were used in very questionable circumstances.
All of this has apparently infuriated Rogers, who is insisting that by having some basic guidelines on how drones are used means that we’re all going to die. It’s a typical insane war-mongerer’s cry: if you don’t give me and my friends total power, then you will be less safe. And Rogers plays the stereotypical role exactly:
“The President’s May 2013 policy changes for U.S. targeted strikes are an utter and complete failure and they leave Americans’ lives at risk,” Rogers said at the outset of a hearing on global threats to U.S. security.
“Individuals who would have previously been removed from the battlefield by U.S. counterterrorism operations for attacking or plotting against U.S. interests remain free because of self-imposed red tape. While we are busy pondering more ‘transparency,’ our intelligence professionals are left paralyzed because of totally incoherent policy guidance,” the Michigan Republican added.
Rogers also complained about President Obama’s speeches on the matter, in which he dared to suggest that the US should only use drones when there was “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.” According to Rogers, that position — of trying to not kill innocent civilians — is just “political expediency.”
“That is not leadership,” Rogers declared. “We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient.”
Of course, even with the new policies in place, there’s been plenty of coverage of the fact that a US drone strike took out a wedding party in Yemen — so apparently the “red tape” didn’t stop that sort of indiscriminate killing of innocent people.
Frankly, it’s kind of scary that someone in power — especially the guy who’s supposed to be in charge of oversight for the intelligence community — appears to be spitting mad that the people he’s supposed to keep in line have to actually justify extrajudicial killing of people via drones.
Of course, this is the same guy who claims that if you don’t know your privacy is being violated, then it isn’t being violated — so by extension, I guess we can assume that if you don’t know you were killed indiscriminately by a drone, it doesn’t count. Right?
Filed Under: barack obama, cia, drone policies, drones, mike rogers, red tape, war monger
Comments on “Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People”
To him warrants are probably red tape, too. What’s all the fuss about requiring “warrants” for seizing people’s info and property, anyway? Can’t we just “let the government do its job”?
Re: Re:
If he does not like red tape maybe he will not mind a few people coming to take him out for a joyride one night, you know collateral damage being what it is maybe his wife and children can join him but as he would say he is above the law and he probably thinks he is untouchable, until they find him in his office having “committed suicide” Obama had no concerns sending drones to get rid of enemies in Afghanistan half way around the world i am sure he would not have a problem sending some people out to clean house locally.
Mike Rogers
The Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/?ref_=tt_cl_t2
of our time ….
?We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient.?
If he really believed this, if he actually cared about protecting the US, rather than just a tiny slice of the USG, then he’d be fighting for strict rules and guidelines to minimize, if not eliminate, civilian casualties, not against them.
Say a drone strike takes out one verified terrorist, yet also kills a dozen civilians. With his line of thinking, that’s great, that’s one terrorist dead, and just a ‘handful’ of ‘collateral damage’, but for anyone even remotely familiar with human psychology(in particular the drive for revenge and to strike back at what hurts you), that act didn’t decrease the danger to america, it increased it.
Those dozen people murdered, they had family, friends, people who knew them, and all of those people now have a very solid and real reason to hate the US, where before they might not have. Where before they likely would have laughed at a terrorist recruiter, or refused them, thinking that they were just fanatics, now they are much more likely to listen to them, possibly even to join them, due to wanting revenge, or buying their line about how evil the US is(after all, they were willing to indiscriminately slaughter civilians to take out one person, how is that not evil?), replacing that one terrorist taken out ten-fold, if not more.
Put bluntly, his actions show he couldn’t care less about protecting america, he only cares about protecting his ‘buddies’ in the spy and military agencies.
Re: Re:
This is Mike Rogers we are talking about here. Logic and reason aren’t his strong suits.
Re: Re:
That is not leadership,? Rogers declared. ?We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient..
Some sort of freudian slip?
Re: Re:
By his logic the next obvious step is eliminating the rest of the world’s population, because that’s the ultimate protection of american people…
and lack of policy leaves innocent lives at risk, but I suppose if they’re not American lives it doesn’t matter.
So remind me, why are we fighting again?
And how will we know when we’ve won?
Re: Re:
You have won once the rest of the world has turned into terrorists out for the U.S.’ throat.
Then there is a clear demarcation line between good and evil that Hollywood can sell movies of.
Footsteps of “Jud S??”.
Re: Re:
Collateral damage is sad and all, but it is about sending a signal to the terrorists that we are out to get them and we are prepared to take “acceptable losses”.
So to answer your questions:
We are fighting to make it clear that we are stronger than them and we are the beacon of hope for democracy in the world!
When the terrorists of the world respect the US military superiority the war is won.
/sarc
batman & bruce wayne
Has anyone ever seen Mike Rogers and Peter King together in the same room?
Re: batman & bruce wayne
I’d say Jekyll and Hyde would be a better comparison, but both of them seem to be completely crazy.
Let's deploy our superweapon!
Fire Mike Rogers at them — anyone within blast radius of his cowardice and stupidity will be permanently rendered harmless to the United States.
?That is not leadership,? Rogers declared. ?We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient.?
I would like to understand the mindset of how a total lack of respect for innocent civilians outside the US, not even getting into the total lack of respect Rogers and others have shown for the American people themselves, is in any way protecting or making America safer?
All his words are accomplishing is making it much more likely non-American despise Americans, if not actually want to kill us, and create a growing class of American who’d like to see this man (and others of his ilk) carted off in chains.
Rogers must be one of the most idiotic Americans I have ever come across.
When foreigners talk of hating America, this man sums up what they hate.
Fucking chest-beating twat.
Ends justify the means ? not
Isn’t the same attitude that terrorist take? To hell with collateral damage as long as I make my point.
Re: Re:
Precisely, it’s the question every decent soldier faces, “At what point do I become what I am fighting against?”
He has become the enemy but chooses to be too ignorant to see it.
Do you allow a rabid dog to live?
worse than McCarthy
When I was growing up, McCarthy was cited as the need to be diligent in preventing sensationalist scare tactics to make us think that we were giving up our protections for security. We weren’t. Although people losing jobs and reputations was bad, the McCarthyistas were not dumping due process to kill people.
Must understand other side too
While I do believe that US government overreach must be stopped, I also understand what this man is talking about.
Basically, you can’t assign lawyer to every soldier. You want to use army against foreign targets? Get ready – innocent people will die. Not “may die” – “will die”. That’s what war is about, that’s what armies do.
Don’t like it? Don’t start the war, bring ALL of US Army back home.
You want fight terrorists (real or imaginary) in Yemen/Afghanistan/Iraq/etc – yep, innocent people gonna die.
Don’t like it? Stop acting like world police. That’s simple.
Re: Must understand other side too
That’s what war is about, that’s what armies do.
When did the US Congress issue a declaration of war against Yemen?
Re: Re: Must understand other side too
That’s classified.
Adjusts dark glasses and walks away
Re: Must understand other side too
I’ve heard that before WW2, 90% of the casualties of war were soldiers. After WW2, 90% are civilians.
got just the place for this guy. south of China and north of South Korea. i reckon he’d like it there!!
Funny, really, how many people bitch about the use of so-called “drones” to kill people. Yet, they don’t even know the actual name of the things they’re bitching about. They’re not “drones”. Drones are aerial targets used by the military to test various weapons systems!! These are UAV’s – Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Just goes to show how easily people are influenced and how quick they jump on the bandwagon.
Re: Re:
Hate to break it to you but a drone is another name for a UAV. The drones you are talking about are also UAVs. They are unmanned so that they can shoot them down without anyone getting hurt.
“attacking or plotting against U.S. interests”
Oh so I can get droned for posting on this website?
Damn I love ‘merica
Re: Re:
Oh, you can get droned just for viewing certain web sites. Also arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured, disappeared, etc.
you forgot something mike
“Of course, even with the new policies in place, there’s been plenty of coverage of the fact that a US drone strike took out a wedding party in Yemen — so apparently the “red tape” didn’t stop that sort of indiscriminate killing of innocent people.”
Uhm, you “forgot” to mention this tiny part of the article:
“Most of the dead in the drone strike appeared to be people suspected of being militants linked to Al Qaeda, according to tribal leaders in the area.”
So, well done US armed forces. A smarter use of force may be more in the long term interests of the USA, but this still looked like a very legitimate target to me.
Re: And?
It was still a drone strike at a freakin’ wedding, even if it was composed of a lot of ‘suspected militants’, you’d be hard pressed to find something that would be more likely to drum up hatred towards the US and US military.
The various groups that hate the US have got to be dancing in joy over something like that, as it makes their job recruiting people and convincing them of how evil the US is insanely easier.
Re: Re: And?
Groups that hate the US will do so whether or not so-called collateral damage (i.e., innocents are hurt/killed) transpires.
As for “a freakin’ wedding”, war is indiscriminate and not at all capable of being conducted with precision. Ask the civilians who died in WWII, whose numbers far exceeded those who died in actual combat (about 2 to 1).
Re: Re: Re: And?
Groups that hate the US will do so whether or not so-called collateral damage (i.e., innocents are hurt/killed) transpires.
Really? And you don’t think knowingly dropping bombs on civilians won’t make that worse? Won’t drive even more people, people who could have otherwise been for the US, or at least neutral, straight into the arms of the groups that are willing to take lives they hate the US so much?
‘They’ll hate us no matter what we do’ is one thing, ‘They hate us already, now lets make a whole bunch of additional people hate us as well’ is quite another, and to be blunt, such actions and thinking helps them just as much as money and materials.
As for “a freakin’ wedding”, war is indiscriminate and not at all capable of being conducted with precision. Ask the civilians who died in WWII, whose numbers far exceeded those who died in actual combat (about 2 to 1).
Now see, there’s a rather large difference between carpet bombing a military base or other strategic target and accidentally destroying some residences and killing civilians, vs intentionally dropping bombs on a place you know will have civilians. The first is a tragic accident, something that while it may be unavoidable in large scale conflicts, is still something you want to minimize, while the second is wanton blood-shed, and frankly makes the ones committing it no better than the ones they’re trying to kill.
As soon as you start seeing civilian casualties as ‘acceptable collateral damage’, as soon as killing civilians is considered an even trade as long as you take out your target in the process… as soon as that point is reached, any moral high ground, any ability to claim ‘We are the good guys, They are the bad guys’, all of that goes out of the window, and the difference between the sides is reduced to little more than what they wear and the gear they have.
Re: Re: Re: And?
Groups that hate the US will do so whether or not so-called collateral damage (i.e., innocents are hurt/killed) transpires.
First off, you think this makes it okay? Because the other guy does it, we should too? That’s disgusting.
Second, do you not realize that doing so makes the problem worse? Killing innocent people doesn’t stop the problem it makes more people want to attack us.
As for “a freakin’ wedding”, war is indiscriminate and not at all capable of being conducted with precision. Ask the civilians who died in WWII, whose numbers far exceeded those who died in actual combat (about 2 to 1).
Can you point out when the US Congress declared war on Yemen? Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:2 And?
Re: Re: Re:3 And?
I really, really hope that was meant to be sarcasm, the idea that no declaration is needed, that the army can be sic’d on any target at any time, without any checks on doing so… if you’re not seriously worried about that, you really should be.
As for this:
‘And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough – and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.’
Unless you’re arguing that soldiers are nothing more than weapons, mindless killing machines, then yes, a solider does bear responsibility for what/who they shoot/bomb, as ultimately they choose whether or not to pull the trigger, and they always, always have the option to refuse if they find the order objectionable enough to them.
Re: Re: Re:4 And?
Re: Re: Re:4 And?
The last declaration of war by the United States was made on December 8. 1941. Your view appears to be that any hostilities conducted without a formal declaration is an illegal or quasi-illegal act that should be governed by a different set of rules when force must be used to meet force.
Judging by the remainder of your comments, you have never been associated with military service nor experienced any form of a life-threatening situation where your survival depended upon meeting force with force. Maybe we should pass an international treaty requiring everyone in the world to friend everyone else on Facebook, and then include a provision that friends may never engage in hostile action against a friend.
Re: Re: Re:5 And?
The last declaration of war by the United States was made on December 8. 1941. Your view appears to be that any hostilities conducted without a formal declaration is an illegal or quasi-illegal act that should be governed by a different set of rules when force must be used to meet force.
This is funny, since you’re the one who’s usually here mocking us for not explicitly following the exact letter of the law. Yet, suddenly, you can throw laws out the window. You’re funny. I distinctly recall you insisting that there is no such thing as a software patent because it’s not defined in the law. You also claimed there was no such thing as the “innovation economy” because it’s not defined anywhere. Similarly, a “bad patent” doesn’t exist, because it’s not in the law.
Yet, war? Fuck, who cares what the definition is…
Judging by the remainder of your comments, you have never been associated with military service nor experienced any form of a life-threatening situation where your survival depended upon meeting force with force.
I’m curious. Could you explain to me how the CIA agent sitting in Langley and the drone pilot sitting in Colorado are in a life-threatening situation, in which they absolutely must, this very second bomb a wedding caravan in Yemen?
Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:6 And?
In response to your question people sitting before displays in the US are not in the front lines, but what they do absolutely assists those who are on the front lines. If you can crowd source ideas for conducting war without innocents being endangered, then go for it and brief the JCS on how it should be done. If it could be done they would be very interested.
Re: Re: Re:7 And?
In response to your question people sitting before displays in the US are not in the front lines, but what they do absolutely assists those who are on the front lines.
Who is on the front lines in Yemen, at risk from a wedding party?
Re: Re: Re:3 And?
Remember – soldiers are not policemen. They are not trained to observe some complex legal code. They are trained to fight. Definition of “fight” differs per soldier and his/her duty – be it infantry or intelligence.
And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough – and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.
None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand. This is not about the rules of engagement for infantrymen. Also, despite your ignorant assertions there ARE rules for engagement.
Re: Re: Re:2 And?
Now you are being disingenuous to a fault trying to support your incredibly na?ve point of view. Where did I say or suggest I hold a belief that “collateral damage” is okay? The killing/hurting of innocents is an inevitable consequence of combat. The precision you appear to advocate is impossible to achieve unless that target happens to be standing in the middle of a desert with no one standing closer than several miles away.
Does a Congressional declaration of war change in any way what is presented to our troops on the ground and mean they should respond to violence with both hands tied behind their backs whenever the enemy intermixes with civilians to avoid any in-kind response by our troops.
Why not simply assign an attorney from a civil rights group to every person in a country where hostilities are being confronted by US troops, and then let them communicate when and as our troops can return fire and against who they can do so?
No one who is sane wishes to engage in life threatening combat, but then again when in such a situation instinct kicks in for self-preservation. I guess you would outlaw instinct. Join the infantry, serve a tour in a combat zone, and then tell us you will not defend yourself if the possibility of civilian casualties exists.
Re: Re: Re:3 And?
Does a Congressional declaration of war change in any way what is presented to our troops on the ground and mean they should respond to violence with both hands tied behind their backs whenever the enemy intermixes with civilians to avoid any in-kind response by our troops.
This has nothing to do with troops on the ground. I’m saying that we bombed a wedding party in a country we’re not at war with, in a country where we don’t have “troops on the ground” and where there was no direct and immediate risk to anyone.
You’re changing the story.
Why not simply assign an attorney from a civil rights group to every person in a country where hostilities are being confronted by US troops, and then let them communicate when and as our troops can return fire and against who they can do so?
This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. You’ve changed the subject because I’ve (once again) proved that you were spewing bullshit.
No one who is sane wishes to engage in life threatening combat, but then again when in such a situation instinct kicks in for self-preservation.
Yes, I’m sure the drone pilot in Colorado was in “self-preservation” mode when he saw the wedding party halfway around the globe.
Are you really that clueless?
Re: Re: Re:4 And?
Yes, we deliberately target innocent civilians to project military power because we have no regard for human life.
Re: you forgot something mike
“Most of the dead in the drone strike appeared to be people suspected of being militants linked to Al Qaeda, according to tribal leaders in the area.”
Come on. They couldn’t have fit more weasel words in that sentence if they tried. The sentence is devoid of actual fact or meaning.
Re: you forgot something mike
51 of 100 = “most”. So you are okay with killing 49 innocent people in order to get 51 bad guys?
Please keep your finger away from the drone controls.
Re: Re: you forgot something mike
Re: Re: Re: you forgot something mike
This is the exact reasoning that led to firebombing Berlin, dropping nukes on Japan, and all manner of other war crimes.
In my opinion, it is morally and ethically bankrupt.
Re: Re: Re:2 you forgot something mike
In my opinion, it is morally and ethically bankrupt.
You left out dangerous. People like that are a danger to the world around them.
Re: Re: Re:3 you forgot something mike
You left out dangerous.
Indeed. We should all call this for what it is: the advocacy of terrorism.
He’s using almost exactly the language that Al Quaeda used to justify the 9/11 attacks – the view that the world is divided into “we” and “they;” the threat of an undeclared war; the moral innocence of its soldiers, and the virtue of following orders without question; the notion that there are no “innocent” civilians, and that the general population is a legitimate target.
He is saying that the U.S. should turn into a terrorist state, and that nobody who lives here should do a damn thing about it.
Re: Re: Re: you forgot something mike
So, back you your questions – yes. “innocence” have nothing to do at war. In war, there’re “we” and “they” (for given definition of “we” and “they”). And “they” are target.
I’m curious, with a mindset like that, how exactly is the US any different than the other terrorist groups? If ‘innocence’ doesn’t matter, if all that matters is ‘we’ and ‘they’, and as long as you get your target it doesn’t matter if you kill a few civilians in the process, how is that any different than what ‘they’ do?
Re: Re: Re:2 you forgot something mike
Re: Re: Re:3 you forgot something mike
What makes you think that “US any different”?
I don’t actually, the US as it stands now is a shadow of it’s former self, where in the past it may have had the higher ground on several thing(treatment of prisoners, treatment and protection of the press and opposing views, protecting the rights of the people), these days it’s sunk far, little better than the countries it used to decry for how they treated their citizens.
I think it can be salvaged, though it’s certainly going to take some work, and one of the first, and most important parts to that process is finding and pointing out the places where the US is failing to live up to what it could be, what it should be.
Why do they even care? If the law is getting in the way of their murder sprees, why not just ignore the law? That’s the usual government response, after all.
This should be a breakthrough moment for the military-industrial complex. Finally, they have a weapon that won’t rebel when ordered to gun down civilians. Why are they allowing anyone or anything to hold them back? They should drop the ridiculous pretense and get on with the genocide already.
I suppose civilians aren’t killed by a drone strike until someone in the government looks…
Mike the asshole
Who’s to blame for having Rogers as member of congress. To me, it’s very evident, it’s the electorate of the state of Michigan. May be at the next election, they should elect a PIG as their congressman. The Pig would certainly do a better job as a congressman ans Mike Rogers is doing. He is a disgrace to the country and should be held accountable for his actions.
Re: Mike the asshole
I voted for a pig, but I guess he didn’t campaign enough
This particular matter is being investigated, but it is alleged that the reason for the attack is intelligence information that the convoy of vehicles was associated with an AQ operative, a person affiliated with one or more militant groups that pay no heed to international boundaries in training, planning, and executing acts specifically and intentionally directed at innocent civilians. If you can point me to a situation where the US has deliberately targeted only innocent civilians knowing them to be innocent civilians I will jump on your bandwagon calling for the heads of those behind such a despicable act (much like the Army Sgt. who was, I believe, sentenced to death for leaving his base in the middle of the night, walking to nearby homes, and then proceeding to murder whoever he happened to find in them).
Re: Re:
If you can point me to a situation where the US has deliberately targeted only innocent civilians knowing them to be innocent civilians I will jump on your bandwagon calling for the heads of those behind such a despicable act
You’re so cute when you try to move the goalposts like that. No one suggested that the military deliberately targeted innocents. What we said was that we thought it was good to have basic policies and guidelines for using drones to murder people in foreign countries that we’re not at war with — and it was a good thing that in those guidelines was an attempt to make sure that the people being murdered extra-judicially were not, in fact, innocent bystanders. Rep. Rogers suggested that was crazy talk. You, apparently, agreed with Rogers.
And now you’ve set up this laughable strawman.
You could, you know, just admit that you were wrong. But I know you, and we’ve had this discussion a hundred times. You’ll just deny deny deny what’s in black and white above, and keep trying to move those goalposts. Keep at it. You’re adorable.
Re: Re: Re:
Guidelines are fine. The military has them coming out of their ears on any number of subjects. What it seems to me you believe are the minimum set of provisions in a guideline you would wholeheartedly support under many compelling circumstances literally shackle the hands of persons with real-time intelligence in hand that a really bad guy has been located and may very well warrant being sent to his virgins in the sky.
Now, you make liberal use of words and phrases such as “murder”, “extra judicial”, “foreign countries with which we are not at war”, “wedding party”, etc. It is as if action against bad guys can only be conducted via the drone program if judicially approved, within a country against which we are at was (at this time NONE), we must somehow divine who is a good guy and who is not (a task made all the more difficult, if not impossible, given local cultural norms, the known defensive employed by bad guys to shield themselves from attack by intermixing with innocents, etc.). I am making no attempt to define what those guidelines should entail. I am merely making the point that the type of guidelines you apparently promote would is substantial measure render the use of drones useless except in the most extreme of circumstances.
Combat activities are not clean cut, and the precision you appear to demand only rarely arises. Thus, one possible result of your views is that our troops would have to be placed in substantial jeopardy because other, effective tools at hand are forbidden from use. Drones are effective, as are cruise missiles, air bombing, distant artillery shelling, etc. We use the latter to try and keep our troops on the front line safe. Drones should be no different.
As for what sadly happened with the “wedding party”, the matter will be investigated and charges brought under the UCMJ against anyone who may have violated military protocols. I wonder if the tables were reversed and the bad guys had done the same against the same group of innocents if they would conduct an independent investigation and bring military charges against the perpetrators? We both know the answer to the latter.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, the goalposts are moving again.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You seem to revel in tearing apart virtually everything and everyone who works within our government and performs tasks with which you happen to disagree…as if they are spiteful persons bent upon the utter destruction of our society and the rule of law.
It is troubling (to me at least) that you display such animus towards them for no apparent reason simply because they are doing things or proffer opinions with which you happen to disagree. What has happened? You have always had strong opinions, but only within about the last year or so you seem to have been overtaken by a bias that broaches no dissent.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You seem to revel in tearing apart virtually everything and everyone who works within our government and performs tasks with which you happen to disagree…as if they are spiteful persons bent upon the utter destruction of our society and the rule of law.
This is 100% false. I actually think most people working for the government are doing incredible work under difficult circumstances, trying to do their best while dealing with significant competing interests.
What I have problems with are people in power who abuse that power and say stupid shit. Mike Rogers has done that repeatedly. I don’t think that he is spiteful and bent upon the utter destruction of our society and the rule of law. I don’t think anyone is. I think he’s an individual who is not particularly insightful, who has a long history of ignoring basic facts and flat out lying about those he disagrees with in an effort to protect “friends.” I find it troubling that such a person is in power, which is why I call attention to his ridiculous statements.
It is troubling (to me at least) that you display such animus towards them for no apparent reason simply because they are doing things or proffer opinions with which you happen to disagree.
There is no “animus.” There is me making it clear why his statements are highly suspect and questionable.
You disagree. I don’t think you have a very good reason for that, other than that you live in a world inhabited by the same sorts of people who Rogers normally inhabits, and thus you have lost sight of some rather basic human concepts. Thankfully, you’re in a position of no power at all, and I hope that remains the case.
Re: Re:
“If you can point me to a situation where the US has deliberately targeted only innocent civilians knowing them to be innocent civilians…”
Hmm, a couple of bombs dropped on a couple of cities in Japan immediately comes to mind.
Re: Re: Re:
The issue is “drones”, so the question still stands. Provide a specific instance where innocents were purposely targeted without any high value individual know or strongly and reasonably suspected to be within the targeted group.
Re: Re: Re: High Tech Mass Murder
“The issue is “drones”, so the question still stands. Provide a specific instance where innocents were purposely targeted without any high value individual know or strongly and reasonably suspected to be within the targeted group.”
Methinks you just admitted that innocents are purposely targeted.
“suspected to be within the targeted group.”
Those are your words. The suspected terrorist, in your scenario, only needs to be reasonably expected to be among the targeted “others”, for those “others” to be considered as acceptable collateral damage.
Since there is obviously no way to know who all of those “others” are, that group can and must often, if not always, contain “targeted innocent civilians”.
Under such conditions and especially since we now know that the targeting process itself is entirely done through collected cell-phone meta-data by the NSA, which only points to the probability of a single individual’s cell phone being “within the targeted group” inside the blast radius, it is my opinion that EVERY DRONE ATTACK deliberately targets all innocents within the explosive radius, in the hopes that one of the people killed “in the targeted group” is the individual the US Federal Government Assassins want killed.
It is by far the most cowardly, and most expensive form of mass-murder I’ve ever heard of.
Methinks Hitler would be proud.
Godwin be damned.