Which is more important: killing bad guys or not killing the innocent?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Which is more important: killing bad guys or not killing the innocent?

A common dilemma for the war on terror. If you want examples and/or specifics, just consider the war on terror during the last decade or so.

This poll is about your opinion.

I lean toward not killing the innocent over killing bad guys, but I think the other choice has valid points too. Both points of view have their strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.

[ixion]

1. If you're killing innocent civilians, you ARE the bad guys.

Period.

[Angry Dragon]

6. +1000

you become what you are fighting

[Liberal_in_LA]

78. +1001

[stevenleser]

80. No, civilians always get killed in war, ALWAYS, regardless of who is in the wrong. Both sides end up

killing civilians.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. This is a phony, fictitious war designed to enrich the profits of defense companies

and private oil companies. They bank the profits while the poor and the middle class in the United States foots the bill.

[stevenleser]

84. While I agree with some of that, it still does not make the point in the OP or of the responder

The starting of the Iraq war was a war crime, specifically an unprovoked war of aggression.

Targeting Al Qaeda and their supporters is legitimate. Civilians who get caught in the way are no different from Germans who died who lived near German factories in WWII. We all wish that this kind of thing didn't happen. But it ALWAYS happens in war, ALWAYS.

[Cali_Democrat]

89. "Targeting Al Qaeda and their supporters is legitimate"

Yes, but only through law enforcement means. I feel that "terrorism" is a law enforcement issue and should be treated as such.

What will stop terrorism is cooperation from other countries, intelligence, evidence and prosecutions. Dropping bombs and launching missiles with not stop terrorism. That's ridiculous. That will only create more terrorists.

In fact, the best way to stop terrorism would be to stop interfering in the middle east. The terrorists hate us for a reason and it ain't because they hate us for our freedom.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

87. Which is precisely why war should always be a last case scenario

and why we should put all of our focus into minimizing war as much as possible.

War profiteering throws this whole equation out the window

[stevenleser]

92. I agree 100%. nt

[ChillbertKChesterton]

86. Absolutely.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Thinking that you are doing something to change peoples' minds by killing perceived

bad guys is kinda strange. People feel trampled upon. You cannot make them feel "untrampledupon" by trampling on them with drones and model airplanes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Somewhat circumstantial

If the shooter is in imminent threat is different that if the shooter is sitting half a world away at a UAV console.

[dkf]

4. If you believe in not killing the innocent, doesn't that mean no war ever?

[RC]

5. +10 Right on!

[quaker bill]

11. Pretty much

This is why they have "rules of engagement". It is understood that some innocent folks will be killed. The rules deal with how much collateral damage is acceptable.

[customerserviceguy]

14. And if our enemies felt that way

It would all work out. But they don't.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

88. It means as little war as possible.

Some wars are inevitable, some wars are necessary, but those are few and far in between. Since WWII most of the wars we've engaged in have been for ideological purposes or for profits.

[chill_wind]

7. Beyond the humanitarian tragedy

of killing innocents, and the moral, legal and ethical consequences, going after handfuls of bad guys, while alienating entire countries of normal but affected citizens against us-- and in some cases against their own governments, as well, when they perceive them as complicit with us-- creates outright serious political problems for lots of the involved parties. And the potential of only a lot more radicalization in the next generations going forward. How is it that we fail to imagine that notion?

[Kaleva]

8. Depends. In total war, there are no innocents.

Everyone is considered to be a combatant. We may consider 9/11 to be an act of terror but for them, as they are waging total war, the buildings and all who were in the buildings and on the planes were legitimate military targets.

[polly7]

9. I thought the people who committed 9/11 were dead.

How long is this going to last ..... until every last man, woman and child on earth who's even seen a member of Al Qaeda is dead? There's no end plan, right?

[Kaleva]

19. As long as there are groups who wish to wage total war against us, it will last.

[polly7]

23. And what about the total war waged on nations who've done absolutely

nothing to the U.S.? And politicians in the U.S. openly wishing for total war on Iran, Syria, whoever else was on that PNAC hit-list? As I said, when does it end? So much hate, so little time.

[Kaleva]

27. The U.S hasn't waged total war on another nation since WWII

Our entire economy isn't geared to supporting the war effort over all else and neither is every man or woman fit to serve being drafted. Nor has every city in Iraq and Afghanistan been turned into rubble.

[stevenleser]

48. And more to the point, there is no such thing as a war where civilians don't end up getting killed

Civilians always get killed in wars, ALWAYS. In fact, the civilians that do get killed tilt disproportionately towards women and children.

[AngkorWot]

10. Everything is so simple if you don't have to think about anything.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. I'd like to know who said that killing 'bad guys' is more important even if innocents are killed.

I think it's heinous to think that way.

[Tx4obama]

20. So, you think we need to just let the bad guys go? So that THEY can killed innocent people?

I would be interested in hearing your 'solution' to the problem of terrorists bombing/killing people.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Well, if you'd kill me (an innocent) in order to get a 'bad guy'...

That's neither logical, nor humane.

Surely, smart people can come up with more intelligent ways to stop the bad guys, than just killing innocents.

[Tx4obama]

24. I am waiting to hear YOUR solution.

The current solution is to use intelligence to find the 'bad guys', then go in with drones to surgically remove them.
That eliminates having to send in US soldiers on the ground and eliminates the risk of OUR guys from being killed by the bad guys.
If there is one or two 'innocents' hanging around with a dozen terrorists when the drone attacks, then that can't be helped in some circumstances.
In most cases the drones attack the terrorists when they are in an isolated location so that the risk of innocents being killed is reduced.

If you have a better solution to the problem I'm all ears.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I'm not a genius, nor an expert on getting rid of 'bad guys.' I do know that killing ME...

when I've done nothing wrong, to get someone bad, is a very illogical, stupid way to solve problems.

[Tx4obama]

28. The solution to not getting 'yourself' killed in a drone attack targeting terrorists ...

is to not hang around with terrorists.
Don't go to a Al Qaeda compound and don't drive around in vehicles in Yemen and Afghanistan with terrorists.

Anyone hanging around with terrorists take the risk of being targeted and take the risk of being killed.


Have a great weekend.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. What if that terrorist is your dad? It's a fine line. I don't know...

I have no solutions.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Your solution freezes you into inaction and guarantees the bad guy win.

If a bad guy knows that you will not target him if an innocent will also be killed then he will simply make sure that he has a baby strapped to his back all the time. You can't shoot and he gets to have total freedom of movement. You get to pat yourself on the back for being so wonderfully moral while the baddie kills with impunity.

Real life is much messier than ivory towers.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Real life is more complex, you're right. nt

[sabrina 1]

69. Well we've killed over a million innocent people in Iraq.

And the bad guys responsible for 9/11 weren't even there. Now we've created more 'bad guys' whose babies and loved we killed. So we've mulitiplied the number of people who hate us. Brilliant.

I guess George Bush had it right all along. Tell me again, why did we not support him?

[EFerrari]

52. Between a third and a quarter of the people who die in drone attacks

are innocent civilians.

Pakistan drone war takes a toll on militants -- and civilians
By Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, Special to CNN
October 29, 2009 -- Updated 1942 GMT (0342 HKT)

"However, of those killed in drone attacks from 2006 through mid-October 2009, approximately 500 to 720 were described in reliable press reports as militants, or roughly two-thirds of the total killed.

Based on our count of the estimated number of militants killed, the real total of civilian deaths since 2006 appears to be in the range of 260 to 320, or one-third of those killed.

That finding tracks with polling by the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, described by The News of Pakistan as "a think tank of researchers and political activists" that works in the Pakistani tribal region along the Afghan border, where the drone attacks have consistently taken place."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/10/29/bergen.drone.war/

[stevenleser]

81. Probably correct. And still not considered a war crime by the UN. nt

[EFerrari]

85. That isn't settled yet.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/drone-strikes-are-legal-u-s-official-says/

[stevenleser]

93. Yes it is. The only question is who is doing the targeting. You realize that to solve any questions

all that has to happen is for the CIA to contact their friends in military intelligence, share the data with them, and have military intelligence officially designate the targets.

That is about which you want to concentrate your anti-war political activities. It's a red herring, completely and totally.

[sabrina 1]

70. That's what George Bush believed. Why did we not support him

[Cid_B]

57. Depends on the bad guy...

Sorry...

[Tx4obama]

13. Killing bad guys is more important

because if we don't stop the TERRORISTS then THEY will end up killing tons of innocents.

This is a case of having to pick the lesser of the two evils.

The more terrorists that are killed or arrested means the less chance they have of killing innocent people all over the world.

I don't know when the idea of NOT going after the terrorists (because there could be one or two folks caught in the attack) began but to me it does not seem to be the best route to take.

Which is better:

1) kill a half dozen terrorists with a drone attack and risk that one or two innocents are in the mix

or

2) Don't attack the terrorists so that one or two innocents can survive - but then the terrorists have the opportunity to blow up a plane with 300 innocent people on it, or blow up a building/square with 100s/1000s of innocent people being killed


p.s. Thank goodness it is the world leaders make these decisions and not folks that are sitting around on their computers in their pajamas.

[whatchamacallit]

16. 3000 of ours, hundreds of thousands of theirs

when is the shoe on the other foot?

[Tx4obama]

18. I had a particular case in mind - see link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2169772

[sabrina 1]

83. Then maybe we should stop creating 'bad guys'

How do you feel now about the mass graves being discovered in Libya by HR Groups created by your GOOD GUYS?? According to their reports, these 'rebels' feel they are 'above the law' and so far two mass graves have been discovered, one with 53 people, some with their hands tied behind their backs and executed, the other with over 90 people buried, also many of them executed by your 'good guys'. So now, who are the 'bad guys' again?

And how do you feel about our government's current support for the really bad guys, dictators, in countries like Uzbekistan and Bahrain killing their own people while we provide them money?

Doesn't that make US the bad guys too? Or can we never be called 'bad' even when we support dictators who massacre their own people as Karamov has. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to that mass murderer?? I have seen NO objections here from those who claim that we should kill bad buys, to this administrations latest 'warming relationships' with Karamov. And I doubt I will, which is pure hypocrisy, this guy boiled his own people in oil, yet there is not a word against him here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "It is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners." Albert Camus

[Bragi]

17. Good poll question! /nt

[undeterred]

21. Not killing the innocent is one of the reasons for opposing the death penalty.

Its not the only reason, but its a good reason.

[randome]

26. Yes.

[Goldstein1984]

29. When you kill innocent people...

you create "terrorists."

And I don't believe all the people being targeted are really terrorists. Look at what we do around the world. I think if I were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen... I'd be trying to kill us too.

[Tx4obama]

32. You do not believe members of Al Qaeda are not terrorists?

Have you not heard that Al Qaeda have declared war on The USA?
Have you not read, seen, or heard about all the people that Al Qaeda has killed / blown up?

The people being targeted ARE members of Al Qaeda.

IF any innocent people have been killed in the drone attacks that have been targeting Al Qaeda, then perhaps those folks shouldn't have been hanging around with the terrorists.

[Goldstein1984]

43. If American's are being killed by terrorists...

perhaps they should take a look at the actions of their own government around the world. We the pilots that bombed Dresden "terrorists" because Dresden wasn't a military target. The goal was demoralization ("terrorizing") the German population.

Terrorism is relative. Those of us who are educated in this area recognize asymetric warfare and conflicting ideologies when we see them. The Founders of this nation were branded "terrorists." Al Qaeda has very clear complaints about our military presense and support for dictators in the Middle East. The people we now call Al Qaeda, and the people we now fight in Afghanistan, were our "allies" when we had use for them in opposing the Soviets.

It really is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

We are a nation of, by, and for the people. If we really are a democratic republic (and I doubt we still are), then why would Al Qaeda not target American civilians for the actions of a government they elect and support?

Sorry, but it's just not that simple.

[Duer 157099]

30. So at least 8 people here would

opt to shoot at a criminal who takes a bystander as a human shield.

Nice to know.

[Tx4obama]

31. No, that is NOT true. The issue in the OP is the 'WAR on terror' n/t

[Duer 157099]

33. Explain the distinction please n/t

[Tx4obama]

40. There is a HUGE difference between ...

a bank robber that grabs a innocent bystander and the guy below (and his son) that were killed by drone attacks


Anwar al-Awlaki

SNIP

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad." Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."
http://www.aabout.biz/2011/09/anwar-al-awlaki.html
---

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son.
al-Awlaki's son has lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American,
The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

Some folks have said that the 'son' was targeted - that is not true, it was al Bana that was the target.
The son was killed in the drone attack that killed al Bana.
There is no evidence that the 'son' was innocent or evidence that he was a member of Al Qaeda.
But considering the son has lived with his TERRORIST father in Yemen since 2002, and his father believe everyone should raise their children 'on the love of Jihad' --- there is NO way that the 'son' was a peace loving American citizen.
And the 'son' was not an innocent bystander that some criminal grabbed as a hostage.
The son went there were the Al Qaeda members were on his own free will, even the family said the son went to Shawba from Sana after he heard about the attack on his father.


Edited to fix typo.

[stevenleser]

50. How about you point to a war where civilians were not killed. nt

[ZombieHorde]

55. What is the logic behind your request? nt

[stevenleser]

72. What is the logic behind your OP? nt

[Cid_B]

58. Question...

What am I carrying and how far away are they?

My M4 from a stable position and 20 meters... Bridge of the nose.... Human shield is going home...

My M9 and 50 meters... not as much...

Situation dependent... but I have the ability to think in shades of gray. As opposed to a some all or nothing types around here.

[Prometheus Bound]

35. Imagine if your baby were in the house with the bad guy. Would you bomb the building?

If not, why would you bomb it with any other innocent in there? Is one innocent life more valuable than another?

[ZombieHorde]

42. Good point. nt

[Tx4obama]

59. Why would your baby be in a building full of Al Qaeda members in Yemen?

Or in a car full of Al Qaeda members in Yemen?

For anyone that hasn't heard: Al Qaeda has declared war on The USA.

Warning: Please keep all of your babies away from Al Qaeda members, otherwise there might be a risk of incoming drones.

[Prometheus Bound]

60. How about a restaurant in Corpus Christi, Texas then.

Just for the sake of discussion.

[Tx4obama]

61. That doesn't make any sense.

We are not talking about capturing a bank robber, we're talking about terrorists that have declared war on The USA.

The USA is not bombing Al Qaeda members in restaurants in populated areas.

The issue is strategically taking out Al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen with precision attacks in isolated areas were terrorists meet and live.

[Prometheus Bound]

63. Iran Terror Plot Linked To Government Agents

Iran Terror Plot Linked To Government Agents
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration accused Iranian government agents Tuesday of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and immediately used the thwarted plot to ratchet up sanctions and recruit international allies to try to further isolate Tehran.

Two men, including a member of Iran's special foreign actions unit known as the Quds Force, were charged in New York federal court with conspiring to kill the Saudi diplomat, Adel Al-Jubeir. Justice Department officials say the men tried to hire a purported member of a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the assassination with a bomb attack while Al-Jubeir dined at his favorite restaurant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/eric-holder-iran-terror-plot_n_1005578.html

[Tx4obama]

64. So, what's your point ?

It was the bad guys that were planning on blowing up a restaurant.

The USA was NOT going to blow it up with a drone.

[Prometheus Bound]

66. Well let's bomb a fucking kindergarten in Yemen then as long as you get your precious evildoer kill.

As long as you remember to keep your kids away from Al-qaeda, too fucking bad for anyone else's children who happens to get caught in the crossfire. I get it. They should know better than to live in a country with evildoers mucking about.

[Tx4obama]

67. The USA is NOT bombing kindergartens, not in Yemen or anywhere else.

I thought that maybe you had a point you were trying to make regarding the link you posted,
apparently you didn't.

[Prometheus Bound]

71. You seem to have difficulty discussing things in the abstract.

In which case you will never get the point.

[stevenleser]

75. Because your analogies never make sense. You're desperate to make a point that isnt there nt

[Tx4obama]

68. Well then ...

Are you suggesting that we just leave Al Qaeda alone and let them kill all the folks that want to?
Is that your solution?

And if you support eliminating terrorists, since apparently you do not approve of surgical strikes in isolated areas, how would you do it?

I'm all ears.

[ZombieHorde]

65. Obviously our babies wouldn't be with Al Qaeda folks in the Middle East,

but some people's babies might be.

[chill_wind]

36. There is a framework: State responsibility and individual criminal liability

86. Outside its own territory (or in territory over which it lacked control) and where the
situation on the ground did not rise to the level of armed conflict in which IHL would
apply, a State could theoretically seek to justify the use of drones by invoking the right to
anticipatory self-defence against a non-state actor.147 It could also theoretically claim that
human rights law’s requirement of first employing less-than-lethal means would not be
possible if the State has no means of capturing or causing the other State to capture the
target. As a practical matter, there are very few situations outside the context of active
hostilities in which the test for anticipatory self-defence – necessity that is “instant,
overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation”148 – would
be met. This hypothetical presents the same danger as the “ticking-time bomb” scenario
does in the context of the use of torture and coercion during interrogations: a thought
experiment that posits a rare emergency exception to an absolute prohibition can effectively
institutionalize that exception. Applying such a scenario to targeted killings threatens to
eviscerate the human rights law prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life. In
addition, drone killing of anyone other than the target (family members or others in the
vicinity, for example) would be an arbitrary deprivation of life under human rights law and
could result in State responsibility and individual criminal liability.



United Nations HRC Study on Targeted Killings

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf

If you are talking in particular about the CIA drones program and targeted killings (which I suspect you are) we're debating the moral and ethical implications of the very Bush/Cheney/ Rumsfeld preemptive war on terror doctrine itself, under which all this began, but which we've only accelerated since with the targeted killings. Extrajudicial killings. Civilian bystander killings of men, women, children.

The world still hasn't resolved and decided how to grapple with those previous actors, their ideas and their unfettered existence, just as with lesser events ongoing now. But there is a human rights law framework. The civilized world just doesn't seem up to the task of attempting to impose it on us.

So far.

[Capitalocracy]

38. Killing everyone we can

and then putting our fingers in our ears and singing "LA LALA LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when people tell us one of them was innocent

[TwilightGardener]

41. It's a tough one. 20 years ago, I would have answered "not killing the innocent"--

but terror isn't armies against armies--they GLADLY kill innocent civilians, it's the hallmark of terrorism. So I reluctantly think wiping out terrorists and disabling their networks will ultimately save more innocent lives than doing nothing, and yet all attempts must be made not to take innocent lives,even if it means letting some opportunities go in terms of targets.

[rug]

44. How many innocent people is a bad one worth?

[unkachuck]

49. "How many innocent people is a bad one worth?"

....as many as a bad one would kill if a bad one wasn't stopped....

[rug]

51. And how dou you determine how many he will kill?

Considering that's how many you're willing to kill.

[unkachuck]

54. that's the hard part....

....killing three innocent people to prevent a tyrant from using a nuclear bomb on a city of 30,000 innocent people would be a fairly easy choice....

....killing 30,000 innocent people to save a city of 30,000 innocent people would be a much more difficult call....how many innocent would any tyrant kill under any circumstance?

....I don't know....but we pay people to play God and to decide such things all the time....

[Fire Walk With Me]

45. I just want to change the world so that the bad guys can't get any power at all.

Is that too much to ask? ;)

[Puregonzo1188]

46. It always amazes me how many who argue the killing the bad guys position use the exact mindset

al-Qaeda does. It also never ceases to amaze me that this is almost always lost on them.

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. +1. nt

[stevenleser]

47. Other: With the police/law enforcement, def more important not to kill innocent. In war...

civilians always get killed so the question is a non-sequitur as far as war is concerned.

Which one do you mean?

[ZombieHorde]

53. I mean the one I said I meant in the OP: The War on Terror.

The question is not a non-sequitur as far was war is concerned.

People make choices; which is more important to you?

[stevenleser]

73. The question is a non-sequitur. In war civilians always get killed. The choice is a different one...

the choice is whether to strike back at Al Qaeda at all, ever, or not. It's not the one you suggest.

[Prometheus Bound]

56. Let's say it's a war, then. Your baby is in a building with the enemy.

Would you bomb the building?

I doubt it. So why would you bomb it if any other innocent were inside? Is one innocent more valuable than another?

[Tx4obama]

62. In the case of al Awlaki's son - who was not a baby

He went there and met up with the Al Qaeda guys of his own free will.
He left Sana and went to Shabwa where they were.
As far as we know The USA didn't even know that he was there.
The target of the drone that killed al-Awlaki's son was an Egyptian named al Bana - he was the Al Qaeda member that was targeted in the drone attack.

If folks don't want to be blown up when Al Qaeda members are being targeted then they shouldn't hang out with terrorists.


Edited to fix typo.

[stevenleser]

74. Yes, I would bomb or otherwise attack the building.

Assuming this is war, if my baby is in a building with enemy combatants than my baby is a hostage. I would ask the special forces folks if a rescue with delta forces or seal teams was possible, just like if any child from our side was a hostage in the building, or for that matter, if American military forces were being held there. If not, I would bomb the building.

[LanternWaste]

76. As there is no all-encompassing

As there is no all-encompassing, objective definition of either 'innocent' or 'bad-guys' (this, moral relativism and contemporary philosophies tells me so), therefor the premise is far too subjective for me to make any definitive stand, one way or the other-- each particular scenario's good guys, bad guys and innocents being defined in such as way as all three sets fall well within all three perceptions.

[redqueen]

79. Why does this question remind me of the "What if the terrorists planted a bomb

and the only way to find it would be to torture them?" type of question?

As has been said above, in war, innocents are killed. The choice then, it seems to me, is to avoid war.

[ThomWV]

90. Answer 42: It is most important that we kill no one.

[ManiacJoe]

91. As a guideline, not killing the innocents is a good place to start.

However, situationally there are lots of exceptions.

Why are "we" trying to kill the Bad Guy? (Active shooter vs bomb maker vs attack planner?)

Who are the innocents? (Human shields vs hostages vs wrong-place-wrong-time?)