Once again, no brain to not recognize the difference between our ROE and deliberately targeting innocents.
A dead person is a dead person. We kill so many innocents "accidentally", there is no difference. Calling it collateral damage doesn't change the fact that the person is dead. It does't lessen the grief that person's family endures. The person killed accidentally by one of our smart bombs or drones is just as dead regardless. If your family was killed accidentally, by some other nation's military, you'd be ok with it...wouldn't you? Also, innocent is a big word. It implies that a person has received a trial and been exonerated of wrongdoing. Looking at the example of Anwar Al Awlaki, was he tried in a court and found guilty before we murdered him with drones? No, we sort of skipped that part. The problem there is he was US citizen and had certain legal rights, regardless of what he was accused of. However, in Awlaki's case, the Executive decided he was an enemy combatant, put him on a kill list and summarily executed him, while killing several other innocents in the process (including his 16 year old son who was also a US citizen). Now, if all US citizens are innocent until proven guilty, then by that rationale we murdered an innocent man. We assassinated him, to be precise...and an assassination is a terrorist operation, pure and simple. Now, if we can simply point at someone, accuse them of terrorism without presenting any shred of proof to a judge, and assassinate them...then what's to stop a "terrorist" organization from pointing at an American civilian, saying they are responsible for their government's actions, and killing them? It's the same thing when you boil it down to its basic level.
OK, then why are killings in self defense or accidents treated differently in our legal system than first degree murder? After all, "a dead person is a dead person." Answer: because intent matters, even if you pretend it doesn't.
Our assassination of Alawki was premeditated. We announced our intention to the world to kill him without trial or proof. Then, we did it. He was a US citizen and US citizens, even those accused of treason, are innocent until proven guilty. Again, we sort of skipped that part. Our intent was to kill him without trial and without even allowing him to challenge the decision in court. We succeeded. There is no moral difference between that, and a goat farmer defending his homeland against one of our armed invasions. IF anything, the goat farmer is morally in the right to defend his homeland. The extra judicial assassination of American citizens is indefensible...but I'm sure that won't stop you from trying.
Actually, I view it differently. I'd argue that after the past decade (minimally) and the fact that Bush and Obama have essentially "betrayed" their core ideologies, that neither could be categorized as "conservatives" or "liberals". Sure, they were the first to use all of the usual talking points that motivate their voting blocks, but it was all fluff. So the bigger question is why are people still believing that the next election cycle will solve a damn thing or the one after that. It's been proven time and time again, that they are prostitutes who will do whatever they are told if paid enough money.
Because hope springs eternal and we are fast approaching a crisis in this country. We are finally out on the end of the limb and it is about to break.
You're obfuscating... I was comparing our politically correct ROE which put our military at risk with Islamofascist terrorists who deliberately target innocents. As I said, intent matters so the phony equivalence you implied earlier is horseshit. al-Awlaki was the bin Laden of the internet and was openly a terrorist, actively working for al-Qaeda, and got exactly what he deserved.
No, I am elucidating. You are failing to address any of the points in my arguments and instead are making a blanket statement that seems to suggest that when we kill people, even those we don't aim at, it's somehow ok, because it's us doing the killing. Sorry, but that thought process is inherently flawed. A dead person is a dead person, and the pain the death causes to those left behind is exactly the same whether it was an intentional killing by a suicide bomber, or it was an accidental killing by a smart bomber. Also, if there was all this proof that Awlaki was the bin laden of the internet, then why not present that evidence to a judge and at least have a trial in absentia? That may not have been due process per se, but at least it would have allowed us the semblance of adhering to the rule of law. By simply murdering him on our say so, we set the precedent that our Executive branch may do this to any one it deems a threat; and, we also signaled to the world that the rules, even our most time honored and cherished rules, no longer apply to us.
No, you're failing to acknowledge that intent matters. AGAIN, why are killings in self defense or accidents treated differently in our legal system than first degree murder? After all, "a dead person is a dead person." Do you think Obama's a terrorist for authorizing the killing of an enemy combatant terrorist who's actively and openly working for al-Qaeda, simply because he's an American citizen?