Political Memes

If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.

Killing enemy combatants isn't a military purpose?

When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn't being fucking carpet bombed.

That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime.

Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.

Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.

The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that's not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.

Sounds real war crime-y to me.

I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article

For instance, one of the emails made a specific reference to a 2013 ruling from the war crimes trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor that significantly widened the international legal definition of aiding and abetting such crimes.

The ruling found that "practical assistance, encouragement or moral support" is sufficient to determine liability for war crimes. Prosecutors do not have to prove a defendant participated in a specific crime, the U.N.-backed court found.

That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.

... and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.

This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge.

The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.

This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.

The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn't and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?

I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call.

If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I'm going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).

US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect.

Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?

Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Obama_administration_(2009%E2%80%932017)