[iwlbebnd]

If you still believe the US military obeys the rule of law, international law, common decency, and their own rules of engagement then you have not been paying attention to 1, the Manning leaks, 2 Snowden leaks, 3 recent war crimes involving the bombing of hospitals operated by doctors without boarders, Senate report on torture, Obama refusal to exercise the laws against torture, Gitmo, the 'disposition matrix' aka kill lists without oversight, 'double-taps'. The list so long, extensive, and well documented that I can only question your sincerity.

[jessespears]

> I can only question your sincerity.

This is the mark of a viewpoint unfettered by exposure to the other side. Assuming malicious intent of someone just because they have an opposing viewpoint is simplistic and naive.

1. Manning leaks: exposure of one war crime and its coverup. Hardly a trend. Furthermore, Wikileaks edited the Collateral Murder video to imply malicious intent and obfuscate the ambiguity in the situation.

2. Snowden leaks: where was the U.S. military implicated in any of them?

3. Hospital bombings: yes, targeting fails happen in wartime. It is tragic and regretful. War zones are dangerous.

4. Senate report on torture: wasn't that the CIA as directed by Attorney General Gonzalez?

5. Obama refusal to exercise the laws against torture: this is the first time I'm hearing of this, please discuss.

6. Gitmo: hardly the U.S. military; this is an artifact of a Congress that refuses to allow any appropriations toward relocating prisoners elsewhere.

7. Kill lists: how would you approach terminating military commanders engaging in continuous operations (that kill noncombatants) against your country, yet they don't belong to a nation-state?

In the last 100 years, the U.S. military is guilty of much wrongdoing. Compared to other nations, and considering the volume of combat in which the U.S. military has been engaged, the U.S. military fares well when compared to other nations. The reality is that warfare inherently involves the killing of people who should not have been killed, simply because their homes were in a combat zone. You could argue that the U.S. shouldn't have entered most of its wars; that might be true. At the time, it was considered to be the right thing by the U.S. electorate in order to prevent much more bloodshed. World War 2 is the textbook example of a war entered too late to prevent massive bloodshed. This informs U.S. decision makers and cannot be discounted.

[vkou]

> At the time, it was considered to be the right thing by the U.S. electorate in order to prevent much more bloodshed.

The electorate is never asked about their opinions on the subject - although propaganda is consistently used to prime it.

[iwlbebnd]

1, your willingness to whitewash the calculated murder of a civilian journalist is chilling, it's hard to believe you argue in good faith.

2. Clapper lying under oath to Congress, numberous illegal programs under the NSA.

3. Just another isolated example right? Honest mistake, just like the weddings and the explicit double tap strategy that explicitly targets emergency medical responders.

4. Forget about abu ghraib? Just another isolated example... Seeing a pattern here of your refusal to look past the numerous examples, as if you have your head in the sand.

6. Gitmo is the result of our Governments decision to violate the Geneva convention on the handling prisoners of war, the Taliban certainly qualified, but our military industrial complex did the legal contortions of enemy combatants instead. Gitmo existence is a clear war crime.

7. I'd pursue by continuing to respect the rule of law, international law, and our Constitution, apparently trifling concerns to you.

5. Look it up, Obama violated his oath by refusing to execute the law of land against one of the most henious crimes possible.

[rvdavis]

1. His point was that the Manning leaks revealed one war crime, not a trend.

2. Clapper is/was not a military official.

3. Being a former US Army infantryman, I have no clue what you are referencing with regard to an "explicit double tap strategy." However, you did describe a well-used TTP of insurgents in Afghanistan.

6. A "clear war crime" GITMO is not; it is an artifact of civilian policies in a legal grey area. Personally, I think it does more harm than good and should be shut down, but there are real questions (i.e. where do the prisoners go?) that CIVILIANS in Congress can't answer yet.

7. That sounds lovely, but lacks any real substance.

[simonh]

The poster didn't say any of that, he just said that it seems specifically designating a kill box does not by itself override rules about target identification. That's all. There may be other factors that could cause an inappropriate target to get targeted illegitimately, but designating a kill box by itself doesn't do that. If you have reason to disagree with the actual point being made, please go ahead.

[iwlbebnd]

"Turns out it kindof doesn't.

After some quick reading, [1] a "kill box" is still subject to the standard rules of engagement."

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. The US military does not in any meaningful sense follow its own rules of engagement, the rule of law, international law, common moral decency. The examples are legion and extremely well documented.

[khm]

I managed to serve for nearly a decade without committing or witnessing any war crimes. You're going to have to dial back the pearl-clutching if you want anyone to take you seriously.

There is a world of difference between incidents of some soldiers in a military of millions failing in their duties and that failure being a national defense policy. You are indicating the latter and I am personally denying the truth of that accusation.

[sjbase]

I think you're wildly broadening my point to a blanket defense of US military action. That's not remotely what I'm saying. In fact I tend to agree that there's a lot of validity to the whistleblowing of the past decade, and suspect my personal opinions on Snowden, Manning, Gitmo etc have overlap with yours.

But that's not the point. The article is alludes to these "kill boxes" being sanctioned areas of indiscriminate killing. I'm merely clarifying that the ROE still applies (whether or not it's illegally violated).