@benjaminwittes We know of numerous instances where US has decided obvious Civilians are acceptable--Mehsud's wife=best example
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Yes, absolutely. Good point. There are definitely cases where we have made judgment that some civ cas are acceptable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes Therefore we should not assume military is always seeing just armed men w/HVTs. Or that HVTs at bases, rather than jirgas.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel That was an example of a situation where count can be hard. it was not meant to be the only example.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes Fair enuff. But once you accept lots of strikes involve CIVCAS deemed acceptable, you get into @BartHKreps@deviatar point.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Agreed. But@deviatar is making more radical point: that must assume body is civilian in absence of very strong proof otherwise.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes But your "proof" is not proof. It's associative, when we know US has tolerance for CIVCAS. Like farmer killed in Quso strike1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about presumptions in the absence of proof.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes USG "has concluded its target either part of armed forces of opposing side or civ directly participating in hostilities"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel yes, I think that's likely always true--though you are correct that there are times when expected civilian casualties not zero.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@benjaminwittes So you ARE presuming, even tho USG has provably lied abt its drone targeting? Why?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.