|
No. It's not a question of imminent danger. It's a military operation.
They play by different rules than law enforcement. Always have. Always will.
Normally I would agree with you, but not when it comes to the authorized usage of lethal force in defense of self or others. Military security operating on a base (state side or overseas) and local law enforcement have the same ROE if someone draws a gun, points it at someone and screams they're going to kill them.
It IS a question of imminent danger. Do they meet the "lethal triangle" qualifications?
Heck, even operating in a full on warzone, shooting down every plane flying through would have been a VERY bad idea. Or on patrol, ask the Marines and Soliders if they can just shoot every person they see because it's a military operation.
You can't just declare something a "military operation" to give assets (military or otherwise) the authority to go weapons free. A military operation still has very strict rules to follow and when it comes to shooting people not in uniform, I think you'll find the rules aren't that much different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that targeting enemy leaders for assassination was, or had been, also illegal--but whether that's under American or international law, I don't know.
But, once again, Obama gets away with what would have provoked outrage and demonstrations under Bush II.
Some of the background information about what's been going on in Yemen is also pretty ghastly. The regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh has been busy murdering its own people for the past year or so, and some journalists have speculated that the passing along of Awlaki's exact location to the United States was an attempt on Saleh's part to buy some insurance and make sure that he doesn't go the way of Hosni Mubarak.
What else? While I have very little to no sympathy with CIA-trained Islamic extremists, secret lists of assassination targets can only remind me of the COINTELPRO program, whereby the FBI targeted and killed somewhere in the ballpark of 50 Black Panthers and members of the American Indian Movement in the late sixties and early seventies. In a climate where striking dockworkers have been denounced as terrorists, Palestinian solidarity activists (Muslim or otherwise) have been arrested on trumped up charges, and leftist laywer Lynne Stewart and her legal team were thrown in jail for defending that blind sheikh in New York, the acceptance by the majority of the American population of Awlaki's assassination can only scare the shiznit out of me.
|
|
Given that none of the enemies in our current "wars" wear uniforms, I don't see that caveat as relevant.
It means that our ground forces right now are operating on similar rules as law enforcement. SIMILAR being the key here.
It also means that a Marine patrol even in an AQ "hot spot" can't gun down a goat herder they pass.
Do you believe the military doesn't/shouldn't take offensive action?
Are all our drone attacks in response to "immediate threat"? All manned bombing runs?
Our military certainly does take offensive action in order to achieve mission objectives. In this case "neutralize terrorist organizations' capability to conduct operations and deny terrorist organizations safe haven from which to conduct operations."
Notice that organization part? It gets hairy when you break that down to a personal level and when that person happens to be a US citizen.
Obviously shooting people at random is bad tactics, but they also don't wait for a trial before attacking. Bombing enemy forces, camps, installations, supply lines, etc, is perfectly valid, but not done in response to "immediate threat".
Nope, cause see above: you're waging a military operation against another military force.
You think if he'd been in the middle of a terrorist training camp and gotten swacked there'd be this unease about what happened? Of course not.
Did it provoke outrage and demonstrations when Bush was targeting Al-Qaeda leaders? Or were we still too gung-ho back then?
It was a bit of a running joke for awhile, how many Al-Qaeda #2s we'd killed.
I've never been gung-ho about the War on Terror. And, you're right, there probably weren't any demonstrations about this type of specific incident. But there used to be an anti-war (Iraq/Afghanistan/WoT) movement in this country that dwindled quite demonstrably around January 1, 2008. For example, I'd be quite surprised if Steve Earle wrote a song about al-Awalki like he did about John Walker Lindh.
I still see a major difference between this kind of assassination and COINTEL domestic operations.
I don't see a big difference between this and most of the other military operations in this "War on Terror", but I would be outraged if those military tactics were used domestically.
Sure, there's differences. I don't think Fred Hampton or Leonard Peltier ever called for killing Americans, but they got taken out just the same. And I also don't see much difference between the present assassination under discussion and other military operations. If anyone had started a thread about the War on Terror, I'd be saying pretty much the same thing I'm saying now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been against this "War on Terrorism" from the start. I see AQ as nothing more than a religoius based criminal enterprise. The Bush Admin played right into their hands by declaring war against them.
Or al-Qaeda played right into their hands, giving them the excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan they'd been praying for for years.
We have become the monsters that they made us out to be. So if that's what they want, we shouldn't do it half-a--ed anymore, we should go all in.
I couldn't disagree more.
|
|
I still see a major difference between this kind of assassination and COINTEL domestic operations.
I don't see a big difference between this and most of the other military operations in this "War on Terror", but I would be outraged if those military tactics were used domestically.
So if any American born person -lived here his whole life- supports a terrorist organization, as soon as they travel overseas they're fair game? As long as it's not done domestically, you're not outraged?
And again, I'm not saying THIS wasn't a perfect valid strike. But it introduces some uncomfortable ideas that others on this thread have brought up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassination has always been illegal. And so is torture. A lot of people who are up in arms about Obama taking out Awlaki are the same people who defended torture under Bush. And urged him to do what Obama has been doing.
Not from what I've seen. Most of the critics of Obama that I pay attention to are far left and most certainly had the same positions under Bush that they do now. And I think Ron Paul had pretty much the same thing to say under Bush as he does under Obama. But I don't watch much Fox News or read much right-wing press, so I'll have to take your word for it.
|
|
I'm just going from personal experience. Where I live at has a large military presence and it's what I've been hearing. The things they've been complaining about Bush not doing, they're complaining about Obama doing. And they don't understand the dynamics being played out over there. Nor do they care to learn.
I'm to the point of not caring anymore. Tired of explaining the "why" this happened. They still buy into the stupid idea of American Exceptional-ism.
I love America. Would give my life for the ideals, but I'm also smart enough to know that we need to learn from our mistakes. Not a lot of people want to hear that.
Then your "personal experience" is VERY different from what I'm hearing in the exact same area and I would STRONGLY challenge that it's indicative of this area as a whole.
Personal experiences will always differ.
I'm not really going to be participating in your discussion about your president and which of your citizens he kills and why and how.
I just want to note two things:
1: This astounded even my jaded sensibilities. So you say there is a due process for government-sanctioned assassinations? So is there a form the president or other government officials need to fill out, and then everyone is free game?
If that is so, how can I contact them? Send them a list? If the ignore function were server-side, they could just use that, but it's not, so they need some data.
2: To everyone who speaks out against this - at least those of you who are U.S. citizens: You do realise you just added yourself to their kill list, right? Apparently they don't need any reason or even paperwork to kill everyone they want, so this might not be the best time to direct attention to you. :D
|
|
It's become enough of a problem that I've started to restrict my contact with people. I no longer go out near as much as I used to. Tired of being called muslim nazi sympathizers and threatened with physical violence when I ask why was it okay for Bush to do it but not Obama.
I work with and socialize with many of the people here and not once have I heard them attack Obama for continuing and building upon Bush's policies against terrorism. Even *I* give credit to the President for that.
I can only suggest you find other circles to socialize with. Plenty of intelligent and educated people in Hampton Roads. Don't try to make all of them out to be otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it may come as a sad realization, but most of the people on this thread are not even close enough in value to cost of a bullet for the government, let alone using some drone to fire a missile at. Sorry guys, you just aren't worth killing, that is how pathetically insignificant you are to most governments. Not even the most pro-government spending Dem would try to justify the cost to eliminate you.
I know it may come as a sad realization, but most of the people on this thread are not even close enough in value to cost of a bullet for the government, let alone using some drone to fire a missile at. Sorry guys, you just aren't worth killing, that is how pathetically insignificant you are to most governments. Not even the most pro-government spending Dem would try to justify the cost to eliminate you.
What a strange thing to say. I'll go re-read the thread, but I don't recall anyone saying that they were opposed to the al-Awlaki assassination because they feared the government was going to get them next.
I know it may come as a sad realization, but most of the people on this thread are not even close enough in value to cost of a bullet for the government, let alone using some drone to fire a missile at. Sorry guys, you just aren't worth killing, that is how pathetically insignificant you are to most governments. Not even the most pro-government spending Dem would try to justify the cost to eliminate you.
How much does it cost the state, or the country, to set up and try a case in order to railroad some poor hippy caught with a joint into serving a prison sentence? Or that 18-year-old guy serving hard time because his girlfriend was 17? Obviously, even the most pro-fiscal conservative republican is VERY eager to spend the money to make those things happen.
If there's a big profit to be made in selling drones paid for by taxpayer dollars, the politician collecting lobby bribes from DroneCorp will very happily call in that strike. Just as, if there's a big profit to be made in sending people to prison, the politician collecting bribes from PrisonCorp will very happily spend taxpayer money to try those cases.
|
I know it may come as a sad realization, but most of the people on this thread are not even close enough in value to cost of a bullet for the government, let alone using some drone to fire a missile at. Sorry guys, you just aren't worth killing, that is how pathetically insignificant you are to most governments. Not even the most pro-government spending Dem would try to justify the cost to eliminate you.
No, everything revolves around me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, I'm not saying THIS wasn't a perfect valid strike. But it introduces some uncomfortable ideas that others on this thread have brought up.
Try to see it as a balancing act rather than either
1) assassinate the time square hippies
2) Arrest every member of al queda with miranda rights and full american trials.
If we have a terrorist in the US we can try to take them alive because we're in control of the US. If we have a suspected terrorist we can have a swat team breaking in their door before they can order a domino's pizza, toss him in jail, and hold him for trial.
If a terrorist is in say, france, we can call france and ask them to do the same, because the government of france is in control of france, and we have reasonably good relations.
If someone is in iraq or afghanistan we can send troops to their house, apprise the situation and decide whether to send in troops or just blow up the building. If the person is an american citizen that will probably weigh things more towards sending in the troops.
In yemen NEITHER of those are a possibility. The government of yemen doesn't let us have any troops there. Yemen also can't arrest the terrorists for us because, as hard as this is for americans to understand... the government of yemen does not control the entire country. That's WHY those terrorists are there in the first place. There are parts of the country where 50 people running around with guns and working with local tribes have more power than the countries own government can bring to bear in the area.
So while we would LIKE to have a live arrest, full trial, and THEN execute him that isn't a feasible option. Its not that we don't WANT to do that its that we can't. Our only real options are predator drones or let him keep encouraging and supporting individuals attempts to indiscriminately kill as many Americans as possible.
Between the two the predator drones are a better option. I think there's enough reason in place to stop the slippery slope, but don't see why they couldn't do a trial in abstentia. Its not like we'd be tipping him off that we were trying to kill him. I think he got that hint.
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
So without reading over the entire thread:
Why is it okay to indiscriminately bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, but not okay to hit a few strays in a drone strike?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
So without reading over the entire thread:
Why is it okay to indiscriminately bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, but not okay to hit a few strays in a drone strike?
I don't know why either one of those is ok.
I don't know why either one of those is ok.RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
So without reading over the entire thread:
Why is it okay to indiscriminately bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, but not okay to hit a few strays in a drone strike?
I think the latter is the least bad alternative you have when living in reality.
I don't know why either one of those is ok.RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
So without reading over the entire thread:
Why is it okay to indiscriminately bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, but not okay to hit a few strays in a drone strike?
Troof.
But given that those are the choices?Sorry, but this thread necromancy is spillover from another thread. TWK said something to the effect of "I'd always rather invade a country, because it's harder to do and thus it forces people to get along" or something. I'm too lazy to seek and quote. I'm sure he'll amend his point once he joins us for this round.
But his response had me frankly a bit agog.
|
|
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
So without reading over the entire thread:
Why is it okay to indiscriminately bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, but not okay to hit a few strays in a drone strike?
They are both perfectly fine, since they advance US interests.
However, if it is Americans being killed then its worth pausing for a moment to consider the implications of allowing the US government to treat Americans this way.
Turns out there is nothing to worry about - there's no evidence the US will ever do this to Americans unless they are probable terrorists. (Apart from the fact they've apparently done it before, but since that was years ago it's a bit late to start worrying about it now.)
Not to mention the president now has the power to declare ANY PERSON, including an american citizen, an illegal combatant. This has, in fact, happened, to my knowledge several times. America, f&*# yeah!
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no collateral damage in war? What about the battle of Fallujah? There have been over 100,000 civilian deaths from violence in Iraq alone since 2003.
Really?
Are you REALLY saying that?
Really?
You're REALLY saying you'd rather have hundreds of thousands of innocents die, and TRILLIONS spent on invading a country, than allow drone strikes?
Actually no. That is not what I was saying at all. But thats nice of you to assume that. What I was saying is that killing people should be a tough difficult decision. Not one that we should be able to execute with the press of a button. Sending troops means that we, the populace, know more or less whats going on, whereas drone strikes come within a matter of minutes and are done in secret with we the people unaware what is being done in our name. But feel free to assume that I what I really want is for more people to die, even though its the polar opposite of what I wrote /headdesk.
Actually no. That is not what I was saying at all. But thats nice of you to assume that. What I was saying is that killing people should be a tough difficult decision. Not one that we should be able to execute with the press of a button. Sending troops means that we, the populace, know more or less whats going on, whereas drone strikes come within a matter of minutes and are done in secret with we the people unaware what is being done in our name. But feel free to assume that I what I really want is for more people to die, even though its the polar opposite of what I wrote /headdesk.Are you seriously suggesting that there is no collateral damage in war? What about the battle of Fallujah? There have been over 100,000 civilian deaths from violence in Iraq alone since 2003.
Really?
Are you REALLY saying that?
Really?
You're REALLY saying you'd rather have hundreds of thousands of innocents die, and TRILLIONS spent on invading a country, than allow drone strikes?
Should we have to kill enemy soldiers with rocks and sticks because firearms make it too easy?
Edit: Sorry for the snark; my point is, yes targeted killings using drones are a recent innovation, and we need some time to figure out the standards of them; that doesn't mean that invading a nation is better.
Given that the funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq were not included in the federal budget and the amount of complaint we hear about entitlement funding, I'd argue with your point about sending troops equalling an informed populace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd vote for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even invasions aren't much of a guarantee that the populace is involved. A professional military gives us a distance from the conflict, it insulates us from the sacrifices of war, except for the money.
Should we have to kill enemy soldiers with rocks and sticks because firearms make it too easy?Edit: Sorry for the snark; my point is, yes targeted killings using drones are a recent innovation, and we need some time to figure out the standards of them; that doesn't mean that invading a nation is better.
Given that the funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq were not included in the federal budget and the amount of complaint we hear about entitlement funding, I'd argue with your point about sending troops equalling an informed populace.
Yeah, because thats what I was saying too. You war-mongers sure must like my mouth, because you cant seem to remove yourself from it.
Edit- I will apologise for my snark as well. You assume that troops live in a vacuum. If my brother, nephews and neices ship off to Yemen, Im going to know about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even invasions aren't much of a guarantee that the populace is involved. A professional military gives us a distance from the conflict, it insulates us from the sacrifices of war, except for the money.
This is true, until the blowback occurs. Troops in foreign lands are unfortunatly the target of blowback. When a US missle, fired via drone, kills someone's son, daughter, etc, who do the survivors avenge themselves upon?
The point that Im trying to make is that we should not be doing any of these things, troops or drones. These kinds of actions are what cause terrorism in the first place, and unless we actually kill literally everyone, we are not going to win the war on terror.
I don't disagree, White. Personally, I think the only justified war is one when a population is fighting off an invasion or occupation. (Does that mean the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified? No comment.)
It was the thread title that got me going; it appears to be rather clumsy flame bait, if only because I'm pretty sure there was never any due process governing assassination to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Im truly sorry about the title. I thought that I was using humor to induce people to talk about it and asked the mods to change it when I realised that it was the opposite of what I intended.
Edit-which in a way I guess is a microcosm of our war in terror.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst part is the moral one, I think. America wants to be an ideal, a dream, a beacon of hope, freedom and democracy. I am not saying it is, but it is an image that has served the US well. It attracts talent, people give you the benefit of the doubt, it gives soldiers something to fight for, etc etc etc. Giving in to demands from the military and political leadership about allowing torture, assassination, indefinite detention, omnipresent surveillance, intrusive snooping and so on is the death of that image. I understand that these methods were employed because America was afraid, then because of terrorism that finally touched american soil, now because of a dying economic and political role compared to other competitors, but sacrificing the things that make your country great is not going to help you any... unless your goal is to institute an autocratic state. Let's say it's not likely to be pretty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You war-mongers sure must like my mouth, because you cant seem to remove yourself from it.
Ooh, I love it too, WK. You've got such a pretty mouth!
Hee hee! I liked it when Comrade Knife called Lord Dice a war-monger.
put down the shovel....
M'lord Dice said war is a necessary evil, provided the goblins do the fighting, but once the upper classes are called to serve we should sue for peace to avoid cultural dissolution. Then I said, "What about the goblin upper classes?" He hasn't stopped laughing since.
@TWK I'll take your word that my interpretation is the opposite of what you meant, but it's certainly not the opposite of what you wrote:
Seriously, I would much much rather that we always go the invasion route. The easier we make it to kill those that we dont like (rather than learn to coexist with them), the more that we will. Having to actually stage an invasion would mean that we only try to kill those worth killing, rather than 16 year old teenage citizens.
Which was in response to ME saying that, given the choice is between invasion and drone strikes, I'd prefer drone strikes as they'd have less collateral damage.
So, to review.
Me: Obviously I'd prefer neither, but if that's our only choice I'd prefer drone strikes, since it has less collateral damage.
You: "I would much rather we always go the invasion route." and "Having to actually stage an invasion would mean that we only try to kill those worth killing."
You can see where I might get confused?
OK so now back to square one.
WHY would you prefer invasion, given those two choices, when one will result in one or two unfortunate casualties whereas the other results in tens if not hundreds of thousands of collateral deaths, as well as the likely destruction of the infrastructure of a country, as well as cost a trillion dollars?
And, just to make sure we're on the same page, I of course want more oversight on drone strikes. There should be a process. In fact that was sort of the preamble to my original, softly pro-drone post. There ought to be a process and it ought not to be a purely military operation, but it shouldn't be off the table.
I'd also like to point out that at least we know what drone strikes happen after the fact. We still don't know WHAT the hell the CIA gets up to in the dark of night. It would be, and is, much easier to send an actual CIA assassin. And we may well have! But in that case we won't hear about it for years if not decades, and I'd rather have transparency in the issue as well.