|
On February 06 2013 09:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:11 Solarsail wrote:On February 06 2013 09:05 MrChupee wrote:
It seemed the Guardian article assumed too hard that the president accepts dirty little whispers in his ear and orders missiles to go everywhere. There has to be a due internal process right? Not just "my ex-wife's a fken terror lady, kill her!"... Then the process needs to be public, documented and debated. It needs to be approved by Congress. It needs to have clear limits to those powers. This is exactly what the debate over Executive Orders is. It's just most people don't know or care about it. The fact that the US can use drone strikes against its citizens is headline grabbing but I think most informed people already realized it was the case. The interesting thing about this is just the legal gymnastics they have to do to justify it.
The only reason this is news is that it got out in the open. The US government is involved in a lot of covert ops that the public nor even the mid level people and the military must not know about.
|
On February 08 2013 21:51 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 10:43 sorrowptoss wrote:On February 08 2013 05:56 IamPryda wrote:On February 07 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 20:52 IamPryda wrote:
It's a fine line for sure but the ethics of war will always have grey areas. There is not a clear enemy to attack, nor ground to take from them, there is no army poised to invade the US and impose foreign rule upon them, the stakes have never been lower, the "sometimes you have to do unethical things because war" argument cannot be reasonably applied. i disagree there is a clear enemy, just because they are not a sovereign nation doesnt mean we arent at war. also i wasnt using the sometimes you have to do unethical things because war arguement. i was just stating that things like drone strikes are in a grey area. are there certain parts that are unethical your damn striaght....... but to say they should never be used ever your damn wrong. under your arguement you would be against the campaign that france has going in africa right now which i wouldhave to say you would be wrong Why would it be wrong to "never use drone strikes"? As said in the previous spoilered and quoted post, the US is in no real serious threat to the point of endangering the loss of the mainland itself. Drone strikes are unnecessary killings, not to mention criminal. If a sense of justice is trying to be gained by killing people with unmanned robotic vehicles in a country you aren't even officially at war with, it's immediately being lost by the very means of trying. Drone strikes are counterproductive. edit: Also there is definitely NO clear enemy. I think you are missing the point that in countries like yeman, Pakistan, Somalia there are parts of the country in which there is no centralized government. It is run by tribal groups and militias. Some of these groups are terrorist and they want to kill you and any American they can. Most actual will never get this chance but some will and have whether it's sneaking into this country and trying to blow you up or attacking an embassy. Drone strikes have proven to be very good an kill these groups and there bases. Doing nothing is not an option we have tried that it didn't work. Al quada blew 2 embassy and the USS cole before 9/11. Nothing about war is good but I would much rather be proactive about then sit and wait.
There are still better ways to protect the country than killing al Qaeda's #2 leader every month.
|
On February 06 2013 09:27 davidohx wrote:Show nested quote +
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.
This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.
LOL you think that bush is far from the tree? I believe that he was the root of the problem we have today. The war on terrorism is and was an unfortunate excuse for murder on a large scale. To be honest I would not have been surprised if this was a bush policy.
I think unintelligent people are the root of the problem we have today. I assume you haven't heard about a small incident on September 11th 2001? That was also mass murder. I can't say all of our former Presidents decisions were the best, but saying that he is a mass murderer is tooo funny.
|
I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread earlier. There have been a few threads of thought that I would have liked to respond to. I have picked out two that I think I can deal with now.
On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't understand why people are so scared of this.
The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous.
The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
Now don't get carried away by the definition so much by who gets to decide or make that judgment. In a court of law, you would be given the opportunity to defend your case and be judged by your peers. What the white memo outlines is that the power to make that judgement call lies solely within the administration. Not only that, but for example, they don't even need to have evidence to make that determination.
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."
And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.
I will only put forward that in interpreting these documents it is vitally important to pay special attention to the wording and the meaning of individual words. Something lawyers pay particular attention to.
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper explicitly states that its not limited to these conditions contrary to what you've said so far. Italicized text are quotes from white memo.
* This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful. * Further on * it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation.*
So not only are these NOT the minimum requirements (meaning it could be less) it specifically states that these conditions would be "sufficient". "Sufficient" in the legal world is a big gaping hole. It means that the conditions are not necessary for a lawful lethal operation. Sufficient means "enough, adequate". For example you can probably see the difference between the two phrases: i have sufficient funds vs i have the necessary funds. OR another: these are the sufficient grounds to fire you vs these are the necessary grounds to fire you.
At least in this memo it does not attempt to define what an "associated force" is. Until that is clear its leaves it open to wider interpretation. Don't be fooled by the word "force".
The way the paper defines "imminent threat" is very wide. * does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future * I personally don't know how that even works. How can you know there is an imminent threat if you have no evidence that there is one. As someone already brought up, that same imminent threat was abused to get into a war in Iraq.
Fundamentally though just because the administration asserts that someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they are. I don't care how much deliberation goes on in the white house and what supposed "intelligence" they have. Asserting that someone is a terrorist and so open to assassination behind closed doors with no recuse is not in spirit with international law. I want reiterate. "Terrorist" doesn't mean someone a stereotype "Islamic" figure that's been burned into the psyche of most Americans. As the memo shows, its anyone, anywhere in the world that the administration accuses of being a terrorist.
|
On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote:
The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program.
Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
|
On February 09 2013 02:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote:
The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program. Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
No it hasn't been established. And as far as I know I'm not sure what you've written is consistent with international law. Again that's not my area of expertise.
But I have to emphasis again, the definition is NOT the crux of the issue. The issue is the administration simply has to accuse you being one, it doesn't have to demonstrate so. I can accuse you of enabling a murderer for example. It doesn't matter what is the legal definition that sets out what it means to assist a murder, I still have to prove that in court. That is due process. That is what the administration is dismantling.
|
As this thread opened with Glenn Greenwald I figured I post Jeremy Scahill's take on the confirmation of John Brennan. He's a journalist very much in the same vein and it's a story which is very much the next step in this PR campaign justifying the fact that the U.S. executive has been given the power to execute people for crimes they have yet to commit. A process which, almost beautifully, creates more people that the executive will want to execute.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/jeremy_scahill_assassinations_of_us_citizens?autostart=true)
Here's a fun, and to any rational eye completely batshit, quote from the hearing:
"Senator, I think it’s certainly worthy of discussion. Our tradition, our judicial tradition, is that a court of law is used to determine one’s guilt or innocence for past actions, which is very different from the decisions that are made on the battlefield as well as actions that are taken against terrorists, because none of those actions are to determine past guilt for those actions that they took. The decisions that are made are to take action so that we prevent a future action, so we protect American lives. That is an inherently executive branch function."
If you listen very carefully you can hear lady liberty weeping.
|
I find it interesting that it's OK for Obama to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization, but it's not OK for an ex-LAPD officer to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization.
Society will fall apart once people are allowed to have personal kill lists created by methods which we all haven't agreed on as a group.
|
On February 09 2013 02:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote:
The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force?
It actually has been established that proselytizing for terrorism and actively encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, without engaging in any yourself, suffices to be considered a valid target. After all, Awlaki was the first assassination of a U.S. citizen under this program. Also, while entirely separate, the government has argued that assisting a group who has renounced all forms of violence with transitioning to an entirely peaceful engagement with the political process is illegal, and makes you guilt of aid to terrorism. Also, giving money to an organization linked to terrorism for humanitarian purposes, such as building schools and hospitals, is funding terrorism, even if that money actually is only spent for humanitarian purposes, because it frees up money to commit terrorism that might otherwise have been spent on those schools and hospitals. Neither of these are going to get you assassinated, but the latter actually has landed people in prison.
Ah, so we should be going after the US government for encouraging people to commit terrorist acts, and for supplying terrorist with money and arms then? Or is this one of those cases where it's OK when we do it, but not when other people do it?
|
On February 10 2013 06:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
I find it interesting that it's OK for Obama to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization, but it's not OK for an ex-LAPD officer to have a kill list for individuals he considers terrorists in a criminal organization.
Society will fall apart once people are allowed to have personal kill lists created by methods which we all haven't agreed on as a group.
Even if most people/everyone somehow agreed this was okay to do, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
|
On February 09 2013 02:19 wangstra wrote:I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread earlier. There have been a few threads of thought that I would have liked to respond to. I have picked out two that I think I can deal with now. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't understand why people are so scared of this.
The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous. The crucial part of that statement is precisely how do you define "aiding" an enemy. If I am a US doctor who while abroad directly intervenes and saves the life of an alleged terrorist, have I given aid? Have I become an associated force? What about a journalist reporting on the views of a terrorist organization or has a source within the organization? Is the journalist an associated force? Now don't get carried away by the definition so much by who gets to decide or make that judgment. In a court of law, you would be given the opportunity to defend your case and be judged by your peers. What the white memo outlines is that the power to make that judgement call lies solely within the administration. Not only that, but for example, they don't even need to have evidence to make that determination. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."
And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.
I will only put forward that in interpreting these documents it is vitally important to pay special attention to the wording and the meaning of individual words. Something lawyers pay particular attention to. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper explicitly states that its not limited to these conditions contrary to what you've said so far. Italicized text are quotes from white memo. * This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful. * Further on * it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation.* So not only are these NOT the minimum requirements (meaning it could be less) it specifically states that these conditions would be "sufficient". "Sufficient" in the legal world is a big gaping hole. It means that the conditions are not necessary for a lawful lethal operation. Sufficient means "enough, adequate". For example you can probably see the difference between the two phrases: i have sufficient funds vs i have the necessary funds. OR another: these are the sufficient grounds to fire you vs these are the necessary grounds to fire you. At least in this memo it does not attempt to define what an "associated force" is. Until that is clear its leaves it open to wider interpretation. Don't be fooled by the word "force". The way the paper defines "imminent threat" is very wide. * does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future * I personally don't know how that even works. How can you know there is an imminent threat if you have no evidence that there is one. As someone already brought up, that same imminent threat was abused to get into a war in Iraq. Fundamentally though just because the administration asserts that someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they are. I don't care how much deliberation goes on in the white house and what supposed "intelligence" they have. Asserting that someone is a terrorist and so open to assassination behind closed doors with no recuse is not in spirit with international law. I want reiterate. "Terrorist" doesn't mean someone a stereotype "Islamic" figure that's been burned into the psyche of most Americans. As the memo shows, its anyone, anywhere in the world that the administration accuses of being a terrorist.
You know, I agree with a ton of what you're saying. But I still feel there's a fundamental issue that you're just not addressing, and that's to what extent a terrorist in the "war on terror" can be equated with an enemy combatant in an actual war. Because everything you've said about rights to due process and a fair trial also go out the window an in actual war. An enemy soldier could be lounging around not posing an imminent threat to anyone, just hanging out in a bunker or trench with some rifles nearby, and he's still a valid military target, subject to air strikes, drone strikes or just being walked up to and shot. The ugly fact is, killing in war has never fallen under the authority of the judiciary, or else soldiers on the ground could never so much discharge a weapon at the enemy without presenting evidence and obtaining authorization from a judge.
So I feel that while there is a window for criticism here, the correct question is whether a war against a terrorist organization is valid, and whether terrorists in said organization can or should be defined as enemy combatants. Not whether the president can have an arbitrary kill list... I mean, technically, it does not matter whether any in the military has presidential authorization or not; once someone has been defined as an enemy combatant they become a target. The president giving a go ahead or not is largely superfluous, as a procedural matter that is frankly, not even mandatory, and probably not exercised all that often. I mean, what's really scary is that a president could simply sit back, let whatever policies his predecessor had on terrorism remain in place, and not bother about whether the military seeks his authorization or not - they are already expected to kill enemy combatants whether the commander in chief weighs in on a specific target or not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the bit about "no minimum requirement" and sufficient condition is a common move. it's there so that the administration has a clear, positive case to prove. once we satisfy conditions A B C, then it's ok.
minimum requirement, on the other hand, is a restrictive argument. it's better used to define what the administration cannot do, instead of giving it a license to do something.
only considering the intelligence assassinations, and not the drone war stuff, i think it's a valid observation that the legal justification offends people more than the killing itself. however, having that justification is a product of 1. strong respect for the legal monitoring system 2. practical necessity/need for action.
the precise content of the legal framework on this is surely important, preferably as narrow and specificly targeted at worthwhile terrorist leader targets as possible. but, compared to having a legal vacuum/not bringing the issue into law, this is better.
i mean, the administration could have just wiped the guy out and pretended that nothing happened. is that more serious of a threat to liberty?
|
On February 11 2013 05:37 oneofthem wrote:
the bit about "no minimum requirement" and sufficient condition is a common move. it's there so that the administration has a clear, positive case to prove. once we satisfy conditions A B C, then it's ok.
minimum requirement, on the other hand, is a restrictive argument. it's better used to define what the administration cannot do, instead of giving it a license to do something.
only considering the intelligence assassinations, and not the drone war stuff, i think it's a valid observation that the legal justification offends people more than the killing itself. however, having that justification is a product of 1. strong respect for the legal monitoring system 2. practical necessity/need for action.
the precise content of the legal framework on this is surely important, preferably as narrow and specificly targeted at worthwhile terrorist leader targets as possible. but, compared to having a legal vacuum/not bringing the issue into law, this is better.
i mean, the administration could have just wiped the guy out and pretended that nothing happened. is that more serious of a threat to liberty?
I actually WOULD prefer that Presidents only conduct extrajudicial assassinations knowing they are patently illegal. It makes the political cost much higher, and discourages their use except when actually necessary. It's how we operated under Clinton, after all. To quote Al Gore on extraordinary rendition, "That's a no brainer. Of course it's illegal--that's why it's called a covert operation." And remember back then, the concern over illegality was not just torture (which was still all done through proxies at that point), but even the illegality of grabbing terrorists abroad without the permission of the local governments, to be taken back to America, to be tried in civilian courts. How low we've sunk so quickly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think gore was really talking about political cost, in the sense of votes. it's more of a lose face/damage to america's self held image as a rule of law state etc.
|
|
|
Putting it all together, it's legal for you to be killed by the government without a trial no matter what your citizenship is, no matter where you are. This can be done with out proof as long as you are labeled a terrorist. So what's preventing anyone from being offed with he/she is magically labeled a terrorist? Am I missing something?
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:41 Nouar wrote:
Chilling. But when you're killing people from all over the world in covert ops against "terrorism", bombing without proofs everywhere, why should you NOT be able to kill a US citizen operating in the same zones.... ? As frightening as it is, it seems logical. I'd like to see the people on this list go on trial before the order is issued to kill them though.... separation of powers etc... Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
Benghazi ????????? Other embassies ???????
WTF. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
|
Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.)
The US says the ratio of terrorists killed to civilians killed by drone strikes is about 7:3. 7 dead terrorists for every 3 dead civilians.
Others claim that it is actually 1:10, 1 dead terrorist to 10 dead civilians.
Personally I believe the US, 1:10 is a ratio you see in WW2 and other conflicts where saturation bombing was the norm. Drone strikes are targeted, using hellfire missiles that have less firepower than most bombs.
And in any case, we're at war, laws of war, we can kill the enemy, deal with it, blah blah blah. Why so many people don't understand that war is war and not not-war is a mystery to me. But I totally agree that this "well, we wouldn't kill an American citizen in America with a drone strike, but we could, and we might" argument being put forth by the Obama Administration is okay. Using military force in America is only allowed in case of rebellion or invasion, or if public order is so disrupted that martial law must be declared in a specific area (like the LA riots of 1992).
|
On March 07 2013 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.) The US says the ratio of terrorists killed to civilians killed by drone strikes is about 7:3. 7 dead terrorists for every 3 dead civilians. Others claim that it is actually 1:10, 1 dead terrorist to 10 dead civilians. Personally I believe the US, 1:10 is a ratio you see in WW2 and other conflicts where saturation bombing was the norm. Drone strikes are targeted, using hellfire missiles that have less firepower than most bombs. And in any case, we're at war, laws of war, we can kill the enemy, deal with it, blah blah blah. Why so many people don't understand that war is war and not not-war is a mystery to me. But I totally agree that this "well, we wouldn't kill an American citizen in America with a drone strike, but we could, and we might" argument being put forth by the Obama Administration is okay. Using military force in America is only allowed in case of rebellion or invasion, or if public order is so disrupted that martial law must be declared in a specific area (like the LA riots of 1992).
In a war zone, civilians generally leave the area. When an entire country is targeted however, they can't leave.
Oh yea, it's closer to 50:1 civilians per terrorist killed (joint university study).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html
Furthermore, we use a "double-tap" method of strikes. This is a war crime and is in violation of international law. Terrorists commonly use this method to kill first responders.
I've got news for you: we're the real terrorists
|
not terribly surprising considering the U.S. has always had the option to use the military against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. the fact that it is a drone, instead of a guy walking around with a gun is legally irrelevant in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
