Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Drone attacks against American citizens.

TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 10:25:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is about Drone attacks against American citizens.
Obtained by NBC News, a confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. Government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com...

Upon reading the memo myself (it can be found at: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...), I felt that media outlets somewhat mislead the public. I think that the drone strikes al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, are justified (at least on paper).

According to the paper, "Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizens who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa"ida or an associated force would be lawful:

1. An informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.
2. Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible.
3. The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qa"ida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful.

Your opinions on the issue?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 11:13:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
!!!snekcihC eht eerF .snekcihc eht llik dluohs eno on ,on ro ytsaT

How very uncharacteristic of you koopin.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 11:18:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
.snezitic naciremA tsniaga skcatta enorD

Honestly, no idea what you are talking about...
Care to render the language into something comprehensible?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 11:19:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 11:09:05 AM, Heineken wrote:
It's our constitutional right to bear drones.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. It is a new issue though.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 11:24:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 11:18:59 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
.snezitic naciremA tsniaga skcatta enorD

Honestly, no idea what you are talking about...
Care to render the language into something comprehensible?

Translation: drone attacks against American b@stards.

Rather rude if you ask me.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 11:38:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 11:19:47 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 11:09:05 AM, Heineken wrote:
It's our constitutional right to bear drones.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. It is a new issue though.

It's also our constitutional right to drone Bears.
It may even be our Bear right to constitute drones.

I'm not sure about our drone right to constitute Bears. That may be a stretch.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 10:25:44 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
This is about Drone attacks against American citizens.
Obtained by NBC News, a confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. Government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com...

Upon reading the memo myself (it can be found at: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...), I felt that media outlets somewhat mislead the public. I think that the drone strikes al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, are justified (at least on paper).

According to the paper, "Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizens who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa"ida or an associated force would be lawful:

1. An informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.
2. Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible.
3. The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qa"ida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful.

Your opinions on the issue?

See, problem here is that "infeasible capture" is a code word for "terrorists in Pakistani and any other sovereign nation where we aren't technically allowed to conduct military operations."

The "informed official" is about 100 men who gather together every month or so to go over a list of targets.

Thing is, most of the f*ck-ups are from CIA drone attacks which can be done without approval from that group.

Did you know that any males in close proximity to a drone target are considered to be a "militant" and legally remains so until proven otherwise (posthumously, of course).

Remember that the next time you hear "we kill militants!"

Now, should we stop using drones?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Drones are an uniquely effective weapon and can provide troop cover as well as taking out imminent threats.

They are, as the CIA director admits, our only military option if we want to kill terrorists in Pakistan.

The problem is that you can't do a counter-insurgency operation by just killing bad guys. Because the Pakistan and Afghani governments are F*CKING USELESS the American strategy is slowly turning to "kill Al Qaeda/Neo-taliban members while we lose control of the territory."

Every time we kill an innocent child, we've lost an entire family or even tribe for a generation if not more. "Collateral damage" in counter-insurgency is not simply a number, it HELPS the insurgents gain recruits who are otherwise not interested in a global jihad (i.e. Non-ISI-related Pashtun Taliban).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

Unless bail is offered and met, people are imprisoned upon certification of the arresting officer until that person is proven innocent under the law.

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

A warrant isn't required for all arrests. It is required, instead, for arrests of those that aren't caught in the act, and for all searches when proof hasn't been immediately rendered.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 11:24:31 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 11:18:59 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
.snezitic naciremA tsniaga skcatta enorD

Honestly, no idea what you are talking about...
Care to render the language into something comprehensible?

Translation: drone attacks against American b@stards.

Rather rude if you ask me.

Hahahahahahahahha
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 12:33:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:06:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
See, problem here is that "infeasible capture" is a code word for "terrorists in Pakistani and any other sovereign nation where we aren't technically allowed to conduct military operations."

The "informed official" is about 100 men who gather together every month or so to go over a list of targets.

Thing is, most of the f*ck-ups are from CIA drone attacks which can be done without approval from that group.

Did you know that any males in close proximity to a drone target are considered to be a "militant" and legally remains so until proven otherwise (posthumously, of course).

Remember that the next time you hear "we kill militants!"

Now, should we stop using drones?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Drones are an uniquely effective weapon and can provide troop cover as well as taking out imminent threats.

They are, as the CIA director admits, our only military option if we want to kill terrorists in Pakistan.

The problem is that you can't do a counter-insurgency operation by just killing bad guys. Because the Pakistan and Afghani governments are F*CKING USELESS the American strategy is slowly turning to "kill Al Qaeda/Neo-taliban members while we lose control of the territory."

Every time we kill an innocent child, we've lost an entire family or even tribe for a generation if not more. "Collateral damage" in counter-insurgency is not simply a number, it HELPS the insurgents gain recruits who are otherwise not interested in a global jihad (i.e. Non-ISI-related Pashtun Taliban).

There is no doubt that the issue is contentious. The biggest obstacle in operating in foreign countries is that those countries are unwilling to corporate with the U.S. authority. Speak plainly, those countries are willing to provide safe havens for the terrorists. I am inclined to believe that these countries have no genuine interests in fighting terrorism.

"The battlefield has shifted over the past two decades. The president has already killed one American on a battlefield with a drone. His chief role is to keep the nation safe. In the twenty-first century, in the remote caves of Afghanistan and deserts of the Middle East, it is both impractical and unnecessary to strap a speaker to a drone in order to shout down to an American Al Qaeda operative, read him his Miranda rights, then caution him to step back a quarter mile to wait for his arrest while the drone unleashes hell on all his terrorist friends."
http://www.foxnews.com...

Sometimes, one must put his or her faith in president and his advisers. Someone may ask: To what end? Well, it is because the alternative is far worse. Erick Erickson (Fox News contributors) summarizes this mentality in one sentence: Just kill them before they kill us.

I agree that Done attacks should not be stopped. Killings are bad. Collateral damages are even worse. But to win a war, an ambitious man must embrace the necessary evil. Obama is an ambitious man, and the necessary evil is to kill a terrorist without due process.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 12:44:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

I would agree that without a oversight from an independent third party (if it exists at all), government probably will eventually find a way to justify any kind of killings. But "At some point, we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of Al Qaeda from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe." Consider the dynamic of the situation, no one would expect a judge, who is not trained in the art of modern warfare, to determine if there is a proper cause to put someone's name on the list.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 12:47:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The president lost that trust when his drones murdered hundreds of innocent women and children. There's a word for violence against civilians : It's called terrorism.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 12:49:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 11:18:59 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
.snezitic naciremA tsniaga skcatta enorD

Honestly, no idea what you are talking about...
Care to render the language into something comprehensible?

Read it backwards for a free money cash prize.
kfc
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:16:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 12:49:59 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 2/8/2013 11:18:59 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 10:41:05 AM, Koopin wrote:
.snezitic naciremA tsniaga skcatta enorD

Honestly, no idea what you are talking about...
Care to render the language into something comprehensible?

Read it backwards for a free money cash prize.

Remind me of The Da Vinci Code.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:25:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 12:47:33 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The president lost that trust when his drones murdered hundreds of innocent women and children. There's a word for violence against civilians : It's called terrorism.

What would you expect from war? The motive behind the attacks is not to kill civilians, but to eliminate the potential threats. If you believe that the president lost his trust when he orders the drone attacks, I bet no presidents would earn your trust, because it seems that every president since the founding involves at least one war.

Drone attacks are not violence against civilians, and the attacks shouldn't be branded "murder."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:28:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:25:04 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/9/2013 12:47:33 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The president lost that trust when his drones murdered hundreds of innocent women and children. There's a word for violence against civilians : It's called terrorism.

What would you expect from war? The motive behind the attacks is not to kill civilians, but to eliminate the potential threats. If you believe that the president lost his trust when he orders the drone attacks, I bet no presidents would earn your trust, because it seems that every president since the founding involves at least one war.

Drone attacks are not violence against civilians, and the attacks shouldn't be branded "murder."

What if the 911 attackers claimed they were targeting some top military brass in their attack, would 911 be justified if they got a few military targets?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 9:47:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:28:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:25:04 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/9/2013 12:47:33 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
The president lost that trust when his drones murdered hundreds of innocent women and children. There's a word for violence against civilians : It's called terrorism.

What would you expect from war? The motive behind the attacks is not to kill civilians, but to eliminate the potential threats. If you believe that the president lost his trust when he orders the drone attacks, I bet no presidents would earn your trust, because it seems that every president since the founding involves at least one war.

Drone attacks are not violence against civilians, and the attacks shouldn't be branded "murder."

What if the 911 attackers claimed they were targeting some top military brass in their attack, would 911 be justified if they got a few military targets?

No. 911 wouldn't be justified even if they (911 attackers) got a few military targets. You are questioning the legitimacy of the modern warfare.

911 wouldn't be justified because their main (911 attackers) goal is to seek the destruction of the United States (true intent), not to exercise self-defence or other legitimate reasons. But Drone attacks, on the other side, are primarily employed to take out anyone who a poses potential threat to the safety of the American people while minimizing the number of casualties (legitimate reasons), not to see the end of any particular nation.

Besides, the attacks are conducted under the presumption of "self-defence." Same thing can hardly be said to 911 attackers or other terrorist organizations. Speak plainly, same method, employed under different circumstances (invasions v. self-defence), bears different way of analysis.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:13:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

Perhaps not for those on a kill list, but people who have been killed for simply behaving suspiciously on screen (i.e. signature targets) without immiment threat to US troops or civilians, has lead to a lot of unjustified deaths.

Also, depends on what you consider "justifiable."

Say you've got a madrassa taught by some mid to high-level terrorist full of pre-teens being brainwashed with "kill America" rhetoric.

Is bombing the madrassa justifiable?

http://tribune.com.pk...
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:51:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:13:56 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

Perhaps not for those on a kill list, but people who have been killed for simply behaving suspiciously on screen (i.e. signature targets) without immiment threat to US troops or civilians, has lead to a lot of unjustified deaths.

Also, depends on what you consider "justifiable."

Say you've got a madrassa taught by some mid to high-level terrorist full of pre-teens being brainwashed with "kill America" rhetoric.

Is bombing the madrassa justifiable?

http://tribune.com.pk...

To america, yes, to the rest of the world, no.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:37:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:51:03 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:13:56 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

Perhaps not for those on a kill list, but people who have been killed for simply behaving suspiciously on screen (i.e. signature targets) without immiment threat to US troops or civilians, has lead to a lot of unjustified deaths.

Also, depends on what you consider "justifiable."

Say you've got a madrassa taught by some mid to high-level terrorist full of pre-teens being brainwashed with "kill America" rhetoric.

Is bombing the madrassa justifiable?

http://tribune.com.pk...

To america, yes, to the rest of the world, no.

Threat to the United States is threat to the world. So, yes, the rest of world is under attack as well.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:41:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drones are a particularly potent rallying force for the rest of the world against us. Nothing says pure evil like man-killing robots.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 9:21:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:41:43 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Drones are a particularly potent rallying force for the rest of the world against us. Nothing says pure evil like man-killing robots.

I wouldn't say so. Drones are no different from other conventional weapons in terms of their purposes: All of them are used to eliminate potential threats. Why, all the sudden, drones become a rallying force?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:07:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 12:33:07 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:06:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
See, problem here is that "infeasible capture" is a code word for "terrorists in Pakistani and any other sovereign nation where we aren't technically allowed to conduct military operations."

The "informed official" is about 100 men who gather together every month or so to go over a list of targets.

Thing is, most of the f*ck-ups are from CIA drone attacks which can be done without approval from that group.

Did you know that any males in close proximity to a drone target are considered to be a "militant" and legally remains so until proven otherwise (posthumously, of course).

Remember that the next time you hear "we kill militants!"

Now, should we stop using drones?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Drones are an uniquely effective weapon and can provide troop cover as well as taking out imminent threats.

They are, as the CIA director admits, our only military option if we want to kill terrorists in Pakistan.

The problem is that you can't do a counter-insurgency operation by just killing bad guys. Because the Pakistan and Afghani governments are F*CKING USELESS the American strategy is slowly turning to "kill Al Qaeda/Neo-taliban members while we lose control of the territory."

Every time we kill an innocent child, we've lost an entire family or even tribe for a generation if not more. "Collateral damage" in counter-insurgency is not simply a number, it HELPS the insurgents gain recruits who are otherwise not interested in a global jihad (i.e. Non-ISI-related Pashtun Taliban).

There is no doubt that the issue is contentious. The biggest obstacle in operating in foreign countries is that those countries are unwilling to corporate with the U.S. authority. Speak plainly, those countries are willing to provide safe havens for the terrorists. I am inclined to believe that these countries have no genuine interests in fighting terrorism.

"The battlefield has shifted over the past two decades. The president has already killed one American on a battlefield with a drone. His chief role is to keep the nation safe. In the twenty-first century, in the remote caves of Afghanistan and deserts of the Middle East, it is both impractical and unnecessary to strap a speaker to a drone in order to shout down to an American Al Qaeda operative, read him his Miranda rights, then caution him to step back a quarter mile to wait for his arrest while the drone unleashes hell on all his terrorist friends."
http://www.foxnews.com...

Sometimes, one must put his or her faith in president and his advisers. Someone may ask: To what end? Well, it is because the alternative is far worse. Erick Erickson (Fox News contributors) summarizes this mentality in one sentence: Just kill them before they kill us.

I agree that Done attacks should not be stopped. Killings are bad. Collateral damages are even worse. But to win a war, an ambitious man must embrace the necessary evil. Obama is an ambitious man, and the necessary evil is to kill a terrorist without due process.

I'm just curious (and this isn't just a hypothetical it happened), if taliban men were to attempt to surrender to a drone (they know they are on camera), should we still blow them up because it's risky to pick them up with a helicopter?

If a high ranking taliban member is said to be going to a funeral, is that information all you need in order to justify sending a hellfire missile into that funeral and killing 50 people? http://www.salon.com...

If you see people going to try and rescue the injured and dying from drone strike, is it justifiable to fire upon the rescuers because they might be taliban militants?
http://www.nytimes.com...

Erik Erickson is a f*cking paleo-neo-archbacter-conservatives nutcase if he thinks you can fight a counterinsurgency by just killing enemy commanders.

And just "trusting" a single man to hand out death warrants where no imminent threat exists?

I might trust him if he'd shown a semblance of a long term plan to deal with the neo-Taliban.

As is stands, if there is not a massive change by the American and Afghani government policies, the neo-Taliban will take over the country within five years, less depending on American troop levels.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:10:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:51:03 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:13:56 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:49:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The problem is with verifying that the conditions are met. It is only the senior official's opinion that counts as to whether the conditions have been met. For example, why not have police sign their own search warrants, certifying that all the legal requirements have been met. Hey, why not imprison a person upon the certification of the arresting officer that the person is guilty under the law?

There are good reasons why a warrant shouldn't be required to shot back in the heat of battle, but kill lists for drone assassinations are made up by guys in comfortable offices. I doubt there are any cases so far of unjustified assassination, but it's not a good practice to give out a license to kill without any checks on it.

Perhaps not for those on a kill list, but people who have been killed for simply behaving suspiciously on screen (i.e. signature targets) without immiment threat to US troops or civilians, has lead to a lot of unjustified deaths.

Also, depends on what you consider "justifiable."

Say you've got a madrassa taught by some mid to high-level terrorist full of pre-teens being brainwashed with "kill America" rhetoric.

Is bombing the madrassa justifiable?

http://tribune.com.pk...

To america, yes, to the rest of the world, no.

Ask any counterinsurgency expert and he'll tell you you're dead wrong. Winning the population's trust is more important than winning actual territory.

Again, kill one innocent child and one low-level terrorist, and you just created an extended family of sympathizers.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 12:10:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
Ask any counterinsurgency expert and he'll tell you you're dead wrong. Winning the population's trust is more important than winning actual territory.

Again, kill one innocent child and one low-level terrorist, and you just created an extended family of sympathizers.

The Soviets used to operate in the Middle East in the 70s and the 80s. Americans were much more subject to terrorist attacks than Russians, because the Soviets had a policy of horrible retributions. If a terrorist killed a Soviet, they'd level his whole village in retaliation.

There is a balance between using enough force to be respected, and always yielding to the possibility of killing an innocence. Terrorists deliberately locate next to churches and hospitals. they have a standard tactic of using human shields. Your logic says that no innocent person can ever be risked, so all a terrorist has to do is keep his son wish him and he would be 100% protected against harm.

Terrorists systematically kill civilian non-combatants. That's the point of terrorism. Liberals don't hold this against terrorists, because, golly, they have a right to their beliefs. Sure, corner a lib and he'll say he's against it, but he'll never make a big deal of it. The US is condemned for collateral war casualties, but cutting off heads on TV, well, that's just a sincere local custom.

Endlessly murdering civilians does in fact create some bad feelings for terrorists among the populace, but not enough to overcome the "respect" the terrorists get from pressing the fight. It works in that part of the world.

The job of the war effort is to minimize innocent casualties -- no wiping out buildings in retribution -- while still pressing the fight. Each case is a judgement call.

We used to capture terrorists and send them to GITMO for interrogation. Three of the 1500 ended up being waterboarded. Since Obama has been in office, the total number of captured terrorists is 1. That came out in the confirmation hearing last week. Drone kills seem to be the solution to imprisonment and military tribunals. Something is wrong with that tactic as well.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 12:56:04 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 2/11/2013 12:10:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
Ask any counterinsurgency expert and he'll tell you you're dead wrong. Winning the population's trust is more important than winning actual territory.

Again, kill one innocent child and one low-level terrorist, and you just created an extended family of sympathizers.

The Soviets used to operate in the Middle East in the 70s and the 80s. Americans were much more subject to terrorist attacks than Russians, because the Soviets had a policy of horrible retributions. If a terrorist killed a Soviet, they'd level his whole village in retaliation.

There's something about being the bigger person that should appeal to Americans, you don't just kill an entire village if a member wronged you, even if the Soviets made that tactic work to their advantage.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler