View Full Version : Anwar al-Awlaki killed
So Anwar al-Awlaki, who was linked with the attempted hijacking of an American plane in 2007, and whose lectures were attented by Nidal Malik asan as well as three of the 9/11 bombers has been killed (http://aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/09/201193083340115111.html) in a supposedly American air strike.
Yemen's defence ministry has reported that al-Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed along with several other fighters.A statement released to the media on Friday said the dual US-Yemeni citizen was hunted down by Yemeni forces, but did not elaborate on the circumstances of his death.
"The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions," said a statement sent by text message to journalists.
Tribal sources told the AFP news agency that Awlaki was killed early on Friday in an air strike that hit two vehicles in Marib province, an al-Qaeda stronghold in eastern Yemen.
The airplane that carried out the strike was likely to be American, according to tribal sources, who added that US aircraft had been patrolling the skies over Marib for the past several days.
A US drone aircraft targeted but missed Alwaki in May, and the Yemeni defence ministry had previously announced Awlaki's death late last year.
On December 24, the Yemeni government said he had been killed in an air strike only to admit later that he was still alive.
"He has been a target of US drones at least 3 times,"Hakim al-Masmari, editor-in-chief of the Yemeni Post, told Al Jazeera.
"The Yemeni Government will face a lot of criticism, especially in the south, for allowing US drones to attack Yemeni civilians. But it will not be a blow to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from any perspective. We don't feel they will suffer, because [Awlaki] did not have any real role in [AQAP]."
Full story: Yemeni forces 'kill' cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (http://aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/09/201193083340115111.html)
al Roumi
09-30-2011, 11:54
Amusingly it's actually being reported as a Yemeni air-strike... lol
Major Robert Dump
09-30-2011, 12:21
Darn, who is gonna pay the pirates?
A US citizen killed by his country without judicial process. Lovely.
Samurai Waki
09-30-2011, 21:31
What the hell is going on, lately?
Correction - Two US citizens killed by their government without due process. Since we are talking rampant executive power, maybe we should just merge this in with the police abuses thread.
Well, if he was killed by Yemeni forces, he was sentenced to death in absentia a while ago.
The reports are that they were killed by a CIA drone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html
Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in a CIA drone strike in northern Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni authorities said, eliminating a prominent terrorist recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.
The strike also killed a second U.S. citizen — Samir Khan, the co-editor of an al-Qaeda magazine — and two other unidentified al-Qaeda operatives, the Yemeni government said. But tribal leaders in the area said at least seven people were killed. They identified one of the others as al-Qaeda militant named Salem bin Arfaaj.
PanzerJaeger
10-01-2011, 01:01
The strike also killed a second U.S. citizen — Samir Khan, the co-editor of an al-Qaeda magazine — and two other unidentified al-Qaeda operatives, the Yemeni government said. But tribal leaders in the area said at least seven people were killed. They identified one of the others as al-Qaeda militant named Salem bin Arfaaj.
Does this mean Lemur won't be able to share any more issues of Inspire with us? :grin:
A US citizen killed by his country without judicial process. Lovely.
I first heard the news on radio the other morning (or maybe it was this morning? I don't remember) and I thought the same thing. It doesn't seem right to me for the US government to strike one of it's own citizens, even if he/she is a terrorist.
Papewaio
10-01-2011, 04:42
So only US citizens should get judicial process?
Seems a case of what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Nomone can really call hypocrisy on this one.
Double standards aside, we are talking about the assassination of US citizens by executive order. They have not been declared guilty in a court of law, they are not in a war zone, they are not a direct threat to US military personnel, and they are being targeted by the CIA. This is more than the killing of some terrorists in some made up "war". This is the dismantling of the 5th amendment. Well, continued dismantling, I keep forgetting about Kelo...
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 07:30
Constitution doesn't just apply to US citizens.
classical_hero
10-01-2011, 07:47
So what if a US citizen died in a hostage situation being the hostage taker? Clearly he did not have his due process. The fact that he was killed while committing a crime means that he violated his standing as a citizen and then the option is to minimise risk to innocent civilians. If you can end a situation where you take out a criminal and leave less innocent people dead, then you take that opportunity. Clearly these people committed crimes against America and as such they are legitimate targets for action, since they are in a foreign country and planning attacks on America, so that means they need to be taken out with the least chance of losing innocent lives. That is the prerogative of any nation.
Papewaio
10-01-2011, 08:40
Innocent until proven guilty?
Due process?
What is the USAs legal standing now if a foreign power assassinates one of the USAs citizens who has been accused of being a terrorist?
What does it matter if he was a US citizen he was just born there, bye
the US government should have just gone full troll mode and claimed he was killed by a falling piece of that satellite the other day.
plausible deniability my friend!
Sasaki Kojiro
10-01-2011, 16:05
So what if a US citizen died in a hostage situation being the hostage taker? Clearly he did not have his due process. The fact that he was killed while committing a crime means that he violated his standing as a citizen and then the option is to minimise risk to innocent civilians. If you can end a situation where you take out a criminal and leave less innocent people dead, then you take that opportunity. Clearly these people committed crimes against America and as such they are legitimate targets for action, since they are in a foreign country and planning attacks on America, so that means they need to be taken out with the least chance of losing innocent lives. That is the prerogative of any nation.
Lol, thank you. The other people in the thread were making me go :dizzy2:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty! :laugh4:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty!
How so? What were his crimes? The judicial branch never heard the case. He has been on a kill list created by the executive branch for over a year, meaning he could be targeted even if no US interest was in immediate danger. He was killed because it was easy, not because it was necessary.
What does it matter if he was a US citizen he was just born there, bye
As was I.
classical_hero
10-01-2011, 18:03
Lol, thank you. The other people in the thread were making me go :dizzy2:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty! :laugh4:By attacking his own country. That is considered treason and under the rule of that is liable for the death penalty.
I do wonder how you are going to capture the guy and get him to trial. Are you going to send in troops to try and arrest him? How certain are you going to be that will succeed in his arrest? What happens if in the attempted arrest he dies and so do plenty of others, now that means more people have died as a result. What happens if he is tipped off about a potential arrest and by escaping he is allowed to plan more attacks, thus more people are killed? That means you are allowing for the possibility of more deaths under the scenarios of trying to capture the guy. Since he is trying to commit crimes against the Nation, that makes him a target and the one that lead to the least amount of lives lost is the most purdent one. Since no one can show a better option, the one taken is the right option.
Crazed Rabbit
10-01-2011, 18:42
Ah, so people can get convicted of treason without a trial? How convenient.
Indeed, it seems the Obama administration has decided it can kill anyone it wants anywhere in the world if it decides they've been part of a terrorist organization.
They've presented no evidence, claiming it's "state secrets". Heck, why do we need juries any more? Just let the sheriff decide who's guilty and go kill them.
CR
the US government should have just gone full troll mode and claimed he was killed by a falling piece of that satellite the other day.
plausible deniability my friend!
That would have actually been quite funny. You should sell the idea to Colbert or Stewart.
As to everyone else (I'm sure I'm going to get flamed): cry me a river. Glad hes dead.
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 19:11
I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-01-2011, 19:30
I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.
What don't you like about the method? Airstrike seems pretty sensible? :mellow:
The judicial branch never heard the case.
Ah, so people can get convicted of treason without a trial? How convenient.
Indeed, it seems the Obama administration has decided it can kill anyone it wants anywhere in the world if it decides they've been part of a terrorist organization.
They've presented no evidence, claiming it's "state secrets". Heck, why do we need juries any more? Just let the sheriff decide who's guilty and go kill them.
CR
Have they decided that? Who else have they killed? I seem to remember someone else they killed without trial...
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 19:40
What don't you like about the method? Airstrike seems pretty sensible? :mellow:
You know what I am saying, Sasaki. Don't be silly. :)
Only caring about the result and not the method of how the government did it, is the best way to turn the government into a terrorist organization in itself.
I talked about this in the Osama bin Laden thread. Everyone was soooo excited about how we finally caught the guy and killed him. But as I said in the thread, at what cost? We got warrantless wiretapping, fear mongering, two wars, the rest of the PATRIOT Act etc... But hey, as long as we killed the bad guy, the government did its job and we should be happy right?
I don't mind my local police throwing a mugger in jail for a year without any trial because the he was a bad person and was trying to harm Americans. As long as the bad guy is caught, it doesn't matter how the government operates or what boundaries it breaks, its job is to protect us and since I will never, never break a law I don't have to worry about disappearing for a long time without a moments notice.
Montmorency
10-01-2011, 19:45
I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.
But that's not there case. There are ends and there are means. Here is merely a matter of certain means being acceptable to some and reprehensible to others. You all can go ahead and work out which means should and which means shouldn't be in the policymaker's toolkit based upon your arbitrary standards and morals. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad050.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 19:54
But that's not there case. There are ends and there are means. Here is merely a matter of certain means being acceptable to some and reprehensible to others. You all can go ahead and work out which means should and which means shouldn't be in the policymaker's toolkit based upon your arbitrary standards and morals. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad050.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
My understanding is that the president ordered for him to be killed, and so he was killed. This isn't really a good precedent to establish even if the man was a genuine terrorist.
Arbitrary standards and morals = If we all said rape was ok, it would now be ok. lol
PanzerJaeger
10-01-2011, 19:59
My understanding is that the president ordered for him to be killed, and so he was killed. This isn't really a good precedent to establish even if the man was a genuine terrorist.
It's not a particularly new precedent. In fact, Obama was following a precedent established years ago (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/attack/main531596.shtml).
Montmorency
10-01-2011, 20:05
If you all believed rape were acceptable, it would be acceptable to you.
Do you dislike the word arbitary? Fair enough. Arbitrariness is, of course, subjective. You believe as you do for many reasons, some of them biological and sociological.
This perspective offers you no solutions. It gives you no pleasure, and so it wearies you to read it. Perhaps you are even angered.
Do you get it?
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 20:31
It's not a particularly new precedent. In fact, Obama was following a precedent established years ago (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/attack/main531596.shtml).
Its newish. <10 years old. Point is that it shouldn't be something to be tolerated.
If you all believed rape were acceptable, it would be acceptable to you.
Not what I said. If we all said it was ok to rape, does that make the make the act of rape in and of itself ok? Do you think it is perfectly fine to say that rape is bad in the US because we say it is bad, but it is ok in some tribal land where they think differently?
Do you dislike the word arbitary? Fair enough. Arbitrariness is, of course, subjective. You believe as you do for many reasons, some of them biological and sociological.
I believe what I believe because they are (or at least I try to have them be) logical conclusions stemming from undeniable axioms. Of course, you would probably deny them, but I doubt you would have a solid reason to refute them.
This perspective offers you no solutions. It gives you no pleasure, and so it wearies you to read it. Perhaps you are even angered.
Not angered, not weary. Linear algebra wearies me when I have to do 5x5 matrixes all night long. This perspective intrigues me because it seems self defeating. If we all believed x was acceptable than it would be acceptable to us. So if we all believe that our standards and morals were not arbitrary, then our standards and morals are not arbitrary.
Do you get it?
Kinda, sorta, not really. Not a philosophy major so of course I am completely vulnerable for someone with actual knowledge to wipe the floor with me.
Montmorency
10-01-2011, 20:54
Its newish. <10 years old. Point is that it shouldn't be something to be tolerated.
Not what I said. If we all said it was ok to rape, does that make the make the act of rape in and of itself ok? Do you think it is perfectly fine to say that rape is bad in the US because we say it is bad, but it is ok in some tribal land where they think differently?
Why is it either bad or good in and of itself? How do we know? Why should we care?
I believe what I believe because they are (or at least I try to have them be) logical conclusions stemming from undeniable axioms. Of course, you would probably deny them, but I doubt you would have a solid reason to refute them.
Undeniable? How so? "Logical" and "undeniable" are excuses.
Not angered, not weary. Linear algebra wearies me when I have to do 5x5 matrixes all night long. This perspective intrigues me because it seems self defeating. If we all believed x was acceptable than it would be acceptable to us. So if we all believe that our standards and morals were not arbitrary, then our standards and morals are not arbitrary.
They would not be arbitrary - to us. Correct. What I said was tautological: if you believe something, you believe it.
I also said that arbitrariness is subjective - like your moral axioms.
Supposedly the Justice Dept issued a confidential ruling on this guy, stating that he was fair game. Not the same as a trial, but at least this was done within some sort of legal framework.
If we're going to get upset about the treatment of American citizens in the GWOT, I'd much rather get worked up about Jose Padilla, who appears to have been tortured until he went utterly insane. Sigh.
-edit-
Ah, here it is (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html):
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said. [...]
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Papewaio
10-02-2011, 08:58
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.
At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.
At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.
If you don't cry when somebody cuts of your head. Civil law isn't meant for a war. He chosed his path
Why is it either bad or good in and of itself? How do we know? Why should we care?
Ahhh, I love the landscape where this is heading.
The human biology is on average probably well approximated by a constant. Human biology appears to have built-in concepts of innocence and justice, and so basing moral on moral feelings (and a bit of logic), we can deduce it objectively to be wrong when the victim is innocent. The subjective part is here the definition of moral. However, the definition used here is not abitrary, regardless of subjectivity. Arbitrary morals would let being e.g. the current weather decide whether the act you are currently thinking of is either moral or immoral.
As for rape as a bad thing in itself, that's a more complicated topic. In an eye for an eye-moral, rapists could get raped as punishment, just as murderers could get murdered (executed).
classical_hero
10-02-2011, 09:52
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.
At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.So someone who helped to organise a few terrorist attacks, or attempted attacks in not fair game?
There is a big difference between someone who has committed a crime against other people and what you are describing. If he had his way, he would also attack you, since you are an infidel.
Samurai Waki
10-02-2011, 10:07
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.
At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.
I DO NOT believe this is ok. America has unequivocally failed.
America has unequivocally failed.
Why is that, the backward blitzbeard is sucking goat:daisy: in hell, now the rest of them. Good show, one less
Samurai Waki
10-02-2011, 11:03
This is not how justice is supposed to be served. It is an absolute perversion of the laws that we have held ourselves too.
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
I didn´t squeal about any of those things...the media did...but they have to fill up tv shows and newspapers somehow I guess....but they are internal matters of each country that make no practical difference to me.
as for the backpackers thing...that one is a joke....they were backpacking? really? in the Iran-Iraq border? when a cover story is made up it should be minimally reasonable.
Civil law isn't meant for a war. He chosed his path
exactly...the law is a polite logical construction for polite everyday situations in a society....there are circumstances when politeness goes out the window.
This is not how justice is supposed to be served. It is an absolute perversion of the laws that we have held ourselves too.
Oh. Just because he didn't roll of a Yemeni mountain doesn't mean he isn't your enemy. Why care where he hurt his head when his mother pooped him out
as for the backpackers thing...that one is a joke....they were backpacking? really? in the Iran-Iraq border? when a cover story is made up it should be minimally reasonable.
Why not? There's a guy in our Persian class that plans to go walking in Iran as well.
Oh. Just because he didn't roll of a Yemeni mountain doesn't mean he isn't your enemy. Why care where he hurt his head when his mother pooped him out
Ladies and gentlemen, western civilisation. Yes, 200+ years of humanistic philosophy have led to the fact that people on the internet can still go back to deterministic nonsense like this.
Ladies and gentlemen, western civilisation. Yes, 200+ years of humanistic philosophy have led to the fact that people on the internet can still go back to deterministic nonsense like this. [/COLOR]
Isn't like he was very secretlive about it. You really don't have to protect them all Hax, you are confused with Pokemon
The question is whether or not he himself posed any direct threat to the lives of others. If he did that, then there is the question of feasibility for the various options when it comes to stopping him. If physical detention is either 'impossible' (e.g. on a necessary time scale), an unacceptable risk to the servicemen that would apprehend him, or simply an enormous drain of resources, then taking him out in a drone strike is no different from shooting a hostage taker making a run for it with his hostage.
Why not? There's a guy in our Persian class that plans to go walking in Iran as well.
I might have to redact my statement and take into account that serious mental illness is more prevalent that I thought it seems.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-02-2011, 16:49
So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.
Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.
At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.
Would you describe this guy as a "dissident"? Did we "nominate" him as a terrorist? :dizzy2:
Isn't like he was very secretlive about it. You really don't have to protect them all Hax, you are confused with Pokemon
We don't convict, let alone execute, people without a trial. Make of that what you will.
[/COLOR]
We don't convict, let alone execute, people without a trial. Make of that what you will.
Got a better idea? Would kinda have to kidnap him to bring him on trial. And proffesional activists would be just as outraged over kidnapping him
Supposedly the Justice Dept issued a confidential ruling on this guy, stating that he was fair game. Not the same as a trial, but at least this was done within some sort of legal framework.
The Justice Department is the executive branch. The same guys who brought us enhanced interrogation techniques. This is essentially the prosecutors determining guilt and passing sentence.
The Justice Department is the executive branch. The same guys who brought us enhanced interrogation techniques. This is essentially the prosecutors determining guilt and passing sentence.
Yah, I know this is not exactly great, but like I said, at least it was done inside some sort of legal framework. One which Congress should probably examine, and won't.
a completely inoffensive name
10-02-2011, 23:36
Yah, I know this is not exactly great, but like I said, at least it was done inside some sort of legal framework. One which Congress should probably examine, and won't.
Justice Department doesn't really work inside legal frameworks. They just take words and redefined them to allow for any policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
We know that there are organised groups of armed men out in the world, planning terrorist attacks on other countries: notably the US, but also any "Western" or even vaguely "allied" state; unquestionably including my own (the UK). In essentials, I don't see such men as different from soldiers the US (the UK or whoever is their declared target) is at war with. I don't see a legal requirement to prove their status beyond reasonable doubt. I don't see a moral imperative to apprehend rather than kill them, if - as seems inevitable - trying to apprehend them would put the armed forces at greater danger. In moral terms, I see this as straightforward national defence in an on-going armed conflict.
If there is a serious case that Anwar al-Awlaki was not part of an organised group of armed men planning terrorist attacks, then I could start to share the condemnation in this thread. But I am not seeing that, here or elsewhere.
Maybe I am missing some subtlety, but when men start launching rockets or your own civilian airline planes at you, you are entitled to fire back.
Damn, I think I just signed up to the War on Terror. :wall:
I might have to redact my statement and take into account that serious mental illness is more prevalent that I thought it seems.
Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.
Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.
Greyblades
10-03-2011, 09:44
Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?
Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.
Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.
This is true, if you don't ruffle any feathers you are perfectly safe there as a foreigner. Friends of mine went last year, and they had no problems whatsoever, nice pics
Rhyfelwyr
10-03-2011, 16:47
The law just hasn't caught up with the reality of war these days. It was designed for a time when conflict was primarily between sovereign states and doesn't take account for the nature of modern trans-national terrorist groups.
Killings such as this don't make me uncomfortable. It is sad that he died but I don't fear some sort of tyranny coming from it. The UK government took similar actions against members of Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries back in the day. We have yet to become a police state, in fact the 'liberties' the government took in that conflict never spilled over into areas of the law and country not affected by it, and things went back to normal after the ceasefires.
A blogger makes some good points (http://spencerackerman.typepad.com/attackerman/2011/10/ben-wittes-standard-assassination.html):
What should the evidentiary standard be for determining an American citizen poses a threat even warranting discussion of assassination?
I'm not a lawyer. Not. A. Lawyer. So forgive me if there's a legal step that I'm missing.
But this is the question, the one that has to kick in before any of Ben's process — or anyone else's — gets applied. We know that Anwar al-Awlaki (and Samir Khan) are noxious propagandists who are obviously guilty of incitement to murder. We know this because of their public writings and videos. Is that enough to warrant assassination?
I refuse to accept the word of any member of the Obama administration that they are worse than that. When any member of the administration shows me evidence that they are, then I will consider that they are. But the stakes of killing an American citizen on the say-so of the government are, in my non-lawyer opinion, too grave to accept the mere assurance of a government official. To believe otherwise, in my non-lawyer opinion, is to be cavalier about both life and liberty.
Something must guard against President Whomever saying, "Oh, yeah, that guy's a dangerous terrorist. Order me up a double-tap." There must be evidence presented for that proposition. And then there must be a consideration of what the standards are for how great a threat a U.S. citizen represents. Then and only then can someone responsibly enter into a process like Ben's. I see nothing in Ben's process to guard against the whims of President Whomever; and that's the ballgame right there.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-03-2011, 17:58
My friend who goes under the Twitter pseudonym @RBStalin asked if a North Waziristan resident (and Pakistani citizen) has the right not to be Predator'd. All I know is that if the Constitution means anything, it means that Anwar Awlaki has more rights than that guy. You can kill Usama bin Laden all day long and I will never, ever have a problem with it. (I might even pay to see it happen, were it possible -- that is how deep my hatred for bin Laden runs.) But an American citizen must possess protections from government killing that a non-citizen lacks.
It seems completely absurd to me to act as if constitutional principles like that only apply to Americans. Why are some people only making a fuss now that it was a US citizen? That's not in the spirit of the constitution at all. Why does he think the constitution means that AA has more rights than someone else whose only difference is that he isn't technically an American citizen?? :dizzy2: That's only true in a legal sense.
Does he really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says?
Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?
But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? There is no open war, not in Yemen. To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2011, 18:55
The real question is clearly not about the assassination of American citizens on the orders of the executive. That has happened, or at least has been ordered to happen before (the soldiers who defected during the Korea war, IIRC). The question is can you live with the damage, the scope creep of the executive, that was implemented during Bush and is still going strong under Obama?
And if not how do you fix it? Who can fix it? The conservatives appointed by Bush to sway the courts towards silent assent with PATRIOT? The myopic crowd focused on birth certificates? Surely not ambitious politicians in Congress?
But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? ... To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.
So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.
There is no open war, not in Yemen.
Well, terrorists are not usually known for waging "open war" but regardless, the situation in Yemen recently has verred close to that. Over a hundred people died in the most recently reported week of fighting. The President was badly wounded (40% burns) in a bombing in June at a time when two armored divisions of his army had turned against him. There have been attempts to broker a ceasefire, but my reading is that parts of Yemen currently make Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan appear under firm government control. I am not saying the conflict in Yemen is led by Al Qaeda, but they are active there. If I were to criticise the killing, it would be on pragmatic grounds of not forcing his tribe and the insurgents into bed with extreme Islamicists. But I don't have a problem with it on ethical grounds.
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 00:06
Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?
Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.
So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.
If he had a direct operational role in the Christmas Day attempt, all the more reason to keep him alive. Incompetence at high levels of your enemy should be nurtured, not eliminated. :yes: From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.
ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.
Al-Awlaki was a religious figure first, then a recruiter and then he might have something to do with operational planning, afaik.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-04-2011, 02:52
Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.
But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?
PanzerJaeger
10-04-2011, 04:39
What are the differences between al-Awlaki and a Confederate?
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 05:14
But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?
The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.
I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.
Does he you really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says might be pragmatic?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-04-2011, 05:22
Vexing.
Legal fictions -- that this is a yemeni attack for example -- have been a hallmark of law for years. Thus, since this was a Yemeni attack, there are no Constitutional questions raised at all.
So much for the strict letter of the law.
In terms of the spirit of the law, this particular dirtbag had never been convicted of treason in open court -- that's straight out of section three, and had never been tried by any court on terrorism charges or the like.
In short, a U.S. citizen was murdered by U.S. citizens acting at the ostensible orders of the Yemeni government to eliminate a target considered dangerous but who was not actively engaged in anything criminal.
Actually, the whole thing is a crap sandwich catch 22.
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 05:32
I don't understand why people think the way we follow the Constitution should change because of these "new"/"21st century" terrorist individuals that are not located on any battle field. This kind of warfare has never been anything new.
It's as if the Founding Fathers had never heard of Guy Fawkes, the man who almost blew up Parliament just a little under two centuries before they got to writing. Terrorism is older than the Constitution.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-04-2011, 05:35
The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.
I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.
Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.
Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 05:47
Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.
It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.
Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).
It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to. If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-04-2011, 06:09
It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.
No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?
The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.
It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to.
That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.
If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.
America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 06:29
No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?
Except it would be accepted, because it would be "collateral damage" just like every soldier's death in the War on Terror by now. By accepting the procedure all that will happen down the like when this becomes normalized is that people will ask the President to "double check his facts" next time and continue to go about their day sad that an innocent died, but accepting of the situation of "the world we live in" or some other horse**** that I hear people say all the time when deaths are reported.
The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.
Disagree. Acceptance of the ability for one man to be judge, jury and executioner over anybody, citizen or not, makes a big significant link to the ideas that the Constitution was based upon.
That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.
What is the difference? Constitution tries to approximate the principle of checks and balances and yet, one man deciding to take a life whenever he feels prudent doesn't run contrary to this?
And yes, my reasoning does make it a moral principle. It is our government, the government works for us. It does not decide what values we place on certain ideas or principles. We do.
America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...
This seems like a non sequitor. because I know you can't be saying, "People are too opinionated and stubborn. So just let the guys in charge handle everything and decide what is best all the time."
Sasaki Kojiro
10-04-2011, 06:49
Except it would be accepted, because it would be "collateral damage" just like every soldier's death in the War on Terror by now. By accepting the procedure all that will happen down the like when this becomes normalized is that people will ask the President to "double check his facts" next time and continue to go about their day sad that an innocent died, but accepting of the situation of "the world we live in" or some other horse**** that I hear people say all the time when deaths are reported.
People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?
We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?
Disagree. Acceptance of the ability for one man to be judge, jury and executioner over anybody, citizen or not, makes a big significant link to the ideas that the Constitution was based upon.
"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"
There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.
What is the difference? Constitution tries to approximate the principle of checks and balances and yet, one man deciding to take a life whenever he feels prudent doesn't run contrary to this?
Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.
And yes, my reasoning does make it a moral principle. It is our government, the government works for us. It does not decide what values we place on certain ideas or principles. We do.
It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...
This seems like a non sequitor. because I know you can't be saying, "People are too opinionated and stubborn. So just let the guys in charge handle everything and decide what is best all the time."
No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime" :dizzy2:
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 07:15
People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?
Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.
We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?
Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?
"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"
There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.
He has the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for Offenses as determined by the judicial branch. Are you telling me that as long as we perceive threats, the president has full reign to do as he pleases? Why bother have a judicial branch if the president is the judge and jury? No, I'm sorry Sasaki, I'm just not getting it this time around.
Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.
And why wouldn't the government function by simply having some sort of procedure for the president to satisfy before sending the assassins? I disagree on what needs to be answered for. Removing restrictions is what needs to be answered for. We do not start with unlimited power granted and work our way down. We start with no power and then we grant more and more power for the government to use accordingly based on proper reasoning, justification, and common sense towards political blowback domestically and internationally.
It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...
I see your point. But ultimately how valuable is safety, and why should we let safety triumph over an emphasis on due process? For more or less, the values the people subscribe to, in regards to what they take from the Founding Fathers are good, valuable ideas. Not great, certainly not perfect, but for the most part, roughly on target. Bad values like slavery under the pretense of "states rights" have been slowly removed in part of because of a greater adherence to the more valuable ideals, all men created equal, and whatnot. I really don't think this is that kind of situation here however.
No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime" :dizzy2:
Well of course not. No where would I say that the public needs to vouch for every action, but this is about the life and death of individuals, guilty or not. This is not something to completely bow out of.
From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.
For my part, I think a man who recruits ten terrorists is more dangeorous than the actual terrorist. Ten times more, in fact. Of course, if is just an imam or scholar, writing vile things in splendid isolation, then dropping a missile on his head may be an over-reaction. Arresting and prosecuting him may be more appropriate, although non-trivial when dealing with a fugitive in a war zone. But from what I've seen, his connection with the terrorist networks was more intimate and hands-on. It's not just the Nigerian he had close personal contact with - there's quite a list of such associations, if wikipedia or your government is anything to go by. The latest report was that the missile that killed al-Awlaki failed to kill an AQ bombmaker also targeted in the same party. It looks to me that he was not merely inciting mass murder, he was conspiring to commit it.
ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.
The involvement of the executive in this did initially suprise me - what is the President, a career politician with re-election in view, doing deciding the life and death of an individual? In the war analogy, which I still think valid, it would be an operational decision, not a political one. But then thinking about it, I find it oddly reassuring. The US takes the issue so seriously, it's passing it right up the chain of the command. No one below wants to take responsibility. It's when your black ops people starting killing people without any openness or reference to the politicians that you really ought to worry.
Where does it stop? The facetious answer is that it stops when armed groups stop planning to down your civilian airplanes. This is a fairly new thing (as in, post 9/11) for the US and most countries. We've had hijackings before, but the terrorists typically wanted to use the passengers as bargaining chips - that's what the 9/11 instigators were counting on, to keep their victims acquiescent. Past terrorist actions - say the IRA against my country - have been quite limited in scale by comparison. A bomb in a market is probably the grievest blow they struck. The IRA killed maybe 2000 people over 20 years; less than Al Qaeda killed in a day. I think it is quite a proportional response - restrained even - to use a drone to take out what appears to be a key AQ figure.
That's why I don't buy the analogies with the "war on drugs" or the Kremlin using radiation poisoning to kill off an irritating dissident in London. Defending yourself against mass murder is nothing like trying to reduce the use of illicit drugs or criticism of your regime.
For a country like the US, there is a real prospect this terrorist prospect will wilt and diminish, so that we go back to the scale of threat we saw prior to 9/11. For other countries like Israel, the terrorist threat looks more intractable and on ethical grounds I can't condemn them for fighting back against the people firing rockets at them. How to best to get people to stop firing rockets or your own planes against you - the pragmatic side of the argument - is an important one I would not claim to know how to answer with any certainty. Does assassinating terrorist leaders help or hinder your security? I don't know, but it's hard to see a priori that it is always a hindrance.
The less facetious answer is that such actions stop if the intelligence does not support them. You need to be fairly confident you are assassinating the right person. Some civilian oversight of the intelligence services and their operational decisions is probably admirable, although inevitably the details will have to be somewhat opaque to the public - you can't publicly reveal all your intelligence when fighting a covert enemy.
As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.
Greyblades
10-04-2011, 09:25
As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then. Ok can we scale back here? I cant help but see a brit verses america "who was in the right during the revoloution" fight derailing the thread in the near future, and as amusing as it might become I dont think the thread will last long that way.
Mmmno, I don't see that happening. What he does is something completely different actually.
As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.
Apologies for interrupting your argument, but if you’ll allow me a paranthesis :bow: You are presenting the situation by building the comparison as if it would be just any two countries with different perceptions. Yet that’s not the case, is it? Great Britain is not just a country with a different mindset from the United States, it’s a unique case of organical development. You are not A country with no written constitution, you are THE country with no written constitution. All the rest of us had to go through their watershed moments which left scars to last us centuries. You chaps began so very small and inconspicuous with the ever so mild containment of a ruler whose policy against the french crashed and burned at Bouvines – it almost appeared natural. And while it had its ups and downs, by the time you sealed Charles I’s fate a Preston you had made your point only to nail it down forever when you’ve done in James II’s hopes at Boyne. The perfect example for how this organic development eased your passage through time, you only have to look at the classic example of marxism and how it came into being in your courtyard because it was the only place where a predecessor movement like the Chartists could exist; and precisely due to the same reasons, the anarchist and communist insiders were marginalised in a span of decades only for the movement to evolve into a very civilised socialism. The only patch of dirt in Europe where this went the way it should have in an organic manner. Going through your history, democracy almost seems an inevitable development.
Indeed, the United States never suffered a dictatorship either, yet “a hundred miles is a long distance in England, a hundred years is a long time in the United States” correct? It is a very very young state and it is not ethnically defined, despite all the anti-immigration debate today. Constituted around principles, not blood, the ones who joined in did so in a dash of “I read your rules, should they stay in place I’m coming over”. Adaptation is key, yet americans will forever suffer of schizophrenia in regards to this type of initial rules set down by their “founding” fathers and they shall never escape this context.
The rest of Europe? None of us was untouched by oppression, dictatorship and revolution and the importance of an iron-clad, no wiggle room democratic Constitution is somewhat seared into our brains; European liberals not only will, but have to become hysterical about constitutional infringements.
classical_hero
10-04-2011, 10:48
From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more. So if you hire someone to kill someone, then you are not guilty?
I suspect the real issue here is not about a constitution or not but about the law. As I said in the OBL case, there's a sliding scale between say the UK bombing a Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 and the police assassinating a suspect in their own country. Neither pole of the spectrum poses particular legal challenges: the former is lawful, the latter not. But then we have cases like OBL and Al-Awlaki that fall somewhere imbetween those two poles on the spectrum of lethal use of state force. My moral intuition is that they are closer to Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 than the police abuse case, but others believe the opposite. That's a fair enough. But I am just not convinced that legal frameworks are sufficiently clear on this grey area to be the main consideration. I would rather rely on ethical and practical issues to decide the debate, giving time for the lawyers to catch up, than make the argument a legalistic/constitutional one. But I admit the legal/constitutional issues are interesting and do need to be debated.
to me it comes down to this: if you do not trust your government to do this kind of decision, then you should not trust your government to run a war.
and you should use your time to stop said war instead of bemoaning every little incident along the way that constitutes that war.
A war is by it's very definition an abandonment of normal "polite" society rules......to expect that every decision along it's course will follow said rules seems bizarre to me to say the least.
I suspect the real issue here is not about a constitution or not but about the law. As I said in the OBL case, there's a sliding scale between say the UK bombing a Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 and the police assassinating a suspect in their own country. Neither pole of the spectrum poses particular legal challenges: the former is lawful, the latter not. But then we have cases like OBL and Al-Awlaki that fall somewhere imbetween those two poles on the spectrum of lethal use of state force. My moral intuition is that they are closer to Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 than the police abuse case, but others believe the opposite. That's a fair enough. But I am just not convinced that legal frameworks are sufficiently clear on this grey area to be the main consideration. I would rather rely on ethical and practical issues to decide the debate, giving time for the lawyers to catch up, than make the argument a legalistic/constitutional one. But I admit the legal/constitutional issues are interesting and do need to be debated.
I understand, yet I do believe finding these issues to be "grey" signals a certain innocent uprightness when separating the notions in question :book2:
Constitution:
the fundamental legal and political principles on which a state is governed, esp. when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state
The Constitution is the law and the law in this case is clear. The legal punishment for incitement to violence is not death. The chap ought to have been brought to justice.
Intuition:
direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
Conscience:
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
Law:
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.
Please, do not misunderstand me. This case has no stakes for me and I am not a person to put much passion in my convictions, however, intuition and conscience are to be distilled a hundred fold in the public forum before they can be set into law and only then followed, else they are the death of said law. The president of the United States following an intuition under the premise that the law will catch up would mean he is abdicating from his role as a warranter of the Constitution.
Pursuing the legal aspect a bit more, after I tried to dismiss it, some of Law of Armed Conflict as understood by the US military seems surprisingly well developed:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm
Relevant sections appear to be:
Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.
Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.
To my mind, the issues are (a) was al-Awlaki an unlawful combatant, i.e. directly involved in hostilities? (b) who should determine his status?
I've been arguing under the assumption that the answer to (a) is yes; he was actively part of a terrorist organisation - recruiting and planning, even if not wielding an AK-47 in combat. Maybe I am wrong, but nothing I have read so far makes me suspect that.
So the trickier issue seems to be (b): who decides whether he is an unlawful combatant? In a shoot-out, it would be the soldiers on the ground. For an manhunt style operation, a more measured process is possible. In the current case, that seemed to end up with Obama personally sanctioning it. That seems somewhat like overkill, although as I said, I find it rather admirable that the US takes it so seriously as to push it up to such a level. Ultimately, I think it probably should be some intelligence/military decision, subject to political oversight but not full disclosure or "beyond reasonable doubt" type legal burden of proof.
The legal punishment for incitement to violence is not death. The chap ought to have been brought to justice.
This may be the crux of the issue. I am seeing al-Awlaki, just like OBL, as an unlawful participant in an armed conflict[1]. In an armed conflict, the state is not primarily implementing legal punishments. It is fighting to subdue and defeat the enemy combatants. If a combatant surrenders, then yes, you ought to take them prisoner. But you are under no legal or constitutional obligation to make your servicemen take greater risks with their lives to solicit such surrenders. Chaps shooting at you, launching rockets at you, trying to make your civilian airlines fall from the sky, should not feel aggrieved if you shoot back. It rather sounds like justice to me.
As I said, I think I am buying into a least part of Bush's "War on Terror" mantra and viewing this in war time terms (combatants in armed conflict). Others are viewing it in peace time terms (suspected lawbreakers). It's an uncomfortable position for a leftie like me, so I am open to attempts at dislodgement.
[1]Maybe I am wrong in that - it seems many people here regard him just as a loud mouth who ranted in mosques and youtube. I believe he was an active member of a terror organisation, involved in many actual and attempted attacks.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-04-2011, 13:23
Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.
But these are like my example, where I said this was at worst the war on terror being run badly and could at worst be criticized on those grounds. The same way you can criticize the war on drugs for targeting marijuana users. But the analogy to this case is the government busting a cocaine dealer overseas and you saying "Where will it end?"
Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?
I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive.
Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too.
You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.
Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war.
There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know :book2:
Vladimir
10-04-2011, 17:14
Pursuing the legal aspect a bit more, after I tried to dismiss it, some of Law of Armed Conflict as understood by the US military seems surprisingly well developed.
Well that was a bit insulting. What did you expect?
Well that was a bit insulting. What did you expect?
I expected the area of law and war to be underdeveloped. Somehow this topic makes me think of Pompey the Great:
"Don't quote law. We carry swords!"
While I cannot speak directly in his name of course -- considering the legal confusion over the pond, he expected, with good reason, for a rather feeble set of rules :yes: As an outsider reading up on the controversy, wouldn't you?
Of course, the problem is that the action proceeded in spite of the law, not according to it.
EDIT: bah, that was supposed to go in before your own reply. And it's even witty(er), buggar! :stare:
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 18:55
I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive. Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too. You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war. There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know :book2: After looking back on my posts, I see that my terms are not the best or most accurate. I will re-evaluate what I have been saying later tonight, with the terms you are suggesting I use.
“The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern.” Interesting reading…
So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?
So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?
Well, if the UK was like Yemen and David Cameron was suffering 40 degree burns after a terrorist bombing in London, two armored divisions had mutinied against him and much of the country was in open revolt, hundreds of people were dying every month in armed conflict, the financial man was protected by armed insurgents, France had drones and the UK did not, the financial man had planned to bring down airliners over France (after 3000 people died, when 3 airliners crashed into La Défense and Hotel de Brienne), then absolutely, en avant mes amis!
In such circumstances, I am sure we would declare it a Yemeni, I mean British operation.
On the other hand, if Britain were not like Yemen, then I would hope my country would assist in bringing the man to justice without the need for an outside military operation. I am sorry if that did not happen.
But I understand you are an ex-soldier, Brenus: how do you think governments should deal with AQ leaders such as OBL and al-Awlaki who take refuge in failed states? Would you send in drones and SEALS or would you wait for a French judge to issue an extradiction request? How do you understand French (or international) law in these kind of circumstances?
[These are genuine questions, not rhetorical.]
So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?
well...there is no "allowed"..because there is no authority to decide what is and isn´t allowed.
you either have the ability and the power to do something like that without being concerned about the consequences or you don´t.
Vladimir
10-04-2011, 20:54
I expected the area of law and war to be underdeveloped. Somehow this topic makes me think of Pompey the Great:
"Don't quote law. We carry swords!"
Thought so. I could use a cathartic tirade but I suspect others here wouldn't appreciate it too much. You know that much of our law comes from English law; right?
“well...there is no "allowed"..because there is no authority to decide what is and isn´t allowed.”
Yes there is. It called International Treaties. That is why UK can protest when a Russian is probably poisoned by KGB (under new ID) in London.
“you either have the ability and the power to do something like that without being concerned about the consequences or you don´t.” Well, that is bit tricky. In case of French terrorist protected by UK, the French had the possibility to kill him/them. The French didn’t because UK is a friendly country… Then the limits of the UK policy towards Muslim Extremists/terrorists were exposed then the UK extradited the terrorist(s)… But you are right, of course. Russia doesn’t care of UK opinion, so…
“Somehow this topic makes me think of Pompey the Great: "Don't quote law. We carry swords!" His problems came when Caesar got a bigger sword.
About how would France react in case of terrorism (or even lesser things): We have New Zealanders in this Org who probably remember the Rainbow Warrior? One journalist killed… When Libya was a little bit too much, the French Army launched a raid at Ouaddi Doum (Wadi Dum) and pushed it back. You can find multiple example of this kind of actions…
Now, how I think about terrorism? How to deal with them? No idea, really: Intelligence gathering, infiltration, liquidation when necessary. But it would be better to have the justice at work.
No “friendly” governments harbouring criminals could be a good start…
My problem is not the action, my problem is the moral lecture that we, the West, give to others. If I follow you, nowadays, the Taliban would be legitimated to launch an attack on USA towns. Or the Iraqis… So what about all the South Americans that a lot of them died thanks to the CIA and the “counter-insurgencies” programmes?
The Army can be part of the solution, but not the entire solution. Nor the Politicians are.
The use of violence is legitimated by laws, and has to be questioned by the laws.
“well...there is no "allowed"..because there is no authority to decide what is and isn´t allowed.”
Yes there is. It called International Treaties. That is why UK can protest when a Russian is probably poisoned by KGB (under new ID) in London.
International treaties and the UN are good for dealing with "low intensity" issues, or issues where the the "risk vs. reward" analysis doesn´t warrant doing anything too 'forceful' to getting one's way, and risk pissing of even more the other country or the international community at large.
taking violent and forceful action is something to be done sparingly for obvious reasons, but in limit cases it is the defining factor and not any signed treaty that might exist.
and about that example, the UK played it's part but wasn´t bothered to take it any further, not for the killing of a Russian national, even if in British soil, so I wouldn´t confuse a protest with you know...actually doing something about an issue.
“you either have the ability and the power to do something like that without being concerned about the consequences or you don´t.” Well, that is bit tricky. In case of French terrorist protected by UK, the French had the possibility to kill him/them. The French didn’t because UK is a friendly country… Then the limits of the UK policy towards Muslim Extremists/terrorists were exposed then the UK extradited the terrorist(s)… But you are right, of course. Russia doesn’t care of UK opinion, so…
Like I said....how much do you have to worry/care about the reaction of the other side is the main point.
Thought so. I could use a cathartic tirade but I suspect others here wouldn't appreciate it too much. You know that much of our law comes from English law; right?
Vladimir, you can save your tirade: I assure you, you are seeing national insults where none were intended. I was speaking of the sub-discipline of law and war as a universal thing, not the US army's understanding of it. It just happened that googling Pompey's quote led me to the US army's website on the Law of Armed Conflict. I was not aiming at jibe at the military of my country's ally. I don't know how much of what was on that website is international - I rather suspect the whole point of law on war is that is international; one country behaves with restraint because they want other countries to behave with restraint should they enter into conflict with them. That is one reason why I am a little dubious about relying on such law in this kind of case and why 9/11 is so important here. AQ terrorists have shown absolutely no restraint, so there can be no expectation of a quid pro quo.
Papewaio
10-05-2011, 22:11
Problem isn't the asymmetric threats doing what they do best. It is the rule set being established with the likes of symmetric threats/equals and how they will justify the use of force.
Looking at th different emerging powers by zone we have China, India and re-emerging Russia. Add in Brazil and Egypt as potential dark horses.
How happy are we going to be when they apply their own twist to the rules?
What happens when a Chinese drone accidentally hits a US embassy?
What happens when India snaps and starts sending in special forces into Pakistan to knock off high value targets? Cashmere sweaters might be nice, Kashmir sweats from nuclear fallout won't be.
What happens if Brazil decides to start destabilizing elected oil rich left wing parties in it's hemisphere of power?
Vladimir
10-06-2011, 14:04
Vladimir, you can save your tirade: I assure you, you are seeing national insults where none were intended. I was speaking of the sub-discipline of law and war as a universal thing, not the US army's understanding of it. It just happened that googling Pompey's quote led me to the US army's website on the Law of Armed Conflict. I was not aiming at jibe at the military of my country's ally. I don't know how much of what was on that website is international - I rather suspect the whole point of law on war is that is international; one country behaves with restraint because they want other countries to behave with restraint should they enter into conflict with them. That is one reason why I am a little dubious about relying on such law in this kind of case and why 9/11 is so important here. AQ terrorists have shown absolutely no restraint, so there can be no expectation of a quid pro quo.
No, I'm seeing personal insults and work can be a little dull. ~;)
I was surprised that someone from a country with no written constitution is surprised that a country that does have one has a litigious society. You should also know how many lawyers we have in this country...but anyway. I supposed I'm the one that's getting nationalistic now.
I don't really know the history of U.S. military legal evolution but suspect it received a jolt when transitioning from prewar isolationism to the postwar, Cold War era. I think you would be correct sixty-some years ago. I doubt out laws developed because we want other countries to show restraint toward us as the possibility of an invasion is remote, but it may have been a factor. We can take a more liberal interpretation on drone strikes because few nations possess the capabilities we do.
It is really funny to read some people's reactions to this. All this outrage over law, rights, and jurisdiction is nice in their safe and secure environments.
It is really funny to read some people's reactions to this. All this outrage over law, rights, and jurisdiction is nice in their safe and secure environments.
Oh boy, I wish I'd care enough to entertain you with personal insults mister "my country has not been invaded once for over one hundred and fifty years now, nevermind militarily occupied and politically & socially oppressed" /hugs :bow:
I will wish you a time-warp into a safe and secure communist dictatorship like pre-'89 Romania though, your mind would open on these matters like a parachute, instantly and on time :2thumbsup: Well, hopefully, for your sake!
Vladimir
10-06-2011, 17:03
Oh boy, I wish I'd care enough to entertain you with personal insults mister "my country has not been invaded once for over one hundred and fifty years now, nevermind militarily occupied and politically & socially oppressed" /hugs :bow:
I will wish you a time-warp into a safe and secure communist dictatorship like pre-'89 Romania though, your mind would open on these matters like a parachute, instantly and on time :2thumbsup: Well, hopefully, for your sake!
It's more like people complaining how bad their life is when the hot water heater breaks when millions don't have running water. That kind of thing.
The outrage over the perceived rights of someone who facilitates indiscriminate violence is entertaining.
I will wish you a time-warp into a safe and secure communist dictatorship like pre-'89 Romania though, your mind would open on these matters like a parachute, instantly and on time :2thumbsup: Well, hopefully, for your sake!
Awesome writing I like :2thumbsup:
It's more like people complaining how bad their life is when the hot water heater breaks when millions don't have running water. That kind of thing.
The outrage over the perceived rights of someone who facilitates indiscriminate violence is entertaining.
It's not about the chap personally, for the hundredth time -- six feet under is precisely where one should find him.
But in the country of legalised lobby and Fox News, not understanding that a legal precendent can be spinned to justify injustice is a pity.
And in the country hosting the headquarters of the U.N., lacking the foresight to perceive the consequences of a precedent consisting in the expedient disposal of your own citizens is alarming.
But then again, it's the country of Ayn Rand, the person who thought human self-interest needed endorsement! So I guess we can close the argument with a friendly It takes all sorts :bow:
Vladimir
10-06-2011, 18:54
But in the country of legalised lobby and Fox News,...
Sorry, you just lost me there.
Is Fox news a cause célèbre in Romania too? I thought we already established that there was nothing expedient about the decision to kill him.
Sorry, you just lost me there.
Is Fox news a cause célèbre in Romania too? I thought we already established that there was nothing expedient about the decision to kill him.
Oh get used to it, everybody knows FOX is evil. Nobody in Europe watches it because they can't recieve it as far as I know, but everybody says it so we say it as well. we think for ourselves FOX can't fool us Euro's and and
Still would like to know what you omgosh-crowd presents as an alternative to a big fat explosion as a proper ad hominem. Of course you kill them when you can? Wth is wrong with you people
Well, again, lets agree to disagree, because I also think it was pointed out:
The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.
As to the Fox News tidbit, I was simply pointing out that during, lets say, an administration such as your previous one, if you add pressure groups and tools like such a partisan gutter media, the scenario where the government could have a field day making use of such a legal precedent given by their opposition is more than plausible, it's probable.
Look, the ones arguing against this action in this thread simply ask for a legal framework to be debated and legislated previously, not for people like Awlaki to be allowed to act with impunity. Currently, your legal framework does not allow your government to punish a citizen for incitement to violence with death, that's all.
Look, the ones arguing against this action in this thread simply ask for a legal framework to be debated and legislated previously, not for people like Awlaki to be allowed to act with impunity. Currently, your legal framework does not allow your government to punish a citizen for incitement to violence with death, that's all.
Indeed. I would like to see the DoJ OLC's opinion for US citizens on the target list made public. The work by the previous administration's lawyers at OLC do not fill me with confidence in their abilities or motives.
I still want an alternative, if this man commits a terrorist attack somewhere in teh muslimworld AND is an American civilian... good luck fixing that
A little more detail (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005):
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process. [...]
Other officials said [...] targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.
The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.
They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.
Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. [...]
When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.
Ja'chyra
10-07-2011, 17:58
I know I should be worried about governments killing people without trials, their own citizens or not, but when I weigh it against my close friends being put in danger to fight the threat they represent then I'm all for drone stikes where our guys don't get any risk.
And, I'm probably alone on here in this, but I'm quite prepared for a few innocents to die if it means my new grand daughter and my nephews can grow up and live their lives.
“And, I'm probably alone on here in this, but I'm quite prepared for a few innocents to die if it means my new grand daughter and my nephews can grow up and live their lives.” Well. Except of course in the few innocents are your grand-daughter and nephews…
...they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. ...
That's the line I have been pushing in this thread. If it is legal for your airforce to bomb the enemy's airforce, then it is legal for your airforce to bomb terrorists who have killed 3000 of your citizens and are actively trying to repeat that atrocity. It's national defence. It's not punishing incitment to murder. And the passport of the terrorists is completely immaterial to the law of armed conflict in this regard.
Pardon, but in my opinion there's a fallacy there similar to the "innocents may die as long as my offspring (i.e. future innocents) may live" above. :book2: With your statement you just justified the bloody massacres of any government.
A country cannot defend itself militarily against its own citizens, its own citizens must be charged, tried and found guilty before the punishment provisioned by its legislation (which should be openly under review and should be adapted continuously yet publicly) is applied in response to the crime. Else it's like putting your foot through Pandora's box.
Ja'chyra
10-08-2011, 18:11
“And, I'm probably alone on here in this, but I'm quite prepared for a few innocents to die if it means my new grand daughter and my nephews can grow up and live their lives.” Well. Except of course in the few innocents are your grand-daughter and nephews…
Obviously.
In the Independent today: Russian Secret Services are killing Chechen Rebels every where in the world. Do you agree?
Ja'chyra
10-08-2011, 19:46
In the Independent today: Russian Secret Services are killing Chechen Rebels every where in the world. Do you agree?
I don't really care, people I don't, and would never, know are killing other people I don't, and would never, know.
While the debate lately went further and further from al-Awlaki himself, I would imagine you lot would be as interested as I would by a detailed report on who the chap was and the al-Qa'ida medium in which he evolved.
As American as Apple Pie: How Anwar al-Awlaki became the face of Western Jihad (http://icsr.info/publications/papers/1315827595ICSRPaperAsAmericanAsApplePieHowAnwaralAwlakiBecametheFaceofWesternJihad.pdf)
by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens (yep, he's the son of Christopher Hitchens, if you were wondering)
foreword by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
published by ICSR
I give you the executive summary of the report below, for a quick overview:
Important Case Study
• Awlaki represents the most effective and refined version of his English speaking Salafi-jihadi predecessors, who has adapted more effectively to Western political and social culture. However, unlike his forebears, he was also long considered a leading moderate Muslim and critic of al-Qaeda, having cultivated this image in the years both before and immediately following 9/11. The ideological and intellectual journey that is evident within his public discourse makes him a useful and pertinent case study for the radicalisation of Western Muslims.
• Despite some reports to the contrary, Awlaki was well known as a popular preacher long before the recent media interest in him. According to some sources, by 2000 he was one of the most well known English speaking Islamic preachers in the United States.
• Although there is a clear shift towards violence in his later work, a close analysis of the corpus of Awlaki’s sermons and articles shows a surprising level of consistency throughout. Little has changed from his earlier years in both his discourse and ideological worldview. Rather, the only significant change has been in the prescriptions for solving the perceived problems faced by the ummah (global Muslim community).
Connections with the Muslim Brotherhood
• During his time in the US and UK, many of Awlaki’s main backers and sponsors were closely tied to the international Muslim Brotherhood movement.
• While in America, much of Awlaki’s work was more comparable with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood than it was with al-Qaeda’s. His recommendations for Muslims living in the West were almost identical to those put forward by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the Brotherhood’s spiritual leaders. However, even at this early stage, he displayed an admiration for Sayyid Qutb, one of the intellectual godfathers of Salafi-jihadism.
Homegrown Jihadism
• The story of Anwar al-Awlaki, and in particular his intellectual progression to jihad, provides a unique and revealing insight into jihadism in the West. This movement is no longer confined to Muslim majority countries, and through arguments he and others have provided, its message now resonates with small sections of Western Muslims.
• The movement has achieved this level of resonance through a process which includes the appropriation of contemporary Western political discourse about human rights, injustice and foreign policy, interwoven with the history of Islam and the Executive summary fostering a of global Islamic consciousness which demands violent action in order for it to survive and expand.
• Using a number of case studies of individuals influenced to act by Awlaki’s work, this report shows precisely how Awlaki has made key Salafi-jihadi theological and ideological dictums relevant and accessible to Western Muslims through translation and his use of language.
• Throughout his career, Awlaki’s main focus has been to convince Western Muslims that their governments are actively engaged in a multi-faceted war against Islam and Muslims. During his more Muslim Brotherhood-influenced phase, his suggested responses to this threat included political activism within Western Islamist lobby groups, and as he embraced Salafi-jihadism, this gradually became a call for violence.
• In his earlier stages, Awlaki’s ability to juxtapose key moments from the early history of Islam onto the present situation of Western Muslims made him immensely popular and easily accessible. In his later, more al-Qaeda aligned work, one can see how he employs this skill as a highly effective mobilisation tool, using the examples of Mohammed’s more violent phases to encourage modern day jihad.
Relevance to al-Qaeda Post-bin Laden
• A significant feature of much of Awlaki’s work is the lack of direct references to the al-Qaeda network or any of its leading members. This reflects his desire, and that of many other actors within the movement, for the global jihad to move away from a reliance on a particular group or individual, and instead to take the shape of a social movement that transcends personality, culture and organisational affiliation. This is particularly important in the post-bin Laden era, where al-Qaeda and other global jihadists are struggling to remain appealing and relevant.
• Despite his popularity, there is a large gap between Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda leaders like the late Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Yahya al-Libi, in terms of both the depth of his arguments and his personal experiences in the global jihad. Awlaki’s presentation of global jihadist ideology is a simplified version of what these and other men have already formulated, and he has tailored it so as to appeal to as many people as possible within the new ‘Facebook generation’ of young, Western Muslims.
• The vast majority of Awlaki’s output is spoken and he has written little, especially when compared to Zawahiri, whose lengthy treatises have provided al-Qaeda with its ideological backbone. In addition, Awlaki has no experience in the battlefield, which sets him apart from the majority of leading al-Qaeda members.
Policy Implications
• Awlaki’s story, while not providing any definitive answers, suggests that there is no easy formula or grand strategy which will solve the problem of homegrown extremism and radicalisation. In particular, it warns against policies that are predicated on the distinction between violent and non-violent actors within the Islamist movement; these distinctions are unclear, and the boundaries that do exist are blurry and easily traversed.
• According to intelligence officials who were involved with the initial assessments of the ideologue for the United States government, Awlaki’s main role in the global jihad is ideological rather than operational. Despite his direct involvement in a number of attempted terrorist attacks in the West, it is his ability to project Salafi-jihadi ideology and mobilise Western Muslims through his sermons that represents his greatest threat. Awlaki is therefore a key tactical asset to the global jihad’s strategy for garnering Western recruits and expanding the movement.
EDIT: I forgot to provide a link towards yesterday's article in NYT on the secret memo authorising the murder (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2). While it will not be made available to the public, it seems there were provisions aplenty to make it a very, very special case at least.
rory_20_uk
10-09-2011, 14:04
One can only truly say it's not viable to take him alive if you've tried and failed. It appears that the just said "oh, it'd be impossiblt to do exactly the sort of thing we did in Pakistan - let's use a drone". Oh, good - he's involved in an undeclared war to boot so that means the gloves can really come off.
So, he was theoretically tried in absentia without the recourse to a court or evidence and then killed...
The flaws of having a written constitution is one looks so ridiculous when one tries to circumvent it.
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-09-2011, 15:20
One can only truly say it's not viable to take him alive if you've tried and failed.
Why would you think that? And why would failing be good evidence, surely it wouldn't rule out succeeding next time.
rory_20_uk
10-09-2011, 15:57
Why would you think that? And why would failing be good evidence, surely it wouldn't rule out succeeding next time.
Oh, I quite agree - so one can never say that it is impossible to do so. Yet, it appears that not even one attempt was made. Makes it look like a kangeroo court where the arguments were made to fit the decision to kill him - just dressed up in high and mightly phrasology.
~:smoking:
Pardon, but in my opinion there's a fallacy there similar to the "innocents may die as long as my offspring (i.e. future innocents) may live" above. :book2: With your statement you just justified the bloody massacres of any government.
A country cannot defend itself militarily against its own citizens, its own citizens must be charged, tried and found guilty before the punishment provisioned by its legislation (which should be openly under review and should be adapted continuously yet publicly) is applied in response to the crime. Else it's like putting your foot through Pandora's box.
Reading the account of the internal legal memorandum used to justified the killing, I find the logic quite compelling if you accept that the US is at war with Al Qaeda. If al-Awlaki were serving in the army of a foreign state with which the US was at war, there would be no legal objection to a drone strike on him. The fact that he was serving with a non-state belligerent, Al Qaeda, does not change that in my mind.
On the pandora's box, being "at war" does not justify a massace. Not every declaration of war is justified. And not every government would want to declare war on terrorist adversaries. The IRA long campaigned to be regarded as legally as being at war with the British state (e.g. to get POW rights for its prisoners) but the UK resisted this and treated them just as criminals. In the context of the more limited armed conflict with between the IRA and the UK government, restraint by the latter was probably sensible. There would have been little more likely to have generated support for the IRA than a drone strike on one of its leaders. (There was controversy over an alleged "shoot to kill" policy in N. Ireland in the 1980s but if such a policy existed it was certainly more covert than the drone strike we are discussing.) You could make the same pragmatic argument about the America's war on AQ. But the reason I keep coming back to 9/11 is that the struggle with AQ is peculiarly unlimited. It's also fundamentally international (if al-Awlaki were operating in the US, a drone strike would not have been appropriate) wherea many other terrorists conflicts are essentially internal.
Yet, it appears that not even one attempt was made.
According to the NY Times article linked to above:
Last year, Yemeni commandos surrounded a village in which Mr. Awlaki was believed to be hiding, but he managed to slip away.
rory_20_uk
10-10-2011, 11:52
If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason. All detainees transferred to POW camps, with Red Cross visits and no forced interrogation? No, thought not.
Merely that Yemeni commandos failed changes nothing. If a SAS / SBS / Delta Force / IDF had failed to do so, that would have credance. Merely that some local incompetants failed isn't evidence that capture is impossible. I should have said a significant attempt to capture him.
~:smoking:
Reading the account of the internal legal memorandum used to justified the killing, I find the logic quite compelling if you accept that the US is at war with Al Qaeda. If al-Awlaki were serving in the army of a foreign state with which the US was at war, there would be no legal objection to a drone strike on him. The fact that he was serving with a non-state belligerent, Al Qaeda, does not change that in my mind.
On the pandora's box, being "at war" does not justify a massace. Not every declaration of war is justified. And not every government would want to declare war on terrorist adversaries. The IRA long campaigned to be regarded as legally as being at war with the British state (e.g. to get POW rights for its prisoners) but the UK resisted this and treated them just as criminals. In the context of the more limited armed conflict with between the IRA and the UK government, restraint by the latter was probably sensible. There would have been little more likely to have generated support for the IRA than a drone strike on one of its leaders. (There was controversy over an alleged "shoot to kill" policy in N. Ireland in the 1980s but if such a policy existed it was certainly more covert than the drone strike we are discussing.) You could make the same pragmatic argument about the America's war on AQ. But the reason I keep coming back to 9/11 is that the struggle with AQ is peculiarly unlimited. It's also fundamentally international (if al-Awlaki were operating in the US, a drone strike would not have been appropriate) wherea many other terrorists conflicts are essentially internal.
Uhum, I agree. Well, insofar as forcing the war-combatant label on Al-Awlaki can be accepted, yet then we'd have to go back to 2002 and the whole debate then over the mere framing of the issue in terms of wartime policy instead of criminal law (moment in which the above would become a clear case of extrajudicial killing) and we'd both bury ourselves in decade-old articles over which is what. So, in view of the new info on the extraordinary nature of the case and the even more extraordinary way it was treated, I do have to somewhat change my mind -- best way to make sure you've got one after all and a privilege not enough chaps make use of even in light of compelling evidence (that's an old rant of mine, moving on).
I will write though that the fact that this was not made part of a public debate is still unsettling and it should act as a caveat should this situation repeat itself -- in fact, this is not actually the first time an american dies in a drone strike targeting AQ per se as far as I know, Kamal Derwish, a Qaeda member from N.Y., was killed in Yemen in 2002. At the time, the Bush administration communicated that it did not know before the attack that Derwish was in the car. But administration officials made it clear that they were not troubled that he was, because he was considered a Qaeda operative and therefore a legitimate target. Thus I can't let go to all my objections. It's not as if a public debate on legally dealing with american citizens operating in overseas terrorist organisations would've impeded operations. And then, in the NYT article there's the small paragraph:
The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.
Which again one cannot overlook. Still, in principle, should they actually have a case able to survive the Supreme Court on Awlaki being demonstrably a lawful military target (and I mean demonstrably in Court, because we all know here, even the ones on the other side of the fence regarding the action, that he was so), as they let to believe, no one can object to it morally.
If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason.
Well, no, even the chaps down in Guantanamo are classified as enemy combatants, albeit since 2008, and their treatment does observe the Geneva conventions since 2006, after the Hamdan case I think :book2:
If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason. All detainees transferred to POW camps, with Red Cross visits and no forced interrogation? No, thought not.
Well, I think the US regards AQ prisoners as unlawful combatants - as defined in the US army link I posted earlier - similar to bandits in a warzone or civilians who attack downed airmen. I think that assessment is fair - terrorists are not fighting to the same rules as uniformed soldiers of a properly established government. How they should be treated when captured is another matter. I am quite happy with applying the humane rules you referred to.
Merely that Yemeni commandos failed changes nothing. If a SAS / SBS / Delta Force / IDF had failed to do so, that would have credance. Merely that some local incompetants failed isn't evidence that capture is impossible. I should have said a significant attempt to capture him.
In a war, you don't have to show that it is impossible to capture an enemy before you shoot him. The issue is whether an operation to capture would be as effective and pose excessive risk to your men. It is self evident that a drone strike can be put in place more quickly than a SEAL raid - thus being more effective at catching an elusive target - and at no risk to your own personnel.
Uhum, I agree. Well, insofar as forcing the war-combatant label on Al-Awlaki can be accepted, yet then we'd have to go back to 2002 and the whole debate then over the mere framing of the issue in terms of wartime policy instead of criminal law (moment in which the above would become a clear case of extrajudicial killing) and we'd both bury ourselves in decade-old articles over which is what.
I know, but I do think that is the issue here. For many years, I though the War on Terror was an inane idea. Donald Rumsfeld apparently had the same reaction. And I thought the appropriate response was to treat it as a criminal matter rather than a military one. But discussing the al-Awlaki case now makes me re-consider that to some extent. The idea that 9/11 put the US on a war footing cannot be lightly dismissed (as the national head of the air traffic control said, closing US air space: "We’re at war with someone and until we know what to do about it, we’re finished.”). From a domestic political/emotional point of view, the case for the US going on to a war stance after 9/11 was unstoppable. Maybe now that the same scale of atrocity has not been repeated and AQ appears to wilt, the US will move back to treating terrorism as a criminal issue. But I can't with any certainty deny their right to adopt a military approach. (Nor the right of other countries facing severe long term terrorist threats, e.g. Israel).
More detail about the kill memo (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html) surfaces:
The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat. [...]
The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him. [...]
It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.
Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.
Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.
Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.
It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn.
Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.
A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.
But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.
Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”
The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.
It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.
Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”
The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.
It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.
And this is where their reasoning breaks down. al-Awlaki was not "detained or prosecuted" by the military, sentence was passed down a year in advance, no court (including military) involved, and sentence carried out by civilian personnel. And what was the imminent risk to innocent people? His killing was premeditated, the situation of his death can't be a factor in the decision because his sentence was passed so far in advance. The memo justifies his assassination regardless of the circumstance, he could have been drinking tea in the desert, it didn't matter. Why would they even include that in the memo, when the circumstances of his eventual demise could not be known? The use of imminent risk here is so egregious, where/when does the "risk" end? So a year later cops can just shoot a suspected armed robber on sight? It's just easier, he might be a risk to innocents, and he don't need a trial anyway, right?
AThe use of imminent risk here is so egregious, where/when does the "risk" end? So a year later cops can just shoot a suspected armed robber on sight? It's just easier, he might be a risk to innocents, and he don't need a trial anyway, right?
Actually, I don't think we need to invoke the slippery slope to see why this sort of decision-making is disturbing. Even if we accept that this sort of "kill memo" would only be used on terrorists who cannot be reached by the law, it's still disturbing, and still worth arguing over. Frankly, I find the reasoning of the memo scarily similar to the legal-sounding nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos) put forward by Yoo and Bybee declaring that enhanced interrogation torture was a legitimate tool when used on people we suspected were bad.
Did the use of torture by MI, CIA and SEAL interrogation teams metastize into everyday citizens being waterboarded, stress-positioned and head-slammed? No, it did not. The only case that really leaps out is Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)), and his situation was more complicated. So I'm not sure that imagining drone attacks on gang bangers or "enhanced interrogation" of murder suspects is a legitimate worry.
On the other hand, we have seen that once an extra-legal method is approved in a particular context, it is then used and reused in similar situations by the agents of government. Hence the spread of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, not in NYC or FLA. Hence the worry that "kill memos" could be written about any figure who opposes US interests overseas.
It's a moral and legal thicket, but we don't need to invoke these extra-legalities being used on grandma.
It's exactly the same crap Yoo and Bybee put forth, 2 lawyers in the Justice Department handwaving away people's civil rights. And the constant pingponging between civilian and military situations whenever it suits them in this case gets old fast.
If they had run it through a marsupial-like Star Chamber run by the judicial branch, I probably wouldn't be complaining so much here. But the effort just isn't there, and that's the pattern I fear. FISA warrants are essentially a rubber-stamping process (you can even post-date them), and the executive branch couldn't be bothered there either.
2 guys in suits being told to come up with uncontested justifications to meet whatever agenda is desired. Unitary executive ftw.
Papewaio
10-12-2011, 21:43
Slightly OT but it does contain constitutional law & drones.
Given the premise of the right to have arms is to put citizens up on an equal footing with the military in the event the civilians want to overthrow an unjust government:
Is Joe Citizen allowed to have his own fleet of drones?
If not, why not?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-12-2011, 21:53
Slightly OT but it does contain constitutional law & drones.
Given the premise of the right to have arms is to put citizens up on an equal footing with the military in the event the civilians want to overthrow an unjust government:
in no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
deterring undemocratic government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[32]
etc
I imagine civilian ownership of drones would be regulated by the FAA (airspace control) and the FCC (RF spectrum control). Missiles/explosives to put on the drones, a big, fat, no. The feds tend to draw the line at personal explosives.
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2011, 03:39
The right to bear arms is phrased in such a way that Joe Citizen is allowed to have hydrogen bombs... It doesn't limit arms at all. Still, I'd expect that acquiring of same would tend to fall foul of NPT and classified info legislation, not to mention that the local homeowners club might get a little upset when they come home to find their neighbourhood marked with shiny new “danger: presence of radioactive materials” signs. <_<
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 03:55
The right to bear arms is phrased in such a way that Joe Citizen is allowed to have hydrogen bombs... It doesn't limit arms at all.
No it is not phrased that way. That's not how constitutions...or english...works.
If there was an amendment that said "Each citizen shall have the right to a free scoop of ice cream in a cone" it would not be "phrased in such a way" that the ice cream could be served in a traffic cone, or a cone 10 yards in diameter, or a cone made off little hydrogen bombs...
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2011, 04:04
No it is not phrased that way. That's not how constitutions...or english...works.
The English actually is pretty final about it, ... “shall not be infringed”. Now, you happen to have a whole nice legal tradition of finding ways to bend the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to whatever is practical or desirable (for whomever gets it their way) at any given time. In other words your Supreme Court did in fact rule that such language is not to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean the English itself changes meaning.
TL;DR: phrasing =/= meaning =/= interpretation.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 04:16
The English actually is pretty final about it, ... “shall not be infringed”. Now, you happen to have a whole nice legal tradition of finding ways to bend the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to whatever is practical or desirable (for whomever gets it their way) at any given time.
The legal debate about the 2nd amendment is strongly shaped by exactly the opposite of what you said our legal tradition is.
In other words your Supreme Court did in fact rule that such language is not to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean the English itself changes meaning.
TL;DR: phrasing =/= meaning =/= interpretation.
Exactly :stare::stare::stare:
The english DOESN'T change meanings.
For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups. It most definitely does not mean the kind of cup they use in sports. When you say things in any language (that I know of) it is not the case that a word in a context can mean any of its possible meanings. "Keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with biological arms like everyone has either, and it does not mean that "literally".
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2011, 04:34
I'm not sure I follow you “in cups” doesn't mean “in certain kind of cups”, it means “in cups”. It doesn't define what cups these are, but crucially it doesn't define what these cups are not either. So there's no restriction on what cups these cups might be. The phrasing is <Reasoning>, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is it, the entire 2nd amendment in full. The meaning is therefore quite simple: there shall be no encroachment on the right to keep & bear <unspecified> arms.
Could you point out the restriction on arms for me? Where exactly do I find that in that sentence?
... I don't. I only find that in your legal tradition which does indeed impose such restrictions. The debate is merely between people who say the restrictions are sensible, reasonable and beneficial which should carry greater weight than the opinions of a few long dead people who were high on 18th century memes, versus those who say that this impinges upon their liberty as laid down in the constitution...
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 05:21
For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups.
I'm not sure I follow you “in cups” doesn't mean “in certain kind of cups”, it means “in cups”.
In cups means in cups, ice cream in cups said in that way means in a certain class of cups. You know this unconsciously because you DO speak the language, but I guess you can't get it consciously?? :dizzy2::dizzy2:
Next you'll be telling me that "all men are created equal" excludes women :wall: :wall:
The debate is merely between people who say the restrictions are sensible, reasonable and beneficial which should carry greater weight than the opinions of a few long dead people who were high on 18th century memes, versus those who say that this impinges upon their liberty as laid down in the constitution...
Where do you get these ideas?
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2011, 07:21
So basically "arms" is known to have meant guns because that is what they were referring to when they wrote the word, since obviously those were the only kind of arms. Now that there are many different kind of arms, (nuclear, biological), these are not meant to be lumped in with guns under the terms "arms" because when you say "arms" in that context they obviously meant guns, not nuclear bombs.
Thus, when he says cups, you know he means cups and not some thing else with the term "cup" attached to it.
Papewaio
10-13-2011, 08:35
Well the definition of a gun could be a howitzer.
If you restrict the arms to that of 1776 you effectively neuter the intent of the amendment. No force using muskets is going to beat or be able to effectively aid a modern military other then wearing red shirts and all being ensigns.
rory_20_uk
10-13-2011, 10:53
I thought the constitution is supposed to be a living document, ergo the amendment should be amended to clarify this directly. It could even have a clause that requires the section to re reviewed every decade or so to allow for changes over time.
Guessing what is meant is impossible.
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 17:35
Guessing what is meant is impossible.
~:smoking:
That's why they don't guess. Why would you imagine the supreme court justices reading it and guessing?????
rory_20_uk
10-13-2011, 18:19
That's why they don't guess. Why would you imagine the supreme court justices reading it and guessing?????
Or they what? Go through a time portal and talk directly to those that wrote it?
~:smoking:
Ja'chyra
10-13-2011, 19:07
The english DOESN'T change meanings.
For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups. It most definitely does not mean the kind of cup they use in sports. When you say things in any language (that I know of) it is not the case that a word in a context can mean any of its possible meanings. "Keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with biological arms like everyone has either, and it does not mean that "literally".
You're right in that English doesn't change the meaning, unless you are talking about in translation where it can.
But "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" does not define anything apart from citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups, it doesn't determine a certain type or class of cups just as it doesn't dictate the flavour of ice cream. Similarly "Keep and bear arms" does not define what arms are, common sense says it shouldn't be what your hands are attached to but there is nothing there to determine if it means a BB gun or a nuclear weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race). Bear implies that it should be something you can carry but does not properly define it.
So language doesn't change the meaning but unless you are very precise it is open to interpretation and this is easily tested, draw a black square exactly 4cm on each side:
Is that a black outline of a square or a solid black square?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 20:53
Or they what? Go through a time portal and talk directly to those that wrote it?
~:smoking:
...aka books.
You're right in that English doesn't change the meaning, unless you are talking about in translation where it can.
But "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" does not define anything apart from citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups, it doesn't determine a certain type or class of cups just as it doesn't dictate the flavour of ice cream.
It does determine that the kind of cup is not the kind used in sports. The kind of cup is the kind that is used to serve ice cream in, that meets the needs or wants of ice cream serving.
Similarly "Keep and bear arms" does not define what arms are, common sense says it shouldn't be what your hands are attached to but there is nothing there to determine if it means a BB gun or a nuclear weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race). Bear implies that it should be something you can carry but does not properly define it.
So it does limit arms...I'm not sure we really disagree. There's a class of arms that you are referring to when you talk about them keeping and bearing them for the reasons that citizens keep and bear arms.
rory_20_uk
10-13-2011, 21:06
Soooooo... there is a document that explicitly states what they meant in the second amendment? Funny thing, that. All this discussion for decades and there is something that specifies exactly what they meant! What a stroke of luck! Does it even list their discussions on hypothetical situations that had yet to occur? Automatic / semi-automatic guns and what calibre was allowed? Are there any comments on future weaponry that doesn't exist yet?
~:smoking:
Tellos Athenaios
10-14-2011, 00:43
In cups means in cups, ice cream in cups said in that way means in a certain class of cups. You know this unconsciously because you DO speak the language, but I guess you can't get it consciously?? :dizzy2::dizzy2:.
No it doesn't. You are conflating equality with “being synonymous”, or at least your reasoning belies making a mental leap or two to that effect. That works in colloquial language, but it breaks down at the level where you talk about semantics beyond a superficial meaning.
Try to translate your sentences into German, say, and mind you stick as close to the original as is possible. Literal translation. That is important because while literal translation is almost always not very useful, it is a marvelous way to highlight where the subtleties in your sources are.
Next you'll be telling me that "all men are created equal" excludes women :wall: :wall:
As you know full well “men” means more than “males”, it can also mean “humans” or “people”/“persons”. (Actually “persons” is its most accurate meaning: women is derived from the word “men” itself. It's a feature of the Germanic languages that words tend to default to male gender.)
@ACIN:
Ehrm, at the time all sorts of arms where in common usage. From rifles to cutlasses...
a completely inoffensive name
10-14-2011, 00:57
I know, I know there were lots of different weapons, but you all got my point. we know what they meant by arms, so talking about personal nuclear weapons is ridiculous. that is what sasaki is trying to say I think.
Tellos Athenaios
10-14-2011, 01:23
The whole point: there is no definition in the 2nd Amendment of what kinds of arms apply. Whether that is ridiculous in this world or not is therefore about as relevant as whether chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream when it comes to flawed analogies with cups.
Papewaio
10-14-2011, 01:51
So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya
Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.
So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya
Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.
No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-14-2011, 02:54
Soooooo... there is a document that explicitly states what they meant in the second amendment? Funny thing, that. All this discussion for decades and there is something that specifies exactly what they meant! What a stroke of luck!
All this discussion yes, because people don't bother to read the stuff :book2:
As you know full well “men” means more than “males”, it can also mean “humans” or “people”/“persons”. (Actually “persons” is its most accurate meaning: women is derived from the word “men” itself. It's a feature of the Germanic languages that words tend to default to male gender.)
But did they mean it in that sentence? Which did they mean, males or humans? YOU are saying that you don't know. Maybe you should translate into german and apply some semantic subtleties to it.
Ironside
10-14-2011, 09:02
No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.
But the purpose for the right to bear arms is to be able to have a viable militia, so then you also need to consider what kind of weaponry a militia needs to be useful today.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, even the Proto Indo-Europeans didn't know:
The Germanic form is in turn derived from the Proto-Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) root *manu-s "man, person", which is also the root of the Indian nameManu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism)), mythological progenitor of the Hindus.
Well damn it.
Tellos Athenaios
10-14-2011, 12:32
Funny thing, that: in practice, it was not applied to women, slaves, Native Americans at the time...
Ja'chyra
10-14-2011, 14:00
No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.
I put it to you, in my best LA Law voice, that this is purely supposition unless you happen to be a time travelling mind reader.
But did they mean it in that sentence? Which did they mean, males or humans? YOU are saying that you don't know. Maybe you should translate into german and apply some semantic subtleties to it.
Exactly our point, you seem to be trying to argue both sides here and applying either side to where it supports you, are you a politician?
Funny thing, that: in practice, it was not applied to women, slaves, Native Americans at the time...
Again, if it had been properly defined this could not have happened, but leaving ambiguous statements mean they are open to interpretation.
I'm assuming that some here are either young or have never worked with law or placing contracts, this type of ambiguity happens all the time and leads to lengths negotiations and extra cost/
Oh, and Rory, you should really give up the fags, you being a doc and all.
Tellos Athenaios
10-14-2011, 15:30
Again, if it had been properly defined this could not have happened, but leaving ambiguous statements mean they are open to interpretation. I know a thing or two about ambiguity, I do software which is where ambiguity kills the same way it does in law, only worse. (Additionally, software and law are often too close for comfort in the madhouse that is USA patent law.) My previous post was being sarcastic, the same way Rory was.
a completely inoffensive name
10-17-2011, 19:34
I put it to you, in my best LA Law voice, that this is purely supposition unless you happen to be a time travelling mind reader.Because no one ever wrote anything down.
Ja'chyra
10-17-2011, 19:44
Are you agreeing with me or not, I can't tell.
Vladimir
10-17-2011, 20:16
Are you agreeing with me or not, I can't tell.
He's trying to be inoffensive and doesn't want to say.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
We finally get to see what "due process" really means! Section II.C is my fav. Interesting that there is more text on CYA'ing the executive against prosecution (section III) than the constitutional rights of the target (II).
Conradus
02-05-2013, 17:03
The fact that before I posted this thread read Anwar al-Awlaki killed by drone was kinda fitting.
The fact that before I posted this thread read Anwar al-Awlaki killed by drone was kinda fitting.
~D
Wired has some nice analysis on the paper (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/obama-imminence/), and how the administration had broadened the "imminence" term to mean "whenever we want".
The undated Justice Department white paper, a summary of a number of still-classified legal analyses, redefines imminence once again. al-Qaida leaders are “continually planning attacks,” the undated white paper says, and so a preemptive attack “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests in the immediate future.” Referencing the intelligence failures preceding 9/11, the paper concedes the U.S. “is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans.” For an adversary attack to be “imminent,” and a preemptive U.S. response justified, U.S. officials need only “incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks to America.”
There’s a subtlety at work in the Justice Department framework. It takes imminence out of the context of something an enemy does, and places it into the context of a policymaker’s epistemic limitations. “The U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur,” the white paper warns.
If there is a reasonable debate over what imminence means in an era of terrorism, and what standards ought to be accepted for defining it as an international norm, that framework preempts it. All that matters to justify a drone strike attack is for the U.S. to recognize it can’t be all-knowing. It’s the logical equivalent of the CIA’s signature strike, which target anonymous military-age males in areas where terrorists operate based on a presumption that their pattern of observed behavior is consistent with those of terrorists.
Hooahguy
02-05-2013, 17:28
Double standards aside, we are talking about the assassination of US citizens by executive order. They have not been declared guilty in a court of law, they are not in a war zone, they are not a direct threat to US military personnel, and they are being targeted by the CIA. This is more than the killing of some terrorists in some made up "war". This is the dismantling of the 5th amendment. Well, continued dismantling, I keep forgetting about Kelo...
Thanks Obama!
Fisherking
02-05-2013, 18:04
From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.
This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.
This is no bull and no small matter.
This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.
Conradus
02-05-2013, 18:22
What about the legal framework for killing foreigners?
Hooahguy
02-05-2013, 19:08
From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.
This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.
This is no bull and no small matter.
This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.
Do I smell impeachment?
Do I smell impeachment?
Nope, that's your socks.
But extra-judicial killings are definitely worth getting upset about, and have been for years. Also very bad that no prosecutions have been made for the torture of detainees, but you can't have everything.
Glad to see the issue is finally getting some airtime.
From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.
This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.
This is no bull and no small matter.
This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.
Except no one will. Throwing terrorism!!! in front of anything is a free pass. And let's face it as long as brown sounding people are getting whacked over seas no stink will be raised.
Besides it's not like the US government just started with extra judicial killings of citizens. It's been happen all through the nations history.
Fisherking
02-05-2013, 20:00
Except no one will. Throwing terrorism!!! in front of anything is a free pass. And let's face it as long as brown sounding people are getting whacked over seas no stink will be raised.
Besides it's not like the US government just started with extra judicial killings of citizens. It's been happen all through the nations history.
The mainstream media are the ones bring this up not Fox News and the Republicans.
It could get some traction. It is long past time that the Feds were called on the Terrorist bit. The Executive Branch as a whole needs to be put on the spot, alphabet agencies and all.
Obama is not getting impeached unless he kills someone on camera. But all these guys need a harsh reality check.
How about the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen who's 16 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi)? That happened over a year ago and I don't remember it making even a blip in the national media....
As others have touched on, I can see justification for the killing of a citizen if they were under arms against us in a battle zone. But assassinating them via drone in a country that we're not at war with seems.... wrong.
Kralizec
02-05-2013, 21:48
What difference does it make, really, that he's a citizen of the USA?
Rights of citizens are generally extended to legal residents and foreigners in general; i.e. they have the right of due process and whatnot. The chief exception is the right to vote as that's generally tied to nationality.
Y'all seem to be arguing that because the person involved was no direct threat and he was an American citizen his assasination was outrageous, and a contrario, it would be perfectly fine to kill foreigners that have no opportunity whatsoever to do actual harm as long as they have malicious intentions, or are suspected of having those. I take issue with that.
Fisherking
02-05-2013, 22:09
Not at all. They have targeted males of military age for no other reason than they were in an area where terrorists were thought to be operating. NOT EXCEPTABLE.
They murdered the 16 year old son of al-Awlaki later after they had killed his father. No particular reason given. NOT EXCEPTABLE.
These are murders, plain and simple. Policy and Executive Orders don’t make it legal or just.
Whether it was a year ago or yesterday at least the media is not taking an interest. Rather like Watergate it happened before an election but got no traction until afterwards.
In this case policy and policy makers have gone mad and they have a technology that allows them to target people anywhere and that is just what they are doing.
Someone needs to be held accountable and this abuse of power stopped, and fast.
Strike For The South
02-05-2013, 22:11
I miss Kissinger
I miss Kissinger
Whenever he writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, I always read it out loud with his slow, mumbling cadence.
Whether it was a year ago or yesterday at least the media is not taking an interest. Rather like Watergate it happened before an election but got no traction until afterwards.
There is some speculation that this dropped because Brennan is up for the CIA director spot. Ought to make for an interesting confirmation hearing. :yes:
Papewaio
02-07-2013, 00:16
1) Continual attack planning means that you are a legitimate pre emptive target for elimination. Check
2) Pentagon like all prepared military HQs continually plan attacks even agains their allies. Check
3) Does this document then legitimize the Pentagon attack on 9/11 ,not the civilian towers just the military planning infrastructure?
4) Likewise doesn't this legitimize Beirut, Tehran and Benghazi as they all had military/ CIA components ... CIA is for gathering intelligence which is used in attacks.
So doesn't all this mean the other side gets to do pre-emptive attack these sites using the US executives ROE?
After all most relationships including war stances are reciprocal.
Fisherking
02-07-2013, 08:29
This is bad policy and while they give lip service to the laws of land warfare and so on, they clearly overstep those limits and violate many of their provisions.
Did these people get their law degrees of a cereal box?
Seamus Fermanagh
02-07-2013, 19:08
1) Continual attack planning means that you are a legitimate pre emptive target for elimination. Check
2) Pentagon like all prepared military HQs continually plan attacks even agains their allies. Check
3) Does this document then legitimize the Pentagon attack on 9/11 ,not the civilian towers just the military planning infrastructure?
4) Likewise doesn't this legitimize Beirut, Tehran and Benghazi as they all had military/ CIA components ... CIA is for gathering intelligence which is used in attacks.
So doesn't all this mean the other side gets to do pre-emptive attack these sites using the US executives ROE?
After all most relationships including war stances are reciprocal.
First of all, the "other side" in this ongoing conflict has its own set of ROE, and their system isn't weighed down by sentimentality or the Western concept of ethics and morality at all.
As to other points
2) Such contingency planning occurs, on an ongoing basis. However, those targeted under the guidelines under discussion are not merely planning but ramping up and allocating resources in an active fashion. This is seldom true of the contingency planning done by the divers general staffs of the various nation states.
3) Of course the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The use of a civilian airliner with innocents aboard was the terrorist component there, not the choice of target. We yanks were angry to have been attacked, but even at the time there were few if any persons arguing that an avowed enemy of the USA was morally wrong for choosing the Pentagon as a target -- only the means was judged anathema.
4) Beirut and Benghazi certainly. Tehran was out of bounds to the extent that non "players" were also held hostage. The West has adhered to a tradition of "treat the heralds as neutrals" for a long time, thus conferring diplomatic immunity and not harming embassies and their environs. A number of other cultures have never really adhered to that tradition and, as intelligence efforts are often connected to embassies, tend to view them as tools of the enemy and legitimate targets. Even Western culture has acknowledged this, closing the embassies and expelling the personnel of a nation with whom they have a declared conflict.
In the context of a low-intensity conflict with unclear delineation of participant, target, etc. What is the viable choice?
The USA is attempting to set out reasonable standards that prevent punitive action from being used indiscriminately. Such efforts can never meet the highest standards of morality, ethicality, and legality that are idealized and lionized in Western culture. They represent an attempt to adhere to the spirit of such guidelines as fully as possible while still allowing actions that accomplish goals judged as worthy.
Is using drone-launched weaponry to kill US citizens who have not been given a full trial by their peers, but who are actively seeking to harm the USA, yet not engaged in effecting direct harm at the moment of the weapon's usage, a preferred option. Obviously not. Is it a practical accomodation that is reasonable under the circumstances obtaining? I think a fair argument can be made here.
U.S. citizens were killed while fighting for Nazi Germany during WW2. If gunned down during a firefight, nobody would even consider that they had been wronged as citizens by not having been granted a trial etc. Had such an enemy combatant been killed by a sniper while sleeping in a squad tent and unaware that they were threatened, the legal sanction for killing them would have been no different.
Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate?
U.S. citizens were killed while fighting for Nazi Germany during WW2. If gunned down during a firefight, nobody would even consider that they had been wronged as citizens by not having been granted a trial etc. Had such an enemy combatant been killed by a sniper while sleeping in a squad tent and unaware that they were threatened, the legal sanction for killing them would have been no different.
Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate?
al-Awlaki's death was premeditated, he was placed on the target list over a year prior to his death. He may have been killed by military (or pseudo-military, if Christians In Action were driving the drone) action, but the decision was made ahead of time, without regard to the circumstances of his eventual demise, by an unknown administration official. Different circumstances.
Papewaio
02-07-2013, 22:09
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
This isn't the West or the USA coming up with a solution. It is a subset of the Executive Branch. So depending on how one feels about the POTUS it should temper ones feelings about such an extreme solution. There is three main branches in the US government for a reason. Bypassing two of them had best be done with a very well thought out and solid reason.
As it is this isn't a sniper on the battlefield scenario. This is state sanctioned assassination with some of them using bombs on very civilian areas such as weddings. The targets themselves can be children by the UN definition someone who is under 18. The collateral damage has certainly included many under 18s.
So one has to question, is this in the best long term interests of the US?
Should a single branch of the US government create the terms of the list and have sole oversight of its process?
Should due process with regards to innocent until proven guilty, levels of evidence and other norms of law be bypassed?
Should everywhere now be considered a battlefield?
Are we comfortable that this is a reciprocal arrangement not just for the current enemies but all future ones? Foreign and domestic? ie The next Waco Texas ends with a drone bombing?
Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate? I think the "warzone" vs "country we are at peace with" difference is pretty significant, don't you?
Another important distinction, as drone mentions, is these are ordered assassinations rather than deaths during the course of combat operations. We've declared "war" with a non-state entity, now we've made the case anyone our executive branch determines is in anyway affiliated with said entity, is subject to death.
That all sounds rather different than the battlefield comparisons you tried to make.
IFun fact: The US has sent troops into combat situations about 130 times, but only 5 of those were Declared Wars. Cube-Points to whoever can tell me what those wars are without looking it up. Don't look it up! Cheaters.
1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII.
Edit->Woohoo, got them right!
1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII.
Edit->Woohoo, got them right!Not to sidetrack, but I think people get too hung up on the verbiage here. Congressional authorization for military attacks against another state is a declaration of war- even if they don't use all the "magic" words.
How many of those 130 times were without Congressional authorization? Alot.... :creep:
Seamus Fermanagh
02-12-2013, 02:07
X-man:
Good points.
Do you accept that, in this "War on Terror" (A ghastly label, I agree), that virtually anywhere, and certainly any non-domestic US location, can be considered a "Battlefield" providing that certain conditions are present? That is, by the way, a genuine question for which arguments on both sides may be made.
Is this particular assassination a crime like the death of Trotsky or is Operation Anthropoid (whether you subscribe to the botulism theory or not) a better analogy?
Pape:
This kind of assassination targeting accounts for fewer than 3% of the drone strikes conducted by the US military or CIA and their partners. The other 97% of the decisions to attack are made at a much lower level and with far less oversight. I concur with you that many of those targeting choices have been, at best, questionable. In fact, a few of them were, I would venture, negligent (possibly to the point of criminality in some cases) and that the "collateral damage" -- let's be direct and label them bystander homicides -- are the most distressing components of the whole program.
My commentary, so far, has focused only on those 3% "executive decision" strikes. The others are a whole different kettle of fish.
Papewaio
02-12-2013, 05:33
In a world of perfect information and justice and no other sovereign states the Executive strikes would be distasteful yet pragmatic.
However based on the lack of perfect information, the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the very real use of assassinations as revenge not justice IMDHO it is a tool that shouldn't have been used and still should not be used.
Now add into the mix other state actors be they benign allies or neutral parties or the axis of evil(tm) using the same play book I go from a position of moral disgust to realistic fear.
Strike For The South
02-13-2013, 02:04
I realize that it's impractical and unfeasible, but I wish we eschewed smart bombs for more personal methods of associations.
Pushing a button seems to easy.
Tellos Athenaios
02-13-2013, 02:17
I realize that it's impractical and unfeasible, but I wish we eschewed smart bombs forum posts for more personal methods of associations.
Pushing a button seems to easy.
... ?
Strike For The South
02-13-2013, 02:34
... ?
OMG knowledge bomb.
The internet has created, and will continue to create generations of shut ins with no social skills.
It really speaks to the larger problem. People don't know how to be people anymore. Our insularity will suffocate us.
OMG knowledge bomb.
The internet has created, and will continue to create generations of shut ins with no social skills.
Well, you could argue that they adopt a different set of social skills which is at odds with people who do not live in similar environments. Many people turned to the internet to escape social real-life, where they might be discriminated over things like being on the football team, it was a haven for the geek and intellectual minded, where similar minds banded together to communicate. This started to spread with innovation and widespread social acceptance where people are getting in touch with others on topics that concern and interest them, without the limitations and drawbacks to real life.
Strike For The South
02-13-2013, 03:06
Well, you could argue that they adopt a different set of social skills which is at odds with people who do not live in similar environments. Many people turned to the internet to escape social real-life, where they might be discriminated over things like being on the football team, it was a haven for the geek and intellectual minded, where similar minds banded together to communicate. This started to spread with innovation and widespread social acceptance where people are getting in touch with others on topics that concern and interest them, without the limitations and drawbacks to real life.
Eventually you will have to talk to a real live human, possibly look them in the eyes. People tend to massively over inflate themselves and the internet only further serves that vanity. Any criticism is taken as a personal affront and people demand to be coronated over the littlest accomplishments. This is a statistically observable trend, post all the bullshit, vacuum quotes from dead Greeks you would like, doesn't change a thing.
The idea that humanity is progress, is laughable. Hunger is progress. Denial is progress. The internet offers a haven from both of those things.
Limitations and drawbacks to real life? Like getting taken off a pedestal?
It should come as no surprise that there is a glut of "artists" and fight club faux nihilists among the millennials. All little Kings, desperately clamoring for the world to care.
Papewaio
02-13-2013, 03:20
Obviously Greek quotes hit a nerve. :)
Writing letters was once considered a key communication and social skill. You do not always need eye contact to make a statement. Otherwise the only good authors would be ones reading their books out loud to a select few at a time.
Having grown up on a farm and in a small community before moving to a city at 15, I have to say that the internet does allow more like minded people to group up and talk. I can't say that the Backroom as a whole are exactly like minded as we still disagree, have differences of opinion and downright sometimes dislike and niggle each other.
As for progress, well unless you consume yourself to death in all likely hood you will have a better life then your grandparents, travel further and see more of the world, live longer, have access to more options and the ability to be more readily accepted for who you are. What won't be handed to you is a comfortable life on a silver platter. You will have incidents, accidents, unemployment and bad relationships. It is just far more unlikely that any of these will result in sending you to an early death bed or a monastery to repent your sins.
As for real life, I think I've accomplished more there then here. I'm happily married, with 2 kids. Everything else on top of that is gravy. Being married does mean I'm constantly getting knocked off my pedestal and whacked in the back of the head with it.
Eventually you will have to talk to a real live human, possibly look them in the eyes. People tend to massively over inflate themselves and the internet only further serves that vanity. Any criticism is taken as a personal affront and people demand to be coronated over the littlest accomplishments. This is a statistically observable trend, post all the bullshit, vacuum quotes from dead Greeks you would like, doesn't change a thing.
The idea that humanity is progress, is laughable. Hunger is progress. Denial is progress. The internet offers a haven from both of those things.
Limitations and drawbacks to real life? Like getting taken off a pedestal?
It should come as no surprise that there is a glut of "artists" and fight club faux nihilists among the millennials. All little Kings, desperately clamoring for the world to care.
In a parallel, the world is getting more grim. Celebrities used to be far removed from society, end up trolled and insulted on twitter, causing heartbreak for miles around. Pedestals taken down faster as the mediocre high-school football player realises he has no real influence on the greater world outside high-school. Cliques come a tumbling as the world is greatly increased in population. Instead of 100, it is now 100,000. The vast pool of knowledge and resources unite. The social intermingling of total war fans can discuss their hobby on the forum, even though they know no one in their town who has even heard of the series. The population becomes more savvy and aware, political and economical structures crack at the seams as they fail to revolutionise into this brave new world...
Seamus Fermanagh
02-13-2013, 14:22
...As for real life, I think I've accomplished more there then here. I'm happily married, with 2 kids. Everything else on top of that is gravy. Being married does mean I'm constantly getting knocked off my pedestal and whacked in the back of the head with it.
A healthy reminder process. I am in the same boat and concur.
Do you accept that, in this "War on Terror" (A ghastly label, I agree), that virtually anywhere, and certainly any non-domestic US location, can be considered a "Battlefield" providing that certain conditions are present? That is, by the way, a genuine question for which arguments on both sides may be made.That's a little too vague- under the right "conditions" almost anything is possible. You'll have to be more specific if you want me to weigh in here.
Otherwise, the logic your forwarding here would give the president free reign to kill anyone in the world at any time, based only on his discretion.
It's our belief that X is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Therefore that location is a combat zone. Therefore, we are free to kill X and anyone in any way associated with them.
It's our belief that X is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Therefore that location is a combat zone. Therefore, we are free to kill X and anyone in any way associated with them.
And unfortunately, that's how the GWoT has been prosecuted from the get-go.
All I have to do is say, "I am Lemur, and I think Al Qaeda is nifty." Boom. I'm affiliated with AQ now, and am fair game for assassination. Torture, less so.
A war where the combatant is anyone and the battlefield is anywhere and the timeline is infinite—I don't know if that's compatible with representative democracy. That's part of why I've been arguing since the early President 43 days that the GWoT needs to be treated more like law enforcement, less like a war. You cannot "win" a war or murder, but you can make a dent in it, and you can make murdering people expensive and risky. Same goes for terrorism.
A war where the combatant is anyone and the battlefield is anywhere and the timeline is infinite—I don't know if that's compatible with representative democracy. I feel fairly secure, at least, in saying that deliberately killing American citizens with no more due process than the say so of an administration official runs afoul of our Constitution.
The AUMF that authorized the war on terror was badly written and overly broad in scope. But even with that, it can't set aside our Constitutional protections.
Tellos Athenaios
02-13-2013, 22:05
The moment you started carting off people to Gitmo for a bit of enhanced interrogation torture, well that was when your constitutional protections were well and truly swept aside.
The moment you started carting off people to Gitmo for a bit of enhanced interrogation torture, well that was when your constitutional protections were well and truly swept aside.I really don't want to shift the debate to Gitmo, but regardless if you think it was right or wrong, Constitutional protections are considered extend to persons within US territory and US citizens at home and abroad- not to non-citizens outside of US territory. You could still argue that detainment at Gitmo is immoral/illegal for various reasons, but I don't think the Constitution comes into play...
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 00:39
I really don't want to shift the debate to Gitmo, but regardless if you think it was right or wrong, Constitutional protections are considered extend to persons within US territory and US citizens at home and abroad- not to non-citizens outside of US territory. You could still argue that detainment at Gitmo is immoral/illegal for various reasons, but I don't think the Constitution comes into play...
Well I guess that makes it all alright then? I mean it's not wrong if you can find a loophole in the law that will let you get away with it? And it scales. Companies can squirrel away billions of taxable income, so why can't administrations "squirrel away" their citizens through a clever little loophole?
Same story, different version. Bombing al-Awlaki to smithereens and hiding behind some technical legalese is no different from a constitutionality perspective than carting people off to gitmo to avoid having to afford them due process. Next step: you being carted off to gitmo, because what is good for the goose (foreigners) is good for the gander (citizens). All the pieces of the loopholes puzzle are already in place, and when it comes down to it habeas corpus is nothing really. Nothing that a bit of lawmaking can't "fix" or simply be brushed away through a suitably open-ended suspension, as has happened before. (Both in England and in the USA for that matter.)
Same story, different version. Bombing al-Awlaki to smithereens and hiding behind some technical legalese is no different from a constitutionality perspective than carting people off to gitmo to avoid having to afford them due process.
It's quite different, as I've said. To my knowledge, the US Constitution has never been applied to non-citizens outside of US jurisdictions. It has always applied to US citizens within US jurisdiction.
You don't have to like either scenario, but there is a higher legal threshold for our nation's own citizens abroad then for non-citizens abroad. If citizenship in a country doesn't afford you some special considerations/rights from that country, what's the point?
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 02:41
It's quite different, as I've said.
No you're getting side tracked again. Simple, really: the loophole game is only ever played to get around pesky obstacles like "standards" or "intent of the law", "taxes" or "ethics", "the book" or "due process". It is about avoiding impartial scrutiny, accountability and responsibility. It does not matter whether or not the subject is a foreign person or a citizen. The behaviour is the same, the motivation is the same, the outcome is the same and the consequences will be the same.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-14-2013, 19:46
Actually, Gitmo was chosen as much for protection of our own citizens as for any Constitutional "side-stepping." We presumed that those incarcerated would be, in the main, willing to harm US citizens if possible, so incarcerating them in Cuba meant that any escapees would be Castro's problem and not likely to be going after any in the USA.
That aside, combatting terrorism that is NOT attributable to a sponsoring nation-state has been the crux of our difficulty throughout the whole War on Terror era. Neither of our two well-understood models for operation: Law Enforcement using Due Process of Law, or War Fighting; seems to have the best answer. Due process would see the vast bulk of the detainees released for want of "proper" evidence, while war-fighting can seem pointless and endless when there is no definitive locus of authority to be either eradicated or forced to a peace table. I acknowledge that our attempts to come up with a blended option have not been completely successful thus far...to say the least.
Lemur and Xiahou are both right about the Authorization to use Military Force. As passed, it was ludicrously easy for the President to use military force based upon the flimsiest of evidence....and Congress collectively woosed out on its oversight role here, practically handing its war power constitutional madate to the Presidency. But Congress DID pass it and the American public did not toss out the one's who so voted. Sad.
Even with what amounted to war by Fiat, even the Bush43 crew felt that they had to go back and secure permission from Congress specifically before invading Iraq. The original AUMF document would have allowed Bush to invade solely because of the tenuous support of one small al-queada splinter group in Northern Iraq*, WITHOUT Bush having to have gone back to Congress for support. Even so, the force of precedent sent them back (with under-corroborated and ultimately proven to be innacurate evidence) to justify the attack on grounds that were more compelling then that tenuous AQ connection.
* Note: It has since been learned, and was probably known at the time, that this AQ connection to Iraq was no more than Saddam paying lip service to some of the AQ agenda items so as to keep the AQ group well away from him in any practical sense. The Saddam regime and AQ were never really close (arguably they were enemies). There was no substantial AQ presence in Iraq until AFTER Saddam was ousted. They came into Iraq because we were there and we had created a power vaccuum.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-14-2013, 22:48
They weren't almost enemies, they were enemies. Saddam hated terrorists.
Oh, I agree. As a dictator, he didn't want any powerbase competing with his own, and the AQ folk didn't really think of him as a staunch muslim either.
My point was that the AQ "connection" to Iraq was no more than a lip-service thing, that the Bush admin knew it, but -- because of the shoddy way the AUMF had been put together -- even that flimsy premise would have been enough to allow the Invasion.
I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.
(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)
Kralizec
02-14-2013, 23:03
It's quite different, as I've said. To my knowledge, the US Constitution has never been applied to non-citizens outside of US jurisdictions. It has always applied to US citizens within US jurisdiction.
You don't have to like either scenario, but there is a higher legal threshold for our nation's own citizens abroad then for non-citizens abroad. If citizenship in a country doesn't afford you some special considerations/rights from that country, what's the point?
Beg your pardon, but quite a few American conservatives (you included, if I'm not mistaken) insist on a literary interpretation of the constitution. The various amendments speak of persons, not of citizens. The only times the constitution mentions "citizens" is when it speaks about the right to vote, etc.
Case law does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but you generally don't approve when SCOTUS deviates from a word's manifest, undeniable meaning, do you?
Personally, I think that al-Awlaki's assasination was perfectly justified. He deliberately removed himself from the reach of any state authority by moving to some terrorist no-man's land. You could even argue that he was "in arms", metaphorically speaking, against a friendly nation, as the government of Yemen doesn't take kindly to these thugs hiding on their territory either. Ideally he would have been caught and tried, if that were feasible, but I don't see how the distinction between American or non-American holds any relevance.
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 23:26
I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.
(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)
Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?
Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?
:yes:
A very savvy move by the administration. The Democrats could have easily stopped the 2002 resolution, using the same tactics the GOP uses today in Congress. But instead they jumped right into it, fearing they would be viewed as unpatriotic wusses.
Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.
Beg your pardon, but quite a few American conservatives (you included, if I'm not mistaken) insist on a literary interpretation of the constitution. The various amendments speak of persons, not of citizens. The only times the constitution mentions "citizens" is when it speaks about the right to vote, etc.
Case law does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but you generally don't approve when SCOTUS deviates from a word's manifest, undeniable meaning, do you?How could anyone assume that US domestic law could apply to the subjects of other nations outside of US territory? That line of thinking would presume that the US military violated the Second Amendment when it disarmed the German army after WW2. The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-15-2013, 05:48
Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?
I think it unlikely.
As I have argued in other threads heretofore, I think it is reasonable to view the Bush43 crowd as having screwed up the assessment.
They used uncorroborated information from defectors who had axes to grind against Saddam and ignored disconfirming messages about the yellow cake uranium and the like. I think they also made the same mistake our intelligence services did against the Soviets in the latter 1980s. We got hold of the information that Saddam's underlings were giving him -- that we can ramp back up the chemicals etc. at the drop of a hat. We didn't factor in that his own people may have been shining him on. We did the same in the 1980s, assuming training levels and efficiency ratings about soviet forces were accurate and that their production figures etc. were accurate, when low level aparatchiks were fudging the numbers so as to not look bad to the bosses.
Another factor in screwing up by the numbers was the mindset of some of the administration members -- that they were looking for an excuse to finish the job that hadn't been finished by Bush41 and to "contain" Iran by having US bases in neighboring allies on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. That kind of attitude makes it really easy to interpret things as you wish them to be....and not as they are. Put that together with a bit of sloppy intelligence work and you have a "convincing" case for WMD's that have to be stopped NOW!
As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.
Tellos Athenaios
02-16-2013, 01:34
So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.
As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.
No I was just pulling your leg there. I probably need to work on my delivery.
The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.
Which in no way absolves the USA from taking people to gitmo for aforementioned questioning using dubious methods outright torture. It also does nothing for your argument that they were somehow special.
The crux of the matter is not that there is law which explicitly forbids doing that to USA citizens. It is that there's a distinctly slippery slope between the ends justify the means, and simply flouting the law, selectively applying it at will and breaking it whenever convenient. I contend that Gitmo is quite far down that slope, and once you're there and that kind of stunt is accepted by the US public and the various bodies that ought to check and balance that kind of powergrab, well it's only the easy and natural thing to do to extend that power a bit further. And another bit further.
If you, Xiahou went over to Yemen and sprouted a beard and started preaching Jihad to save America from the infidel Obama you would be fair game by the Gitmo standards.
Al-Awlaki's death is a consequence of the successive administrations having been able to execute all sorts of dubious strikes and renditions for over 10 years now. So they don't even think twice about it, they know there are no repercussions because that horse has left the stable a very long time ago to be turned into processed meat for consumption as beef.
Holder needs to go. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
...
In a letter to Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.
However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."
Ever notice how those "extraordinary circumstances" and "unlikely to occur" events have a way of, oh, I dunno, happening?
Remember, kids, only three people were ever waterboarded under "enhanced interrogation." And if you believe that, I've got some great deals in North Korean real estate.
Gah. I can't begin to express how un-American Holder's response is. It's not Yoo/Bybee level bad, but it's bad enough.
Tellos Athenaios
03-06-2013, 21:52
Ever notice how those "extraordinary circumstances" and "unlikely to occur" events have a way of, oh, I dunno, happening?
Well it is only just a bit further down that slope... :juggle2:
Rand Paul is doing a good ole-fashioned talking filibuster over Brennan's nomination to CIA director- he says its until he gets clarifications about the power of the POTUS to kill Americans on US soil. He's attracted a few supporters to help him, including at least one Democrat senator. Rubio is speaking at the moment.
Watch it here (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/) while you can- I've never seen a "real" filibuster before this. Apparently it's been going on for over 11 hours already....
Seamus Fermanagh
03-07-2013, 07:00
Rand Paul is doing a good ole-fashioned talking filibuster over Brennan's nomination to CIA director- he says its until he gets clarifications about the power of the POTUS to kill Americans on US soil. He's attracted a few supporters to help him, including at least one Democrat senator. Rubio is speaking at the moment.
Watch it here (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/) while you can- I've never seen a "real" filibuster before this. Apparently it's been going on for over 11 hours already....
I wish all filibusters had to be conducted in this fashion. If an issue is important enough to block the Senate from doing anything, then you ought to have to go out and blather it to death personally -- not via some sub-rosa pseudo-vote.
Ironside
03-07-2013, 09:30
This is when you use spin doctors.
Holder did declare either that:
A: US military security isn't competent enough on it's own soil to twart a threat that can be resolved by a drone.
Or B: It's not a last resort.
Or if it's already spun, what's the status of using military as police in the US during a crisis?
a completely inoffensive name
03-07-2013, 09:34
This is one of those moments where people should actually get upset, but they won't.
ICantSpellDawg
03-07-2013, 14:50
The correct Presidential response would be to absolutely deny the legitimacy of killing US citizens without due process. In the event of another 911, a decent President would break the law and take down a jet on its way into a tower and deal with the consequences. If he can expect a jet full of individuals to die so that others may live, he should be willing to face his own criminal indictment and rely on the wisdom of a jury of his peers to nullify conviction. Sense would prevail without leaving the door open to arbitrary extra-judicial killings of US citizens on US soil.
Ironside
03-07-2013, 16:03
The correct Presidential response would be to absolutely deny the legitimacy of killing US citizens without due process. In the event of another 911, a decent President would break the law and take down a jet on its way into a tower and deal with the consequences. If he can expect a jet full of individuals to die so that others may live, he should be willing to face his own criminal indictment and rely on the wisdom of a jury of his peers to nullify conviction. Sense would prevail without leaving the door open to arbitrary extra-judicial killings of US citizens on US soil.
I'm more or less agreeing. Shocking.
Any such move should never be done with anything less than the presidency on the line. The question is not about resignation or worse, it's about justifying staying on the post. Guilty until proven otherwise so to speak.
Or if it's already spun, what's the status of using military as police in the US during a crisis?
Congressional approval is necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act). Since they are talking drones in this theoretical discussion, this might imply Christians In Action involvement, which is a whole different can of worms on US soil.
Vladimir
03-07-2013, 17:12
Another problem with Theory meets Reality.
Yes, you can have an academic discussion that this kind of targeted killing is justified but so many things would need to be true to make it even a remote possibility. It's only disturbing when people take steps to implement it. This is along the lines of shooting a passenger plane down to prevent a terrorist attack but requires a much more elaborate infrastructure and set of statutes and circumstances. This is post-911 style talk you'd expect to hear out of the Bush administration.
Remember Federal and State governments legally kill U.S. citizens all the time: Either after due process or in response to an imminent threat.
I wish all filibusters had to be conducted in this fashion.
Agreed. Two weird things happening here:
A Republican says Obama is ignoring the Constitution, and is correct.
A filibuster is not only being performed correctly, but for a legitimate reason.
Consider my gob well and truly smacked.
Greyblades
03-07-2013, 17:47
Agreed. Two weird things happening here:
A Republican says Obama is ignoring the Constitution, and is correct.
A filibuster is not only being performed correctly, but for a legitimate reason.
Consider my gob well and truly smacked.
Even the insane parties like the Republicans get things right occasionally.
Papewaio
03-08-2013, 05:35
I take it no other of the anti terrorist laws have been broadened to be used on other criminal cases.
No chance that the mobsters will be taken out by drones in the future...
Greyblades
03-08-2013, 16:29
I take it no other of the anti terrorist laws have been broadened to be used on other criminal cases.
No chance that the mobsters will be taken out by drones in the future...
The Republicans arent crazy enough to bomb themselves yet.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.