Despite my twitter feed and Facebook page having many comments and protests about the Obama Administrations’s use of drones to kill people I haven’t really followed the debate. What seems to be annoying many of my American friends is that Obama has apparently ordered the deaths of US citizens while they are abroad.
Okay – so let’s begin with the notion that “this is a bad thing”. If you’re a US citizen and believe that your government is out to kill you why wouldn’t you, in the first instance, seek an injunction against the government? Or let’s imagine that one of your US citizen relatives has already been killed by the US government, why not lay a charge or bring an action against the government for unlawful death?
This op-ed in the WSJ goes some way to answering my questions:
The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an “enemy combatant” anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict.
It seems to me that if you take up arms against the government you can expect it to shoot back. The state has a comparative advantage in violence and that is what we’re observing.
Having said that, however, Rand Paul’s filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA chief is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sinc, I think it’s called extra judicial killing and it’s kinda contrary to the rule of law idea. Now, an active rebel in the battlefield, but a guy in buttfucksandistan is another thing entirely. Declaring someone an enemy combatant is just the sort of wheeze that the dedicated skeptic of govt overreach should be extremely suss about.
Pedro
7 Mar 13 at 9:21 pm
How can you prove the killing was for “proper” purposes when there is an asymmetric level of knowledge and weaponry.
Rand Paul’s filibuster was astute.
Token
7 Mar 13 at 9:23 pm
Pedro – yes, that bit I understand. But so far I haven’t seen anyone say that Obama is killing his personal enemies. It looks like he is targeting individuals who have taken up arms against the US (and not just his administration).
The far more interesting case is where the UK government killed some IRA operatives in Gibraltar. That made me very uncomfortable but people who I normally trust on these issues seemed to think that was appropriate.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Mar 13 at 9:28 pm
I think if you’re a citizen you get to have a trial. Having the executive distinguish between criminals and enemies is wrong. Even traitors get a trial. Principles don’t depend on evidence, it’s the other way round. The principles come first.
It’s easy to think it’s ok when an obvious fuckwit is the victim, but then how do you argue the hard cases?
Pedro
7 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
Okay – so let’s tease that out a bit. Two individuals waging war against the US. One is a citizen the other a non-citizen. Would the argument be that the US government could kill the non-citizen under the rules of war, but not the citizen? The citizen must be captured and tried first?
Sinclair Davidson
7 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Sinclair,
I would go further and say that all places of so called worship should be destroyed out of hand.
Further, I think it criminal the way that our soldiers have had their hands tied behind their back.
NoFixedAddress
7 Mar 13 at 9:46 pm
How would anyone know if he was or wasn’t?
Democrats are arguing that being “suspected” of terrorism is enough to have a US citizen mysteriously assassinated on US soil by Obama and that’s perfectly ok.
twostix
7 Mar 13 at 9:53 pm
Fuck the UN off
NoFixedAddress
7 Mar 13 at 9:54 pm
Because the Americans are incredibly bad at keeping secrets?
Sinclair Davidson
7 Mar 13 at 9:55 pm
Would we had better partners…
But I suppose we will put up with them!!!!!
Sigh
NoFixedAddress
7 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
Here’s the issue so far:
Obama gave himself the power to kill muslims in Pakistan:
“Oh it’s cool he’s only expanding the war on terror nothing to see here, no, no slippery slope GTFO nutjob”.
He expands that to give himself the power to kill American Citizens:
“Oh it’s ok, he’ll only use that power in an absolute 9/11 type emergency don’t be paranoid”.
He kills American citizens in a non-emergency:
“Oh it doesn’t matter they were terror suspects and not even on US soil. Don’t be such a nutjob.”.
He gives himself the power to secretly kill US citizens on US soil:
“Oh it’s ok he’ll never use that power don’t be such a nutjob…”
There’s a trend here…
twostix
7 Mar 13 at 10:15 pm
Sinclair, as part of lawfare, fathers applied for US court injunctions to stop drone attacks on their wayward sons on a best friend basis.
They failed and were reminded by the court that if they were so worried, their sons could pop down to the embassy and discuss their fears i.e. surrender for extradition.
The father did not have legal standing to sue and his claims were unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches. The Judge said:
See http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/targeted-killing/targeted-killing-drones/ for more discussion by legal experts
Plenty of American citizens died in the civil war, and a few in Nazi uniforms, so attacking combatants who are citizens is not new.
I was banned from crooked timber for make the following post on Drones and the Left
Jim Rose
7 Mar 13 at 10:18 pm
I should add that in addition to the US authorisation of military force on 9/11, the mutual defence obligations under ANZUS and NATO were activated. we are at war.
As anyone on the day after can remember, attacking the American homeland and attempting to decapitate their government means they will come back at you with everything they have got and will keep coming at you until you will never be a threat again. The Iraq war was just to make a point: that the US means business.
Jim Rose
7 Mar 13 at 10:28 pm
The problem is who gets to decide whether the person is waging war or not? What level of evidence is required? Especially on US soil on which the government should have a high level of control and not need to worry about people getting away easily.
Chris
7 Mar 13 at 10:43 pm
After Benghazi we know the investigations will stop if they may embarrass the wrong people…
Token
7 Mar 13 at 10:52 pm
@jim rose and chris
well said.
you would agree with me then when i say that every single mosque should be blown out of existence and the imam.
after all, they are the ones who foment destruction of the western Judaic Christian ethos that has one single solitary claim to fame.
and their rabid backward ethos does not allow it.
Can you guess what that one single distinction is in comparison to those fucking animals?
NoFixedAddress
7 Mar 13 at 10:53 pm
Hint….
Its called Private Property….
which is just what the scum that think they rule the west is busy taking away….
first it was the farmers of Australia…
then it was the talkers in Australia….
now it is everything in Australia…….
and if one single business person now steps up I will nearly tell them to fuck off.
No matter how big a business you think you run!
NoFixedAddress
7 Mar 13 at 10:58 pm
In war any threat is a target. The question of who is a threat and therefore a target is made by the person in a position to act, who is also usually the person threatened.
Historically this has usually meant the man with a rifle. Mistakes have been made and the wrong people have been killed “by accident”.
Wars have always been dangerous to bystanders and friends, as well as to the enemy. One estimate that I have seen puts “friendly fire” casualties for the US Army during WWII at 18%. Such is the nature of war, because it is the nature of war that decisions have to be made in a split second and some of those decisions will be wrong. If the person making the decision hesitates, he (it is always a he) will usually end up dead, because it is usually (or often enough) a genuine threat. The survivors learn to not hesitate. This increases the number of “accidental” casualties at the same time as it increases the survival rate of the veterans.
Now we have the perverse situation where, with the aid of technology, the supreme commander gets to say yes/no on whether or not to “snipe” an individual thousands of miles away. There will be little likelihood that the threat (if any) from target is immediate and no chance that the President himself will be threatened.
The question is not whether or not the decision will be made. Because the drone technology exists the decision has to be made. The decision to shoot is a decision but so also is the decision to not shoot, as is the decision to leave the drones on the ground, or unarmed.
So, ignoring the method of killing, the questions are: when there is no immediate threat but there is an opportunity to kill someone who is thought to be a threat:
• who should decide whether or not to “take the shot”?
• on what criteria?
• subject to what review?
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 12:22 am
The two dead seppos were key members of AQ in Yemen.
If that’s not enough for you, you must be a retard.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 7:56 am
NoFixedAddress. These comments are over the top and do not enhance the discussion. I must say I totally disagree with the premise and they tarnish everyone at the blog.
Token
8 Mar 13 at 8:40 am
Exactly.
Disregard borders, give them no place to hide.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 8:46 am
The officer in charge of the operation.
The criteria should be established before the operation e.g. the operation’s aim is to kill known terrorists in Yemen.
None.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 8:50 am
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
It’s not enough for me Abu, maybe I’m a retard, but my understanding of our Western common law system is that the executive doesn’t get to decide which citizens ought to be executed. Even if they’re dangerously lurking around Yemen!
Like I said earlier, this is supposedly a blog in support of the classical liberal tradition, which includes limited govt and the rule of law. People who are fine with the president executing citizens really don’t understand that tradition at all.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 11:21 am
A greate explaination on how well tuned Paul’s filibuster was:
Token
8 Mar 13 at 12:22 pm
Pedro, if someone sits in a failed state and launches deadly attacks at you and you don’t drop the hammer on him, then you are a retard and a pussy. Rule of law be damned if no other solution presents itself.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 12:33 pm
Evidence of those attacks can be found where exactly?
How do you distinguish a murderer from a terrorist?
Everybody likes their exceptions to the rule and condemns the other guy’s.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 12:57 pm
Google: inspire + awlaki.
Duh.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 1:14 pm
Is irrelevant. This is war. Big difference.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 1:42 pm
If you run with the wolves don’t bother whining when your hide ends up nailed to the door.
Zatara
8 Mar 13 at 2:12 pm
Well, no. Pedro’s view isn’t irrelevant. It is quite correct, the executive cannot simply kill citizens. The question here is slightly different – why are the mechanisms to constrain the executive not working? As Jim Rose suggests above some people don’t have standing to bring an action – but that can’t apply in every case.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Mar 13 at 2:13 pm
“Now we have the perverse situation where, with the aid of technology, the supreme commander gets to say yes/no on whether or not to “snipe” an individual thousands of miles away. There will be little likelihood that the threat (if any) from target is immediate”
Spot on, Cato. These aren’t heat-of-the-moment decisions, or instances where hesitating to confirm the target is civilian or combatant can get you killed.
Furthermore, the disagreement in question involves US citizens on US soil, not a militant who might disappear into a cave any second and someone has to decide whether to shoot or not right now.
Jarrah
8 Mar 13 at 2:17 pm
Abu, you’ve got evidence of the teenager manning a gun or building a bomb?
jupes, or should that be dupes, I’ll bet somewhere and some time you’ve nodded sagely in agreement to the old saw that war is the friend of the state.
Amazing.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 2:18 pm
The two dead seppos were key members of AQ in Yemen.
A 16 year old student was a key member of Al Qaeda? Clearly there is something wrong when somebody accused of no crime and facing no charges can be executed by executive fiat and those responsible for his death can remain unaccountable and unmonitored by judiciary or parliament.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 2:30 pm
Fuck him. A younger kid killed US SF in Afghanistan with a hand grenade. If you get in the game, you’re fair game.
16 years old, boo fucking hoo.
Grow some sack.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 4:32 pm
Rubbish. Of course they can. As Jim Rose points out:
The more accurate statement would be: Except in war, the executive cannot simply kill citizens and only then when the citizen is the enemy.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 4:34 pm
Oh dear, resorting to abuse.
Here’s a tip Pedro. Don’t become a psychic.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 4:37 pm
The Nazis had a whole division of 16 and 17 year olds. What is your point?
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 4:48 pm
You’ll notice that Jim Rose’s examples had the clarifying effect of an actual battlefield. Not quite the same as hanging around in a dusty street in yemen while the prez tells some guy with the equivalent of an X-box controller to take you out. And sorry for mistaking you for a small-govt type.
“Fuck him. A younger kid killed US SF in Afghanistan with a hand grenade. If you get in the game, you’re fair game”
Abu, great shoot him instead of getting blown up, no problem, but executing people with drones is not the same thing. Supporting that does not make you manly.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 4:49 pm
Yemen is the battlefield. So is Pakistan.
That is where the enemy is. Or would you prefer to wait until they come and make the US the battlefield?
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 4:55 pm
Abu, great shoot him instead of getting blown up, no problem,
butbecauseexecutingkillingpeoplethe enemy with drones is exactly the same thing.FTFY
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 4:58 pm
Who cares how? Crush your enemies and put their heads on pikes. Drones are for those hard to reach cowards in tribal regions that even the local law fears to enter.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 4:58 pm
jupes, The battlefield is world-wide as is the application of the 9/11 authorisation to use military force. The president’s duty to repel armed attacks is inherent to his office.
Remember, jet fighters patrolled US air space on 9/11 and afterwards to shoot down highjacked and other aircraft, if necessary. people resist highjackers nowdays in the US because they do not want to be blown-up or shot-down
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 5:15 pm
The issue is not (or shouldn’t be) location, method or citizenship; but target identification. If it’s an enemy, whether or not also a citizen, then it’s a legitimate target.
Target identification and designation is historically an executive decision, usually made at a low level using criteria (ROE) set at a high level.
The real point is that there is zero oversight of target identification and verification; and the drone circumstances suggest that maybe there should be. Underlying this is the fact that legitimate acts of war become indistinguishable (to the observer) from extra-judicial execution. Added to that is that we don’t (or at least I don’t) trust Obama to make the right decisions, for the right reasons.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 5:17 pm
see http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/house-judiciary-committee-written-statements-for-tomorrows-hearing/ for
The House Committee on the Judiciary has released the written statements of its four witnesses for its hearings on “Drones and the War on Terror: When Can the U.S. Targeted Alleged American Terrorists Overseas?”
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 5:20 pm
Jupes, I’d prefer the executive doesn’t become executioner. Obviously this is now a pointless discussion. You either believe in small govt ideals or you don’t.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 5:22 pm
from http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wittes-02272013.pdf
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 5:28 pm
I for one don’t care. But having said that it is pretty obvious to me they are killing the right people.
Nor do I, but credit where it is due. There are far too many constraints in war these days. It’s a good thing when they are loosened a little.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 5:29 pm
When it’s Johnny Reb coming across the cornfield with the musket then target identification is a bit of a cinch. Ditto for the guy in the turret of the tiger tank. Defining alleged terrorists as enemies is one of those things that can go way wrong. But Cato, I wouldn’t trust any president to make the right decisions.
Jim Rose, the argument is not about what is, but what should be.
Pedro
8 Mar 13 at 5:32 pm
I too believe in small govt ideals.
I also believe in waging war to win and keeping the legal profession as far away from that as possible.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 5:39 pm
So is Abdul the cleric speaking into his mobile.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 5:42 pm
Ditto.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 6:23 pm
That is the whole point. Do we trust the executive to make these decisions? If not, then who?
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 6:36 pm
The military.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 6:38 pm
OK, that’s who traditionally does that part of the job, I’m good with that.
So who writes the ROE?
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 6:49 pm
High tech communications has meant that battlefield tactical decisions have been removed from field commanders to an ever increasing higher level, in the US case all the way to the President.
This is not necessarily a good thing.
Pedro the Ignorant
8 Mar 13 at 6:51 pm
It fucking insane. Ever since LBJ tried to issue real time orders to chopper pilots in Viet Nam, there is a real risk that a Commander in Chief with delusions of adequacy will go outside the chain of command and fuck things up. Leave it to the professionals.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 6:56 pm
The equivalent bloke who wrote the WW2 ROE.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 6:56 pm
I agree. Give it to the field commanders.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 6:58 pm
In other words, the executive.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 6:59 pm
In that case I’m OK with that. They got it right then, and as far as drone attacks are concerned they have got it spot on as well.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 7:04 pm
Cato the Elder, on who to trust to give the order, I remind you of my post:
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 7:37 pm
In that case I’m OK with that. They got it right then, and as far as drone attacks are concerned they have got it spot on as well.
Blowing up children deliberately as the primary target (not as “collateral damage” ) is “spot on”? Killing a just turned sixteen year old child because his father is a terrorist leader violates all accepted Rules of War. It might have passed muster during the Trojan War but that such barbarity is acceptable to the US President shows that the Drone Warfare program is out of control, with no oversight or accountability.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 8:16 pm
Wrong.
The current situation is that if the US President happens to decide you might look like you are taking up arms, you can expect to be shot.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 8:19 pm
Not without first labelling them as combatants… a trivial unilateral action, without oversight or review.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 8:24 pm
I read it JR and agreed with it.
What I am trying to tease out is what I got from Jupes: –
The on the spot decision should be delegated to the appropriate level of military command. They will be accountable through their chain of command if they don’t follow the ROE.
The ROE is legally set by the executive. They are accountable politically (but not legally) if they over step. They will be accountable legally if and only if they set ROE that are illegal.
Which brings us to the various Geneva Conventions, the ICC and similar issues. And the USA (rightly IMO) won’t surrender sovereignty to those totalitarian unrepresentative fucks.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 8:25 pm
You have a quaint idea of what it means to be 16 years old in Yemen.
Abu Chowdah
8 Mar 13 at 8:27 pm
I have to say that I find it a little disconcerting that some people think that how we fight in war doesn’t matter so long as we win.
dover_beach
8 Mar 13 at 8:39 pm
I also believe in waging war to win and keeping the legal profession as far away from that as possible.
But I repeat myself.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 9:08 pm
You have a quaint idea of what it means to be 16 years old in Yemen.
OK, it’s true. I have the quaint belief that nobody should be executed without trial and conviction. I have the quaint belief that individuals are responsible for their own actions, not those of their relatives. Even in a state of war, I have objections to unarmed children being targeted, blown up when they are not actively engaged in military activities. I also have the quaint belief that if a government decides on a program of targeted assassinations as deliberate state policy that it be introduced with a system of checks and balances stronger than that the Executive branch thinks that killing “Citizen X” is a good idea.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 9:10 pm
Of course if that child is waging war.
What would have been your recommendation if you had faced the The 12th SS Panzer Division otherwise known as the Hitler Youth division during WW2?
Hand out lollypops perhaps?
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 9:14 pm
No one has said that here. This is what I said:
War is a serious business. There is no point entering into it unless you are serious about winning. That being the case, the military should be free from constraints that prevent it from doing so.
That doesn’t mean that the army should have a licence to rape the women of the defeated nation as the Soviets did in WW2 for example. But it also doesn’t mean that victory is put at risk because there is a risk that enemy civilians may be killed.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 9:27 pm
Enlisted troops in Hitler jugend were born in 1926, so would have been 18 by the time committed to battle in 1944.
What’s the supposed big deal between 16 and 18? In our culture and at this time, 18 is adult. In other cultures and at other times in our culture, boys were regarded as adult at much younger ages. The question is whether or not he was a combatant and therefore a legitimate target, not how old he was.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 9:28 pm
CH
Why do you see this as an extra-judicial execution, rather than as an act of war?
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
Of course if that child is waging war.
Well, there you go. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, whilst the son of a traitor, was not engaged in any form of military, terrorist or insurgent activity before or during the drone attack that took his life. There have been no allegations or evidence of terrorist or combatant-like activity by this individual. You’ve abandoned any moral compass if you countenance the killing of non-combatants just because they’re related to an Al Qaeda warlord. If Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a proven militant, then his death could be justified. There is no justification for the death of this child.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 9:33 pm
in the last days of world war 2, hitler youth were sent to the front and to defend berlin. they were boys with guns and grenades.
child soldiers are common in africa too.
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 9:37 pm
BTW, Miller covered the Drones pretty well.
http://millergd.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/wrestling-out-drones-in.html
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 9:37 pm
Be careful for what you wish for when demanding strict compliance by Obama with international law.
Bush 43 – the big softie that he was – stayed his hand on the long-standing international law stating that francs tireurs, upon capture, can be subjected to a field court martial and summary execution. This included David Hicks.
combatants are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that:
• they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates,
• have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,
• carry arms openly, and
• conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Francs-tireurs that do not conduct themselves in according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention are liable to field court-martial and execution.
The purpose of international humanitarian law is to ensure strict differentiation between civilians and combatants and provide for the detention and treatment of those captured.
The requirement to carry weapons openly, dress in some sort of uniform etc. is to ensure that the enemy is easy to distinguish from afar so that troops do not get trigger happy around civilians and refugees. This is the fundamental purpose of international humanitarian law: save civilians from the fighting.
Severe punishment was allowed for spies, saboteurs, infiltrators, francs-tireurs and guerrillas so that not carrying their weapons openly and not dressing in a recognisable uniform is a self-inflected death sentence.
In the Battle of the Bulge, the Nazi infiltrators in American uniforms lost interest in their missions once the first few who were captured were court-martialed and shot the next dawn
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 9:45 pm
I would have thought that most every war was an example of extra-judicial execution, how else would you go about fighting one?
That’s somewhat beside the point, because war is State vs State, but terrorism is a State vs a loose-knit bunch of individuals. There’s a good reason why soldiers make for a poor quality police force. There are also good reasons for all those annoying checks and balances, juries, appeals, evidence, witnesses, cross-examination and the rest of that stuff.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
The fact that Hicks was accepted into the ranks of al-Qaeda (or the Taliban) does not say much for their standards for recruitment and background checks or their fighting effectiveness.
You wonder about the quality of the terrorist wanbees they turned away?
I was surprised al-Qaeda or the Taliban did not shoot him out of hand as a spy.
p.s. having the likes of Hicks in al-Qaeda or the Taliban is a distinct plus in terms of degrading their combat readiness.
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
Tel, wars of national liberation and revolutions must be denounced and opposed by the Left because they also involve one or more extra-judicial executions.
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 9:50 pm
Why do you see this as an extra-judicial execution, rather than as an act of war?
Now that strategic bombing is out of favour, Acts of war generally take place in a war zone with people shooting back at you. Drones flying around launching missile strikes are instead a form of targeted assassination, conducted in cold blood, sometimes directed at non-combatants. Killing non-combatants deliberately infringes the ROE, I would have thought. If an action is outside civilized rules of engagement, then they’re not legitimate acts of war.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 9:52 pm
Lol.
Of course he wasn’t. He was just a naughty boy.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 9:55 pm
Fighting Hitler Jugend or child soldiers in Africa is within the Rules of Engagement because they’re combatants. Nobody has any problems with engaging and killing combatants. Drone strikes, however, because they are carried out remotely, should conform to their ROE’s and be subject to greater oversight and accountability than they have hitherto now.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 9:57 pm
Compliance with US law would be a pretty big step.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 9:59 pm
No. War is defending the state against those who would want to destroy it. Hence we have ‘civil war’.
In war these things should only appear after victory when prosecuting the surviving enemy.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
wrong. you can attack the enemy forces and supply lines anywhere at any time without any attempt to capture.
The United States has the right, as a nation, to use force to defend itself. this right applies not only after a nation has suffered an attack, but also in anticipation of an attack.
Obama acquired legal authority for drone warfare from the Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks. Every member of the enemy forces and leadership are a legitimate target in war regardless of whether they can be caught or pose an imminent threat.
Bush made it clear on the afternoon of 9/11 that no distiction will be made between al-Qaida and those that harbour them
The U.S military should hunt and destroy pirates and their support networks “wherever” a commander “shall find them,” in Thomas Jefferson’s words.
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
I don’t believe “the left” is sufficient identification of anyone in particular, so I cannot address your demand of “must”.
A revolution is only beneficial when the government of the day is so amazingly bad and corrupt that the circumstance is irredeemable. That certainly is not the case in Australia, nor the US, nor Europe at the moment. Peaceful means (where possible) are obviously a better way to solve problems.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 10:03 pm
wrong. you can attack the enemy forces and supply lines anywhere at any time without any attempt to capture.
True enough, provided an activity is sanctioned by the Rules of Engagement, then it is a legitimate act of war. Deliberately targeting non-combatants without a greater strategic purpose though, is generally regarded as a war crime.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 10:05 pm
Rubbish, when President Kennedy was assassinated it was hardly a “civil war”, it was a criminal action.
If the due process that holds the State together is abolished, then the State just destroys itself. Game over.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 10:05 pm
Except you. Who are you gunna believe, the ACLU or US Intelligence with the technological means?
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 10:07 pm
Spot on. Why would anyone think otherwise?
True. And may I add, if the state doesn’t defend itself from its enemies it will also be destroyed.
jupes
8 Mar 13 at 10:12 pm
see http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 10:13 pm
Jupes the onus of proof lay with your school of thought, to demonstrate that he was a militant before they killed him. Because drone strikes are so easy, the burden of proof, ROEs and monitoring and accountability of the program should conform to higher standards.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 10:15 pm
jupes, using a military offensive and declaration of war to fight against criminal activity is simply the wrong tool for the job. It’s much like using a hatchet to swat a mosquito while it is biting you on the cheek.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 10:16 pm
As I’ve said elsewhere, on the good side, drone technology makes warfare cheap, convenient, low risk and efficient.
However, on the bad side, drone technology makes warfare cheap, convenient, low risk and efficient.
Believe it or not, one guy has asked me to explain what I meant by that.
Tel
8 Mar 13 at 10:19 pm
what would have you done on 9/11?
Jim Rose
8 Mar 13 at 10:21 pm
Except you. Who are you gunna believe, the ACLU or US Intelligence with the technological means?
The Administration has had no qualms at leaking the details and justification for the father’s death by drone. The fact that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s execution has resulted in a wall of silence indicates that here the ACLU has the facts on their side.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 10:24 pm
drone technology makes warfare cheap, convenient, low risk and efficient.
I have no problems with a competently run and stringently monitored drone assassination program directed at legitimate targets. However, because drone attacks are so efficient and low risk, the rules of engagement should be tightened to reduce/eliminate collateral casualties, especially the deaths of non-combatants and children. Given that there is no defence against a drone attack, another opportunity to strike will inevitably present itself. By engaging in the current program, with what seems minimal oversight and accountability, the current Administration has abandoned civilised norms in a counter-productive campaign that will only fan greater hostility to the west.
Cold-Hands
8 Mar 13 at 10:34 pm
NB “lawful penalty” implies an offence, which implies due process
A killing as part of a war is not any kind of an execution. Nor is it any kind of murder. It’s a separate category. No offence, no penalty, no due process.
In a war, enemy = legitimate target. Non-enemy = “Oops”, or murder, depending on the circumstances.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 10:37 pm
That’s the key.
I suspect (without evidence) that the fact that the CIA runs the armed drone program means they are running on “spook-think” rather than “military-think”. They won’t admit anything, not necessarily because they have done wrong (although they may have) but because institutionally the spooks never comment on operational matters. The Administration will comment when it suits them to make a political point, the CIA, never.
It’s a bit of a pity the US Air Force’s love affair with piloted aircraft led to them refusing to operate an armed drone program, it finished up with the CIA by default.
To get this on a proper war footing (rather than a spook footing):
* task the USAF to develop an armed drone program
* transfer some or all of the current CIA drones and pilots to the USAF
* run things on a proper military basis with Congressional oversight.
Cato the Elder
8 Mar 13 at 10:46 pm
So the moral obligation on us means we should sit on our hands but an enemy leader has no moral obligation to remove “children” from his close group?
Bull fucking shit. Pussies.
To repeat: a 16 year old is a man in Yemen.
Abu Chowdah
9 Mar 13 at 12:09 am
You lot still droning on?
Gab
9 Mar 13 at 12:14 am
bzzzzz bzzzz bzzzz
Cato the Elder
9 Mar 13 at 12:22 am
We’re going to be thrown out Cato for misbehaving on this thread.
Gab
9 Mar 13 at 12:24 am
I’m cool, Gab. Just enjoying laughing at the manginas.
Abu Chowdah
9 Mar 13 at 12:31 am
OK, never heard of a mangina before. Innocent little me. Didn’t need to hear of it now, not a pretty mental image.
Good insult, though
Cato the Elder
9 Mar 13 at 12:54 am
Hehe. It must be annoying when they get sand in them…
Abu Chowdah
9 Mar 13 at 1:08 am
I think you guys are being a bit to quick in dismissing Pedro’s concerns.
Sinclair Davidson
9 Mar 13 at 1:14 am
And I think Pedro is being unrealistic.
Abu Chowdah
9 Mar 13 at 1:22 am
Which guys? Not me, I want it referred to the USAF and given normal Congressional oversight.
Cato the Elder
9 Mar 13 at 1:28 am
I think Pedro’s instincts are good. We are dealing with the easy cases – but what about the hard cases? So far the bad guys getting knocked off are obviously the bad guys. How confident are we that this is where it’ll end?
Sinclair Davidson
9 Mar 13 at 1:55 am
Do you think AQ in Yemen are planning to rob a bank?
jupes
9 Mar 13 at 9:03 am