Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: U.S. Government Has Killed 4 American Citizens....1 Intentionally.

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    U.S. Government Has Killed 4 American Citizens....1 Intentionally.

    So, given the various scandals currently plaguing the Administration, this will probably go right under radar and ignored.

    But I think it's something we should be thinking about as much as any other scandal right now.

    Sure, we all agree A.A. was a terrrist, robably was planning something bad, etc. and that his illing was at least somewhat justifyable (abeit without any form of trial, for a crime of "planning" that does not in any U.S. jurisdiction carry a penalty of death).

    But we've not officially admitted to having Drone Striked three other American Citizens, not one of whom was actually a target.

    It' funny how the previous protesting folks over the War on Terror, who once so stridently defended American and human righs, now simply shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, it's War" when of course, it's not, and suddenly care little for life....as long as it's their guy putting out the kill orders.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post

    It' funny how the previous protesting folks over the War on Terror, who once so stridently defended American and human righs, now simply shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, it's War" when of course, it's not, and suddenly care little for life....as long as it's their guy putting out the kill orders.
    That's the hypocrisy of the left. I don't recall hearing Code Pink trying to place citizen arrests on Obumbles or Plagiarist Joe yet, but maybe I'm just out of the loop.

    As for killing American terrorists by drone or whatever means, I'm all for it. It's about the only accomplishment Obumbles has done right so far into his reign...

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not to be a dick, but pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left is old news.


  4. #4
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    Not to be a dick, but pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left is old news.

    True..

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,878
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan View Post
    That's the hypocrisy of the left.
    Actually, it's not hypocrisy. They're just stupid.

    Obama's Wall Street and CIA handlers knew as far back as 2008 how mentally challenged the Left is and they capitalized on it.

    "Change We Can Believe In" was something Barack Obama read off of his teleprompter and it was targeted at the gullible Democrats.


  6. #6
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet View Post
    Actually, it's not hypocrisy. They're just stupid.

    Obama's Wall Street and CIA handlers knew as far back as 2008 how mentally challenged the Left is and they capitalized on it.

    "Change We Can Believe In" was something Barack Obama read off of his teleprompter and it was targeted at the gullible Democrats.

    So you're saying the unwashed clingers in flyover are smarter than your average liberal?

    Who knew....

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So, given the various scandals currently plaguing the Administration, this will probably go right under radar and ignored.

    But I think it's something we should be thinking about as much as any other scandal right now.

    Sure, we all agree A.A. was a terrrist, robably was planning something bad, etc. and that his illing was at least somewhat justifyable (abeit without any form of trial, for a crime of "planning" that does not in any U.S. jurisdiction carry a penalty of death).

    But we've not officially admitted to having Drone Striked three other American Citizens, not one of whom was actually a target.

    It' funny how the previous protesting folks over the War on Terror, who once so stridently defended American and human righs, now simply shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, it's War" when of course, it's not, and suddenly care little for life....as long as it's their guy putting out the kill orders.

    Fine line here. Ethics comes into play. If you abandon your country, pick up arms and fight Americans, why shouldn't you be fair game? What's the difference between being killed by a drone or a Special Ops team put on the ground?
    I think you forfeit rights if you cross over. And most times it's easier to kill than capture - from a tactical standpoint and from a potential manpower loss standpoint.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anybody else see this a diversion attempt? The administration has been awfully forthcoming this past week.

    "Forget about the IRS, We are killing Americans"

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry, but this post deserves a serious fisking

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So, given the various scandals currently plaguing the Administration, this will probably go right under radar and ignored.

    But I think it's something we should be thinking about as much as any other scandal right now.

    Sure, we all agree A.A. was a terrrist, robably was planning something bad, etc. and that his illing was at least somewhat justifyable (abeit without any form of trial, for a crime of "planning" that does not in any U.S. jurisdiction carry a penalty of death).
    OK, so Anwar al Awlaki was in fact a terrorist, had been involved in attacks against the US and civilian targets, and was likely planning more.

    And your trouble is that he was killed without trial?

    Terror attacks against civilians or attacks on government institutions or soldiers aren't "crimes" - or at least, they aren't "crimes" to be treated the same way as a murder or a bank robbery. They are acts of war. Criminal in that they are acts of war which violate the laws of war, but violating the laws of war does not remove the act from the category of an act of war, nor does it immunize the actor from being treated as any other combatant in a war.

    In war, you kill opposing combatants, unless they can be captured with minimal risk to the objective and safety of your combatants. (I.e. if they are surrendering, or weaponless and cornered, you must attempt to capture rather than kill).

    al Awlaki was not in a position in which his capture was a feasible option. Therefore, he could - and should, and was - legally be killed.

    Whether it was done by drone or by manned aircraft or by boots on the ground is wholly irrelevant to that.

    But we've not officially admitted to having Drone Striked three other American Citizens, not one of whom was actually a target.
    You are suggesting that three American citizens were killed as collateral damage in strikes on other targets. To which I say "so what"?

    The citizenship of the people killed is completely irrelevant to the legality (and morality) of the strikes. If the strikes were called in based on legally justifiable intelligence as to the validity of the target, the possibility of collateral damage was taken into account and the advantage gained by the strike sufficiently significant to warrant such damage, and the likelihood of collateral damage was minimized to the extent possible, then the fact that non-targets were killed has no bearing on the legality or morality of the strikes. Nor does the citizenship of those non-targets.

    Bringing it up tells me only that you either don't know, don't understand the basis for, or don't care about the laws of war.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Sorry, but this post deserves a serious fisking



    OK, so Anwar al Awlaki was in fact a terrorist, had been involved in attacks against the US and civilian targets, and was likely planning more.

    And your trouble is that he was killed without trial?

    Terror attacks against civilians or attacks on government institutions or soldiers aren't "crimes" - or at least, they aren't "crimes" to be treated the same way as a murder or a bank robbery. They are acts of war. Criminal in that they are acts of war which violate the laws of war, but violating the laws of war does not remove the act from the category of an act of war, nor does it immunize the actor from being treated as any other combatant in a war.

    In war, you kill opposing combatants, unless they can be captured with minimal risk to the objective and safety of your combatants. (I.e. if they are surrendering, or weaponless and cornered, you must attempt to capture rather than kill).

    al Awlaki was not in a position in which his capture was a feasible option. Therefore, he could - and should, and was - legally be killed.

    Whether it was done by drone or by manned aircraft or by boots on the ground is wholly irrelevant to that.



    You are suggesting that three American citizens were killed as collateral damage in strikes on other targets. To which I say "so what"?

    The citizenship of the people killed is completely irrelevant to the legality (and morality) of the strikes. If the strikes were called in based on legally justifiable intelligence as to the validity of the target, the possibility of collateral damage was taken into account and the advantage gained by the strike sufficiently significant to warrant such damage, and the likelihood of collateral damage was minimized to the extent possible, then the fact that non-targets were killed has no bearing on the legality or morality of the strikes. Nor does the citizenship of those non-targets.

    Bringing it up tells me only that you either don't know, don't understand the basis for, or don't care about the laws of war.

    Whoa. Did they have courses in military action at Columbia? You are right on. Perfectly stated, as if you were well schooled in combat ethics (they do exist actually).
    Your point, he could - and should - be killed is a classic correct ethical argument BTW.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Whoa. Did they have courses in military action at Columbia? You are right on. Perfectly stated, as if you were well schooled in combat ethics (they do exist actually).
    Your point, he could - and should - be killed is a classic correct ethical argument BTW.
    Thanks. Actually, I did take a course in international peacekeeping and war in my last year of law school - but my views on this were formed long before then. Unfortunately, anyone with family or friends in Israel (let alone the IDF) has to do some serious thinking about terrorism, the laws of war, incentives and disincentives, and other issues that go into those judgments.

    For example, Glenn Greenwald decided to post on twitter - and then write in the Guardian - demanding an explanation of how the London attack (on a soldier) could be terrorism and western attacks in arab lands are not. The answer is actually fairly obvious (and not the one Greenwald flogs, that "terrorism is just a word for what happens to us"): an attack on a combatant is terrorism when the attack is made not for the military advantage of eliminating the combatant (individually or generically) but in order to spark panic so as to influence policy. Had these guys walked to the camera and said "we are going to continue killing british soldiers until we defeat the british army" it would not have been terrorism; merely a particularly stupid act of war. Because they were making a political statement, not engaging in a military act, it is terrorism.

    Same goes for Fort Hood.

    And the same principle explains why US conduct in, say, Shock and Awe was not terrorism (despite Greenwald's contrary claims): those were military assaults with a military objective.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    BTW, along the same lines, I've said repeatedly that attacks on US soldiers or army bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, no matter how they are carried out, should not be described as terror attacks. Because they aren't. They are, in some cases, war crimes. But they are military attacks with a military goal on military personnel. Hence, not terrorism.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Sorry, but this post deserves a serious fisking
    What is a fisking?

    OK, so Anwar al Awlaki was in fact a terrorist, had been involved in attacks against the US and civilian targets, and was likely planning more.

    And your trouble is that he was killed without trial?
    Yes.

    Terror attacks against civilians or attacks on government institutions or soldiers aren't "crimes" - or at least, they aren't "crimes" to be treated the same way as a murder or a bank robbery. They are acts of war.
    I do not agree with you.

    The President, pre-being elected did not agree with you.

    Almost no Democrat in America pre-2008 agreed with you.

    Terrorism is not War. It's crime. Unless it's is organized and carried out by a Nation State.

    Your position is not terribly different from that of Austria-Hungary circa 1914. Difference is, Princip DID have some direct ties to a Nation State. AQ does not.

    Planning is also materially different from being currently engaged in.

    For example, I may plan a bank robbery where I will use a handgun.

    The Police have no right to storm my house and shoot me on sight for planning such an event.

    If I were DOING said event, yes. But planning, no.

    Criminal in that they are acts of war which violate the laws of war, but violating the laws of war does not remove the act from the category of an act of war, nor does it immunize the actor from being treated as any other combatant in a war.
    You are suggesting that three American citizens were killed as collateral damage in strikes on other targets. To which I say "so what"?
    So what....if they were your kids?

    The citizenship of the people killed is completely irrelevant to the legality (and morality) of the strikes.
    I beg to differ. Our Government has no right to kill us without due process, accidentally or otherwise.

    Your sudden strong lurch to the cold, hard Bush/Obama warhawk way is quite suprising to me, I have to admit.

    In effect, your a far more wordy far mroe educated PlumberKhan now.....saying, in effect, **** um', kill um' all and let Allah sort um' out. It's WAR baby, WAR! Get your bomb n' Drones on! Wheeeeeee haaaaaa!

    I never EVER thought I'd read that kind of position from you of all people.

    If the strikes were called in based on legally justifiable intelligence as to the validity of the target, the possibility of collateral damage was taken into account and the advantage gained by the strike sufficiently significant to warrant such damage, and the likelihood of collateral damage was minimized to the extent possible, then the fact that non-targets were killed has no bearing on the legality or morality of the strikes. Nor does the citizenship of those non-targets
    If.

    If.

    Problem with "If" is....we (the people) don't know, and never will.

    If thats a power you wish to give your Government, to kill it's citizens without due process and without any form of requried proof being provided, and whomever is nearby too bad for them.......well, I will stand in opposition to you on that.

    Bringing it up tells me only that you either don't know, don't understand the basis for, or don't care about the laws of war.
    Thank you for the talk-down lesson old friend.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    What is a fisking?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

    I do not agree with you.
    Take that as read and understood You're wrong, though.

    The President, pre-being elected did not agree with you.
    And he was wrong then, as well. Happily, he's figured that out.

    Almost no Democrat in America pre-2008 agreed with you.
    Then almost no Democrat in America pre-2008 was right on this issue. (Though tbqh, it's just as likely that their initial opposition was the product of knee jerk anti-Bush reaction and their current position the real one as the opposite)

    Terrorism is not War. It's crime. Unless it's is organized and carried out by a Nation State.
    That's quite the pronouncement. On what do you base it? The dictionary (which defines war as "a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.") disagrees. There's nothing inherent in the definition of war that requires that it be carried out by a nation state, and no reason that a non-state actor engaging in conduct that would be an act of war were it engaged in by a state actor ought to be treated any differently than that hypothetical state actor.

    Your position is not terribly different from that of Austria-Hungary circa 1914. Difference is, Princip DID have some direct ties to a Nation State. AQ does not.
    Not quite. Pretextually or not, Austria-Hungary used Princip as a basis to levy war on Serbia, and the legalities and wisdom of doing so is certainly open to legitimate question. But in terms of how Austria-Hungary ought to have dealt with Princip himself, or members of his organization were they operating from within another state, it had every right and authority to treat them as it would soldiers of another nation in terms of killing where capture was unavailable (as opposed to, say, a police officer tracking a bank robber, who unequivocally cannot shoot to kill merely because the robber is about to escape).

    Planning is also materially different from being currently engaged in.
    Not particularly relevant to a party to an ongoing conflict.

    For example, I may plan a bank robbery where I will use a handgun.

    The Police have no right to storm my house and shoot me on sight for planning such an event.

    If I were DOING said event, yes. But planning, no.
    Sure. However, if you are a member of the general staff of an army, planning an assault against my border and having already engaged in acts of war, I am perfectly within my rights to shoot you stone dead before you actually launch the attack.

    Because the rules of war are different from the rules of crime fighting.

    And the fact that you are engaging in identical conduct on behalf of a trans-national group rather than on behalf of a nation state changes neither the nature of that conduct nor my rights in response to it.

    So what....if they were your kids?
    I would be devastated. The strike would still be legal.

    Personal isn't the same as important. Painful isn't the same as immoral. The laws of war are what they are because they appropriately recognize that more restrictive rules of engagement hand the day to the folks who are willing to break them - and therefore all but require that they be broken. Overly restrictive rules of engagement are, in the long run, as useless and immoral (in effect) as having no rules of engagement.

    I beg to differ. Our Government has no right to kill us without due process, accidentally or otherwise.
    Really? So when a bank robber (to use your example) is in the process of robbing the bank, threatening with a weapon, the police cannot shoot him before trial? How about an American citizen, on the battlefield, actively engaged in combat on behalf of the enemy

    The reality is that our government does have the right, in certain very limited circumstances, to kill us without due process. Those circumstances include when we are engaged in an act which, for a non-american citizen or, say, a member of the Iranian Republican Guard, you agree would entitle the armed forces to kill the individual.

    Your sudden strong lurch to the cold, hard Bush/Obama warhawk way is quite suprising to me, I have to admit.
    I've always held this position. Articulated it and defended it in every discussion of this issue, whether it was in the "what is Bush doing" phase or the "what is Israel doing" phase or the current "Obama the hypocrite!" phase.
    In effect, your a far more wordy far mroe educated PlumberKhan now.....saying, in effect, **** um', kill um' all and let Allah sort um' out. It's WAR baby, WAR! Get your bomb n' Drones on! Wheeeeeee haaaaaa!

    I never EVER thought I'd read that kind of position from you of all people.
    No. Absolutely not. I'm simply applying the same standard I apply to any military operation - if it's not backed by sufficient evidence, if it's not sufficiently targeted, then it's a war crime, and the people who authorized it ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    If.

    If.

    Problem with "If" is....we (the people) don't know, and never will.

    If thats a power you wish to give your Government, to kill it's citizens without due process and without any form of requried proof being provided, and whomever is nearby too bad for them.......well, I will stand in opposition to you on that.
    It's the same set of "ifs" that apply in any military action. And my level of trust is the same - trust that decent human beings will make decent choices, and that if and when they fail to (and someone inevitably does), the truth will come to light and the guilty will be punished and prosecuted.


    Thank you for the talk-down lesson old friend.
    Didn't recognize you in your new suit

    Honestly - you're right, and I apologize. Bit of stress at home (my ex is a lunatic, and physically pulled my son away while he was saying good night to me a few days ago) but that's no excuse.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    In effect, your a far more wordy far mroe educated PlumberKhan now.....
    *more


    saying, in effect, **** um', kill um' all and let Allah sort um' out. It's WAR baby, WAR! Get your bomb n' Drones on! Wheeeeeee haaaaaa!
    Drones kick ass.

    I'd love to see the look on the a**hats face when he starts to hear the buzzing drone. "But but but but. I'm an American citizen. You can't do that."

    Then BOOM!

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Take that as read and understood You're wrong, though.
    Wouldn't be the first time.

    I suppose I should say "I believe..." because even if I am wrong in the Law, I would have to maintain some level of disagreement with the Law regardless.

    That's quite the pronouncement. On what do you base it? The dictionary (which defines war as "a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." disagrees)
    World History of War before ~1970 or so, which was dominated by Nation State vs Nation State conflict, where the actions of individuals was not generally considered "War" unless it was directly by a Nation State.

    More, I've come to the old Bitonti position on Terrorism. If it's a State, War (real War, not cops playing War) is appropriate, and a formal declaration of War, with stated War aims, should be issued. If it's a non-Nation State actor or group, I do not believe "War" and the many things (including loss of rights for citizens) come with it are appropriate, with exception of course.

    Lets be clear, the single largest group fighting Terrorism today is not the U.S. Millitary. It's the FBI, a domestic law enforcement agency.

    Not quite. Pretextually or not, Austria-Hungary used Princip as a basis to levy war on Serbia, and the legalities and wisdom of doing so is certainly open to legitimate question.
    To say the least.

    But they did not immediately wage war. They wroe a letter demanding Serbia renounce it's sovreign rghts and law enforcement powers inside it's own nation to A-H or else, because they (A-H) were de facto declaring War on an ideology, siad ideal being Serbian Nationalism.

    As you may recall, it didn't work out very well for A-H, nor were they ever able to snuff out the ideal they went to War against.

    But in terms of how Austria-Hungary ought to have dealt with Princip himself, or members of his organization were they operating from within another state, it had every right and authority to treat them as it would soldiers of another nation in terms of killing where capture was unavailable.
    Which is almost word for word the position of Austria-Hungary in their letter of "do it or else" that directly led to WWI.

    However, if you are a member of the general staff of an army, planning an assault against my border and having already engaged in acts of war, I am perfectly within my rights to shoot you stone dead before you actually launch the attack.
    I don't see the equivalency honestly. In my opinion, the "kill um' all" doctrine is one of convenience and political expediency. Our current administration has discovered that Americans andthe World getpissed off when you imprison a terrorist, but make very little comment is you simply kill him outright.

    If true, a group of robbers planning an armed robbery could have "War" levied against them, with all the things that entails, regardless of where they are in the world. What material difference exists between a group of ten terrorism who want to blow up a car, and a group foten robbers who want to rob a bank armed to the teeth? More importantly, what limits the State from treating them the same? All it takes is calling it "terror".

    Because the rules of war are different from the rules of crime fighting.
    Exactly the core of the problem in my eye, and why the transformation of terrorism into "War" is one of teh greatest threats to individal citizens rights and liberties we, as a nation, have ever faced.

    I'm suprised really, that you (who I think of as a very moral man) has effectively takes a position saying citizenship carries with it no rights of any kind IF the State calls you a terrorist (proof not required to be presented publicly), and they can kill you anywhere on earth at their leisure ad discretion for ANY act they say is terrorism.

    Can you see why I'd be wary of providing the State that level of unchecked power and authority without any publicly provided validation/casius belli for what they've done?

    I would be devastated. The strike would still be legal.
    You may be right, probably are.

    That does not make it moral or right in my eyes.

    Strictly speaking, the exact same argument was used totorture terrorists as well.

    The laws of war are what they are because they appropriately recognize that more restrictive rules of engagement hand the day to the folks who are willing to break them - and therefore all but require that they be broken. Overly restrictive rules of engagement are, in the long run, as useless and immoral (in effect) as having no rules of engagement.
    One small problem. Terrorism will never end, ever. Just like Communism will never end. Racism will never end. You cannot wage a war on an ideology with an army.

    Thus, if we follow your line of reasoning, we must grant the State eternal War Powers, and teh citizen an eternal loss of civil and human rights that goes along with "War".

    I reject such an idea as abhorant worse even that the terrorsm itself.

    Really? So when a bank robber (to use your example) is in the process of robbing the bank, threatening with a weapon, the police cannot shoot him before trial?
    Yes, they can. They cannot shoot him if he's sitting at a desk planning the robbery with no gun in his hand at the time.

    The reality is that our government does have the right, in certain very limited circumstances, to kill us without due process.
    Well, we can agree to disagreeon how good an idea that is, in the circumstances I am specificly discussing here (which is not "fighting on a battleield durign a War", which is obviously ok in my book).

    No. Absolutely not. I'm simply applying the same standard I apply to any military operation - if it's not backed by sufficient evidence, if it's not sufficiently targeted, then it's a war crime, and the people who authorized it ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
    And with no public disclosure, how can we know it was a War Crime?

    It's the same set of "ifs" that apply in any military action. And my level of trust is the same - trust that decent human beings will make decent choices, and that if and when they fail to (and someone inevitably does), the truth will come to light and the guilty will be punished and prosecuted.
    IMO thats as naive a statement. Human history does not support it IMO, quite the contrary, in the course of human history men have consitently made indecent decisions, covered them up with power, and never faced repurcussion for them. Just look at Nazi germany for an easy example....we hanged what, a dozen men? When there were hundreds of thousands that deserved far, FAR worse. Hell, we employed a few hundred of them ourselves here in the U.S.

    No, I don't trust nearly so much in the inherant decentcy of man, or the inevitbllity of teh truth winning out, certainly not today.

    Didn't recognize you in your new suit
    Well, seems people know me no matter the nom de plume round here, to my dissapointment as I was hoping to be a bit more anonymous (and will be with the next name be assured).

    Honestly - you're right, and I apologize. Bit of stress at home (my ex is a lunatic, and physically pulled my son away while he was saying good night to me a few days ago) but that's no excuse.
    No apology required my friend, and I wish you the best of luck with the stuff at home, thats always tough. Please don't take my disagreement as insult.
    Last edited by Churchill; 05-24-2013 at 10:21 AM.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    What is a fisking?



    Yes.



    I do not agree with you.

    The President, pre-being elected did not agree with you.

    Almost no Democrat in America pre-2008 agreed with you.

    Terrorism is not War. It's crime. Unless it's is organized and carried out by a Nation State.

    Your position is not terribly different from that of Austria-Hungary circa 1914. Difference is, Princip DID have some direct ties to a Nation State. AQ does not.

    Planning is also materially different from being currently engaged in.

    For example, I may plan a bank robbery where I will use a handgun.

    The Police have no right to storm my house and shoot me on sight for planning such an event.

    If I were DOING said event, yes. But planning, no.





    So what....if they were your kids?



    I beg to differ. Our Government has no right to kill us without due process, accidentally or otherwise.

    Your sudden strong lurch to the cold, hard Bush/Obama warhawk way is quite suprising to me, I have to admit.

    In effect, your a far more wordy far mroe educated PlumberKhan now.....saying, in effect, **** um', kill um' all and let Allah sort um' out. It's WAR baby, WAR! Get your bomb n' Drones on! Wheeeeeee haaaaaa!

    I never EVER thought I'd read that kind of position from you of all people.



    If.

    If.

    Problem with "If" is....we (the people) don't know, and never will.

    If thats a power you wish to give your Government, to kill it's citizens without due process and without any form of requried proof being provided, and whomever is nearby too bad for them.......well, I will stand in opposition to you on that.



    Thank you for the talk-down lesson old friend.
    Due Process is not limited to US citizens. It's not relevant to only US citizens. We are either at war or we aren't. If we aren't the same due process should apply to anyone anywhere in the world regardless of citizenship.

    George Bush ran as a none interventionist prior to his election. 9/11 changed that. The President unlike a candidate has to deal with the reality of war.

    We are at war these were enemy combatants it hardly matters what their citizenship was.

  18. #18
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,007
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    That's quite the pronouncement. On what do you base it? The dictionary (which defines war as "a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.") disagrees. There's nothing inherent in the definition of war that requires that it be carried out by a nation state, and no reason that a non-state actor engaging in conduct that would be an act of war were it engaged in by a state actor ought to be treated any differently than that hypothetical state actor.
    I prefer the Merriam-Webster definition:
    1
    a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
    b : the art or science of warfare
    c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
    2
    a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
    b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
    c : variance, odds 3
    It includes the vague (and terrible from the standpoint of law) definition you cited, however the first definition (and the one that is consistent with everything Church-fish has posted thus far) seems more relevant to the argument.

    Hell using your definition every single armed criminal element that has been in "prolonged" conflict with law enforcement is at war with the the US. Should we be using drones to kill gang members in Chicago? If not, what is your differentiating principle?

    Or we can just use the 2nd MW definition, in which Pats fans and Jets fans are at war.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,900
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Terrorism is not War. It's crime. Unless it's is organized and carried out by a Nation State.
    +1

    A perpetual state of war against an ideology is a dangerous proposition which can and will lead to abuses of authority and power. It's inevitable, and in all honesty, it has already begun. The country has become too accepting of sacrificing liberty in the name of security.

    It's incredibly troubling that the executive branch of the government can unilaterally label an American citizen as a terrorist and perform an assassination without any type of charges, evidence, or oversight. It's quite ignorant to not see the disastrous precedent of these actions.

    I'd also like to point out that the U.S. has not officially declared war. In my mind, this makes many of the wartime law arguments null and void.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Wouldn't be the first time.

    I suppose I should say "I believe..." because even if I am wrong in the Law, I would have to maintain some level of disagreement with the Law regardless.
    Fair enough. But I think that's a discussion worth having


    World History of War before ~1970 or so, which was dominated by Nation State vs Nation State conflict, where the actions of individuals was not generally considered "War" unless it was directly by a Nation State.
    Except that's not really true, is it? For instance, civil wars don't necessarily involve two nation states (it's rare that a civil war involves secession rather than a battle for total control, and even where it does involve secession, as in the American civil war, the Confederacy wasn't a nation state).

    Is Syria involved in a war right now? What Nation State is it fighting? If not, is it limited to police tactics in fighting the folks fighting it? (Note: Syria's regime is awful, repressive, and hopefully will die a quick death some day soon, and Syria will hopefully - though it's unlikely, sad to say - move forward as a better place for its citizens. That said, the rules and laws applicable to combat of the sort being engaged in in Syria apply to regimes good and bad, and are not dependent on a moral judgment of the government currently in place).

    Is Mali involved in a war? Boko Haram has claimed territory, imposed laws on the unfortunates living in the territory it controls, attacked government forces, etc. Are they limited to police actions?

    Is Israel involved in a war? When Hezbollah engages in a cross-border attack, when Palestinians fire rockets at civilian towns, is Israel limited to police tactics in response? Should it serve a warrant on the Lebanese government demanding the extradition of Hassan Nasrallah? Send detectives into Gaza?

    It's all well and good to talk of terrorism as "crime" - now explain how that plays out in terms of available responses, the likelihood of success in such responses, and what that means for terrorism as a tactic.

    Because what demanding that terrorism or other acts of war engaged in by non-state actors be responded to as crime does, with the limitations imposed by that framework, is guarantee that such acts can only be more and more successful.

    And guaranteeing success only guarantees that the acts themselves will be more and more common.

    More, I've come to the old Bitonti position on Terrorism. If it's a State, War (real War, not cops playing War) is appropriate, and a formal declaration of War, with stated War aims, should be issued. If it's a non-Nation State actor or group, I do not believe "War" and the many things (including loss of rights for citizens) come with it are appropriate, with exception of course.
    What is so special about Nation States that they are the only group actor against which War can be declared? Seriously - what is the defining characteristic of a Nation State, in your mind, that makes it appropriate and allowable to be engaged in a war against said Nation State (with all that legally implies) but not against, say, al Qaeda - a different group of individuals with a leadership structure, coherent goals, and other defining characteristics?

    Lets be clear, the single largest group fighting Terrorism today is not the U.S. Millitary. It's the FBI, a domestic law enforcement agency.
    True. But they are not the single largest group fighting terrorists.

    Part of the problem is the terribly imprecise language used in the Bush Administration (not surprising given the man's penchant for malaprops). A war on "Terror" makes no sense at all. Terror is an emotion; fighting can't really do anything about it. Same for a war on "terrorism"; you can't make war on a tactic. It makes as much sense as "The War on Flanking Maneuvers" or "The War on Propaganda".

    You can, however, engage in a war against particular terrorist groups. A "War on al Qaeda" (or Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Boko Haram, or the Janjaweed) makes exactly as much sense as a "War on Iraq"; it's a coherent term describing a conflict with a specific entity. The nature of that conflict may be different in some ways; taking territory, while important to some extent (denying training facilities, bases, etc.), obviously has less importance when fighting a transnational group than when fighting a nation state defined by geographic boundaries. (And in some cases of war between nation states, territory is all the conflict is about in the first place). But on the whole, the goals of the military action are the same: the reduction, by application of military force, of the enemy's ability to fight - destroying its men, its materiel, its supplies, its command and control structures.


    To say the least.

    But they did not immediately wage war. They wroe a letter demanding Serbia renounce it's sovreign rghts and law enforcement powers inside it's own nation to A-H or else, because they (A-H) were de facto declaring War on an ideology, siad ideal being Serbian Nationalism.
    The "war on ideology" aspect was irrelevant; what they were demanding, for whatever reason they deemed sufficient, was the annexation of Serbia.

    As you may recall, it didn't work out very well for A-H, nor were they ever able to snuff out the ideal they went to War against.
    And again, war on an ideology, idea, or ideal is an impossibility. It's not something that can or should be fought with the military. The phrases War on Serbian Nationalism or War on Islamism or War on Theoretical Physics are nonsense terms that make no sense whatsoever.

    Which is almost word for word the position of Austria-Hungary in their letter of "do it or else" that directly led to WWI.
    A letter composed with the intent that it be rejected, and which demanded things that made no sense in context.

    I don't see the equivalency honestly. In my opinion, the "kill um' all" doctrine is one of convenience and political expediency. Our current administration has discovered that Americans andthe World getpissed off when you imprison a terrorist, but make very little comment is you simply kill him outright.
    The reason you don't see the equivalency is because you are distinguishing between the army of a nation state and the military forces of a transnational group. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the nature of the difference per my questions above.


    If true, a group of robbers planning an armed robbery could have "War" levied against them, with all the things that entails, regardless of where they are in the world. What material difference exists between a group of ten terrorism who want to blow up a car, and a group foten robbers who want to rob a bank armed to the teeth? More importantly, what limits the State from treating them the same? All it takes is calling it "terror".
    The act of bank robbery is not aimed at the society itself (it certainly has societal effects, as successful bank robbery impacts the economy in myriad ways, but that is not its aim). It is not an attack on the society for the purpose of achieving a societal objective; it is a crime committed for purposes of achieving a personal objective (money, revenge, whatever).

    By the same token, not all acts of terrorism are sufficient for a declaration of war. The Burgas bombing, or the AMIA attack, for instance, would not justify Bulgaria or Argentina in declaring war on Hezbollah, because those were not acts of war against Bulgaria or Argentina. It was murder, carried out through the tactic of terrorism, and part of Hezbollah's ongoing war against Israel and Jews worldwide.

    Bottom line - it's not the tactic that justifies the war response, or even the tactic combined with the result. It's the attack on a country that allows/requires a war response - and that's true whether the tactic is airplanes dropping bombs or airplanes used as bombs.

    Exactly the core of the problem in my eye, and why the transformation of terrorism into "War" is one of teh greatest threats to individal citizens rights and liberties we, as a nation, have ever faced.

    I'm suprised really, that you (who I think of as a very moral man) has effectively takes a position saying citizenship carries with it no rights of any kind IF the State calls you a terrorist (proof not required to be presented publicly), and they can kill you anywhere on earth at their leisure ad discretion for ANY act they say is terrorism.
    First, it's not "anywhere on earth" and it's not "no rights". If you can be captured rather than killed, you must be captured rather than killed. So a missile strike is out pretty much anywhere with a functioning government and police force.

    More, I can guarantee you that the second an innocent is targeted there will be round the clock media coverage of the lawsuits (and eventually criminal prosecutions if there was reckless disregard) that follow. Cold comfort for the dead, of course - but the idea that there will be no repercussions for a cowboy government happily blowing up American citizens on the slightest of pretexts is simply not the reality.

    Can you see why I'd be wary of providing the State that level of unchecked power and authority without any publicly provided validation/casius belli for what they've done?
    Sure. In an ideal world, this is a non-issue; it's not a good thing in the abstract. It's a question of appropriately balancing the competing needs and moral imperatives.


    You may be right, probably are.

    That does not make it moral or right in my eyes.
    Again, sure. The fact that something is legal does not ipso facto make it moral. It's legal to cheat on your wife - but not moral. In the slavery era, it was legal to own other people and beat them to death - but not moral. So I'm under no illusion that the mere fact that the laws of war allow something means that thing is moral.

    But in this case, after a lot of thought, I am convinced that the rules regarding collateral damage are moral. Again, it's about incentives and conduct. Forbidding strikes when collateral damage is likely would effectively require combatants to surround military targets with civilians in order to immunize them from attack. Having done so, a law-respecting nation would be left with two choices in war: 1) lose (since you can't attack the other side's military targets) or 2) violate the laws of war and attack anyway. Either way, it all but guarantees more civilian death and destruction than a rule allowing collateral damage where the military necessity is strong enough to justify the strike and the attack is calibrated to minimize that damage to the extent possible.



    One small problem. Terrorism will never end, ever. Just like Communism will never end. Racism will never end. You cannot wage a war on an ideology with an army.
    Agreed. You can, however, wage war on a group with an army. And you can make sure that the incentives to engage in terrorism are low by limiting the effectiveness of the tactic and maximizing the danger of its use.

    Thus, if we follow your line of reasoning, we must grant the State eternal War Powers, and teh citizen an eternal loss of civil and human rights that goes along with "War".
    No. Again, it's not a war on an ideology or a tactic.
    Yes, they can. They cannot shoot him if he's sitting at a desk planning the robbery with no gun in his hand at the time.
    In other words - you agree with me that there are times that the State can take the life of a citizen without due process - you simply disagree on when. "This is not one of the times the State can do X" is a very different argument than "The State can never do X"

    Well, we can agree to disagreeon how good an idea that is, in the circumstances I am specificly discussing here (which is not "fighting on a battleield durign a War", which is obviously ok in my book).
    Exactly - that was the point I wanted to get to.

    And with no public disclosure, how can we know it was a War Crime?
    I don't agree with your premise that there would be no public disclosure in such a case. The public outcry, the congressional investigations, etc. would be enormous if an American without obvious ties to terror groups were targeted. It would make the Benghazi hearings look like a fight at the PTA.


    IMO thats as naive a statement. Human history does not support it IMO, quite the contrary, in the course of human history men have consitently made indecent decisions, covered them up with power, and never faced repurcussion for them. Just look at Nazi germany for an easy example....we hanged what, a dozen men? When there were hundreds of thousands that deserved far, FAR worse. Hell, we employed a few hundred of them ourselves here in the U.S.
    Sure. On the other hand, Nazi Germany didn't have an opposition party waiting to pounce on errors, or a free press, or an independent judiciary . . .
    Well, seems people know me no matter the nom de plume round here, to my dissapointment as I was hoping to be a bit more anonymous (and will be with the next name be assured).
    Heh. Send me a PM whenever you do that. I'll keep your cover secret, but it's nice to know who my friends are

    No apology required my friend, and I wish you the best of luck with the stuff at home, thats always tough. Please don't take my disagreement as insult.
    Never. And thanks.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us