American citizen dead in missile strike in Yemen

[lno]

See cnn.com's article. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/08/yemen.american/index.html) Some pertinent quotes, for those who choose not to view the link:Officials told CNN on Friday that they did not know Ahmed Hijazi was in the vehicle before the strike, but as one official put it, "It doesn't change anything."

"If you're an American citizen, it doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a terrorist," the official said.

Hijazi and five others who U.S. officials called suspected al Qaeda terrorists were killed by a "Hellfire" missile launched by remote control from a Predator drone. The group was traveling in the car outside the Yemeni capital, San'a.Further information is available from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/08/international/middleeast/08YEME.html) (free registration required):One sign of that shift appears to be that the F.B.I. and Justice Department, which have investigated the October 2000 bombing in Yemen of the destroyer Cole, were not consulted in advance about the Predator strike, according to government officials.I'm not claiming that the government had knowledge of Hijazi's presence in the car prior to the missile strike, but rather that this is a very unfortunate turn of events. However, as things stand, an American citizen was killed by our government, and the DoJ and FBI had no role in this whatsoever.

The debate:

Does this mean that merely on association with terrorists, or suspicion of terrorist activities, an American citizen can be assassinated by his or her own government without regard for due process? Is this part of the price of security?

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by lno

Does this mean that merely on association with terrorists, or suspicion of terrorist activities, an American citizen can be assassinated by his or her own government without regard for due process? Is this part of the price of security?

Will the government refer to this as an assassination or as a campaign in the war against terrorism? I can't imagine that they would refer to it as assassination, therefore it is a part of war. At the very least Hijazi was in a questionable position, being with enemy higher-ups. I'm not well versed in military matters, but I would guess in the past somebody in Hijazi's place would most likely have been summarily executed for collaboration.

[carnivorousplant]

Summarily excuted?

I imagine that Ashcroft is angry that we can't give this turust the ultimate sanction. Oh wait, we did.

[RickJay]

The fact that Hijazi carried American citizenship does not fundamentally change the fact that he was a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat, if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members.

Let us suppose an American citizen had joined the Kaiser's army in 1918 and fought against American forces. Let us further suppose that while he was eating his bratwurst one day behind the lines, an American artillery barrage was directed against his position. A shell lands on him and he's blown to giblets. Would anyone suggest it was wrong to bombard his position because he was an American citizen? Or do ya takes yer chances when ya joins the other side?

I am sure there are a few examples of American citizens fighting agains the United States in both World Wars, at least. Why would anyone think the armed forces should inform the FBI or the DoJ before attacking them as enemies? In warfare, it's what side you're actually fighting for, not what passport you carry.

[carnivorousplant]

Is it a good thing to have a CIA weenie in an arm chair fire a video game missile instead of having trained military personnel shoot at people?

[RickJay]

Originally posted by carnivorousplant
Is it a good thing to have a CIA weenie in an arm chair fire a video game missile instead of having trained military personnel shoot at people?
If it works better and reduces the chance of friendly soldiers getting killed - well, of course it's a good thing.

I'm sure at some point someone said "Is it a good thing to have some peasant weenie with a fire-stick shoot people from afar rather than having a knight attack them with a sword?" The USA shouldn't have to apologize for having weapons that make them better than their enemies at fighting wars.

[carnivorousplant]

Does the weenie really know what he is shooting at? Does he have good judgement? I recall that the first time it was a tall Arab looking guy thought to be Bin Laden.

[Maeglin]

Does the weenie really know what he is shooting at? Does he have good judgement?

Aren't the same questions routinely asked of professional soldiers?

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by RickJay
The fact that Hijazi carried American citizenship does not fundamentally change the fact that he was a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat, if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members.

Let us suppose an American citizen had joined the Kaiser's army in 1918 and fought against American forces. Let us further suppose that while he was eating his bratwurst one day behind the lines, an American artillery barrage was directed against his position. A shell lands on him and he's blown to giblets. Would anyone suggest it was wrong to bombard his position because he was an American citizen? Or do ya takes yer chances when ya joins the other side?

I am sure there are a few examples of American citizens fighting agains the United States in both World Wars, at least. Why would anyone think the armed forces should inform the FBI or the DoJ before attacking them as enemies? In warfare, it's what side you're actually fighting for, not what passport you carry.

This post assumes so many things for which no evidence is given and spins out so many hypothetical scenerios that it is impossible to give any kind of reasonable response.

Maybe the guy was just getting a ride to the next town. See, anyone can come up with hypotheticals which support any position. When writing them you are like the fiction writer who can make characters and events come out the way he wants it.

[Jonathan Chance]

I'm pretty certain that the 'weenie' in question isn't pulling the trigger without approval from on high.

[SuaSponte]

David, that is why what RickJay wrote is called a "hypothetical." It assumes many things because no evidence is required when presenting a hypothetical.
The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt, or criticize the conclusions drawn from the hypothetical.

Sua

[jonpluc]

Another question, is guilt by accociation an instant death penalty? Who was the American in the car? Why was he there? Did he know the identities and the charges against the ONE person in the car that was ostensibly guilty of something. He could have been a hitchhiker or reporter or anything. Admittedly in this situation it looks pretty shady<6 adults crammed in a car> but the concept remains the same. Is there some responsibility to "protect" the other people in the car that have not had any demonstratable crimes other than that of being in the same car as someone who is wanted?

[SuaSponte]

David, that is why what RickJay wrote is called a "hypothetical." It assumes many things because no evidence is required when presenting a hypothetical.
The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt, or criticize the conclusions drawn from the hypothetical.

Sua

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
David, that is why what RickJay wrote is called a "hypothetical." It assumes many things because no evidence is required when presenting a hypothetical.
The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt, or criticize the conclusions drawn from the hypothetical.

Sua

Well, I'm sorry but the poster began with the implication that the individual who was killed was "... a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat," and then added the rather weak disclaimer "if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members" at the end. Sort of a "he might not be a terrorist, but ..." kind of thing.

Hypotheticals aside, I don't think that it is proper to make an argument based on the presumption of guilt without evidence to support that presumption other than mere association.

[samclem]

I'm pretty certain that the 'weenie' in question isn't pulling the trigger without approval from on high

You mean Cheney was behind it? :D

To quote from the CNN link, Amnesty Int'l's statement that this incident might represent "extra-judicial executions in violation of international human rights law" should give any thinking person pause. This isn't a case of an American citizen sitting in the German trenches in WWI. And I understand that war today(with terrorists) doesn't make it easy to instantly tell the bad guys from the good guys.

Since some posters are taken with hypotheticals, let's suppose that the next time one of our GI's rapes a teenager in Korea/Philippines, etc., the local version of the CIA takes it into their head to "off" the guy, even though he is a suspect. Oh, I forgot to say, he was riding with two US servicemen in a jeep. They were not guilty of anything, just happened to be riding in the jeep that was bombed. But they were in his unit.

If Abu Ali, the suspected former Al Queda target had been offed by a mysterious rifle shot to his head, or killed by himself in a car bomb, no one would care. How do we now argue against other governments when their CIA's deliberately kill a "suspected terrorist" who just happens to be a US, British, German, Australian, etc. citizen?

[jonpluc]

Particularly when it seems to me that these people could have just as easily been apprehended by authorities or US troops that are stationed in Yemen. In fact IMHO it would seem thier intelligence value would be better with them alive than dead plus you could at that point seperate more fairly who was guilty and who wasnt in the vehicle.

[RickJay]

David, I believe you completely missed the point of my post. You certainly never addressed it. The disclaimer wasn't weak, but even if it was, can you at least be moved to comment on the OP or any of the responses?

samclem asks:
Since some posters are taken with hypotheticals, let's suppose that the next time one of our GI's rapes a teenager in Korea/Philippines, etc., the local version of the CIA takes it into their head to "off" the guy, even though he is a suspect. Oh, I forgot to say, he was riding with two US servicemen in a jeep. They were not guilty of anything, just happened to be riding in the jeep that was bombed. But they were in his unit.
Let me attempt what David did not, and actually address your hypothetical.

The reason this would be wrong - in fact, it would be first degree murder - is that the United States of America is not at war with accused rapist GIs, and never could be, unless a bunch of rapists got together and announced they were the International Rapist Army and started attacking U.S. interests or something. There's no basis here for military action because there's no military threat. You don't drop bombs on shoplifters, either, and you don't deploy tanks to blast the cars of people who roll through stop signs. Military action is appropriate in response to a physical threat against national security that is best opposed with a military action - for instance, a paramilitary organization that enjoys blowing up buildings and sinking ships on the high seas. Like, you know, al-Qaida. It seems to me that thre is a substantial difference in how you use force against common criminals, like rapists, and enemies arrayed as a military force. Should they have just sent a couple of detectives to bust Jefferson Davis?

The reluctance of people to accept that there is a difference between criminal enforcement and fighting wars strikes me as being... well, sort of surreal. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, should the USA have sent police officers to arrest Tojo, Yamamoto, and all the naval aviators who bombed Pearl Harbor? That would have been hilarious. Did it constitute "summary execution" to bomb and shoot Japanese servicemen? Did it constitute "summary execution" when their soldiers fought back against ours? I've certainly never heard anyone suggest that. So why is it "summary execution" to bomb and shoot members of al-Qaida?

I used the comparison to pirates quite deliberately; there you had a stateless military threat that at one time was a pretty serious international security threat, and a popular and ultimately effective solution was to use national military forces to engage and destroy them on the high seas, and sometimes on land... not try to serve arrest warrants. There were trials, sometimes, when a pirate was captured, just as I would like a trial if they captured Osama bin Laden. But war's war, and not everyone can be captured.

I imagine you could argue they don't constitute a military threat, and I guess there's an argument to be made there, but I believe they do, and I suspect the U.S. government does, too. I think most reasonable people will agree that law enforcement and war require two different plans of action.

[El_Kabong]

Executive Order 11,905 (Gerald Ford, 1976), in part: “No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination.”

In spite of any official spin claiming that the persons targeted were "combatants", it seems to me that most people would consider the missile strike in Yemen a political assassination. The persons killed apparently were targeted specifically and were not at the time engaged in combat with anyone.

According to the above, it would seem that not only the killing of the American citizen, but the strike itself, were illegal under US law. Not that anyone is likely to ever be prosecuted over this.

Also, just asking here, hasn't the State Dept. routinely waxed wroth when such actions are carried out by allies like Israel?

[Tripler]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Executive Order 11,905 (Gerald Ford, 1976), in part: “No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination.”

In spite of any official spin claiming that the persons targeted were "combatants", it seems to me that most people would consider the missile strike in Yemen a political assassination. The persons killed apparently were targeted specifically and were not at the time engaged in combat with anyone.


IANAL, but doesn't your above referenced EO apply only to legitimate governments? Seeing as how the US never recognized the Taliban or al-Qaida as a sitting government, I'd think this doesn't apply. Beyond that, IIRC, al-Q is considered a militant force instead of a political entity. Again, it shouldn't apply.

My personal opinion: Oops, too bad, so sad. Terrorists and their allies got what they deserved. Unavoidable collateral damage.

Tripler
I haven't read the entire thread all the way through. I will, tho.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Executive Order 11,905 (Gerald Ford, 1976), in part: “No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination.”

How do you call the attack a 'political' assassination? If some American or British spy had been able to shoot Hitler in 1943 would that have been qualified as apolitical hit?

Is the US involved in a war or not? If it isn't a war, then what is the term for what has been going on?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by El_Kabong

In spite of any official spin claiming that the persons targeted were "combatants", it seems to me that most people would consider the missile strike in Yemen a political assassination. The persons killed apparently were targeted specifically and were not at the time engaged in combat with anyone.


Whether they were engaged in combat at the time makes no difference. Since when did we have to wait for the enemy to phyiscally be engaged in combat before we killed them? In fact we've done similiar attacks in the past. For example in 1943 US Naval intelligence intercepted a message that Admiral Yamamoto would be visiting the island of Bougainville. The information included he mode of travel, the number of fighters escorting him, when he would arrive, and when and how he was to leave the island. Based on that information a bunch of US P-38's intercepted Yamamoto and killed him. Political assasination or legitimate target?

Marc

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by RickJay
David, I believe you completely missed the point of my post. You certainly never addressed it. The disclaimer wasn't weak, but even if it was, can you at least be moved to comment on the OP or any of the responses?



Here is your complete post.

"The fact that Hijazi carried American citizenship does not fundamentally change the fact that he was a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat, if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members.

Let us suppose an American citizen had joined the Kaiser's army in 1918 and fought against American forces. Let us further suppose that while he was eating his bratwurst one day behind the lines, an American artillery barrage was directed against his position. A shell lands on him and he's blown to giblets. Would anyone suggest it was wrong to bombard his position because he was an American citizen? Or do ya takes yer chances when ya joins the other side?

I am sure there are a few examples of American citizens fighting agains the United States in both World Wars, at least. Why would anyone think the armed forces should inform the FBI or the DoJ before attacking them as enemies? In warfare, it's what side you're actually fighting for, not what passport you carry."

In the first paragraph you state that the victim was a "de facto enemy of the United States .... if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members." That puts the cart before the horse and no one has yet come up with any evidence that he was in league with al Qaeda members.

Your second paragraph assumes that the subject of the first paragraph had in fact "joined al Qaeda," and so justifies the US action based on the hypothetical case of someone who "joined the Kaiser's army in 1918 and fought against American forces." Of course, few would complain about such a death even if the individual had not joined the Kaiser's army but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I'm not complaining about the individual in Yemen being killed, only that you are virtually convicting him of being an enemy of the US without evidence. And in spite of any claim to the contrary the tenor of your whole post runs in that direction.

And I don't see what your third paragraph has to do with the case at hand. On what grounds other than his being in the auto are there for claiming that he was "fighting against the United States?"

And Sua I must be misinterpreting what you are saying.
Quote: The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt,

Are you saying that if the prosecutor comes up with a hypothetical that the defense has to provide evidence to disprove it? For example, if a robbery with a gun is committed but there isn't any direct evidence connecting the defendant with the gun, the prosecutor can propose a reasonable hypothetical question to a police investigator as to how the gun might have been obtained and disposed of the defense has to disprove it?

I must be missing some vital part of this.

And last but not least, my hypothetical about the victim just getting a free ride from on town to another has just as much merit as anyone else's so let them introduce evidence that mine is, "inapt."

First hypotheticalizer doesn't stand a chance.

[lokij]

Originally posted by jonpluc
Particularly when it seems to me that these people could have just as easily been apprehended by authorities or US troops that are stationed in Yemen. In fact IMHO it would seem thier intelligence value would be better with them alive than dead plus you could at that point seperate more fairly who was guilty and who wasnt in the vehicle.

It would have been immeasurably preferable to capture them alive, but that was not possible so they went with the second best option. The area these terrorists were in is far into the Yemeni interior near the Saudi border and is part of the largest stretch of sand in the world. The other posts suggesting that the American citizen was an 'innocent bystander' are ludicrous, it would be like me wandering through the wilderness in Alaska and just happening across a cabal of terrorists. Yemen does not maintain anything approching control of the interior, they did not have the capability to send in forces to capture these people nor did we. By the time we got there they could have crossed a border or evaded detection and the opportunity would have been lost. Plus there is a certain value in this to send a message to other terrorist leaders hiding out in the most gods-forsaken areas of the world. This says in effect that we can find you anywhere.. we can take you out, you won't have the opportunity to defend yourselves or harm us and you won't even know what hit you. That may or may not deter these people but I think it will give them just one more thing to worry about.

[carnivorousplant]

If they start flying those things over Ferndale there's no way I'm going to get the paper in my bathrobe.

[Apos]

Let's face it: the stipulation against all political assassination is not a MORAL one, it's a pragmatic one. We don't do it because we want the world to consider it beyond the pale period: or else someone might do it to us. We can't assure that every country will have the same ends or judgements: but we do seem to be relatively successful in trying to gain a consensus against bad means.

But that aside, there are plenty of cases in which assasination would be great. Of course, most of these examples take place in hindsight.

Which, I suppose, is what's scary about this. Hypotheticals are so illegitimate because hypotheticals are simply not acceptable in the context of our norms of justice.
But it's not just that it's taking place. It's that it's taking place in a context where our leaders have increasingly reserved the right to never fully explain or document their reasons: it's all a secret. We wouldn't understand, you see. It might help the terrorists.

But our leaders have no special insight into our nations moral consensus. They certainly cannot claim to when they systematically refuse to explain the facts to us, whatever the reason (pragmatic or tyrranical), so that we cannot possibly be informed as to what we are judging on.

There are thresholds and contigencies to consider, which no person can claim to have a simple right answre on, and yet go to the very core of the sorts of things our entire country should be able to discuss, not just our leaders. How much evidence is enough to justify killing people? Is it acceptable when there are peaceful alternatives? It's okay to kill an enemy when he's actively waging war: is it okay to kill him when he's simply visiting his uncle (even soldiers, have, you know, lives outside their trade)? Is it okay to kill someone just because he knows a terrorist? Grew up with him? Is friends with him, but doesn't participate in is activities? (yes, terrorists grew up, and they actually, as hard as it may be to imagine, interact with people that are not terrorists, have families whic are not terrorists, etc.) What threshold of risk is acceptable for the desired outcome in all these cases. Is anyone really going to argue that we can simply accept a "we know best" on these issues from our leaders?

Only by flatly ignoring the prescence of them can we pretend that they are not important questions over which the people should have as much, if not more, of a say in than leaders who have NEVER EVER been asked to answer such questions, much less answer them by giving their rationale.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by Apos
We can't assure that every country will have the same ends or judgements: but we do seem to be relatively successful in trying to gain a consensus against bad means.



I think this is an important point. The argument that anything goes in war is the old "ends justify the means" question.

It is claimed that we are at war. That itself is open to question but that is not the question here. I would point out that those we call terrorist think they are in a just war. After all, we provide a lot financial and other support for Israel which they regard as an illegitimate nation whose government kills their compatriots.

So, if we claim the right to kill those we regard as terrorists and their supporters by any means they claim the right to do the same. And they regard the Israelis as terrorists and us as their supporters.

I should hasten to add that I think the terrorists' claims and methods are outrageous. Neither am I all that taken with our actions in blowing up an auto with a missile in a country with which we are officially at peace. Another poster mentioned that the site of the incident was near the Saudi border. Suppose it had been across the border would we have done the same thing?

[Apos]

The difference, of course, is that the terrorists are not a nation, and they have shown little inclination to forgo the means that we've been mostly successful in keeping in check.

These things aren't, of course, absolute. We've run assasination plots ourselves during times when we publicaly renounced the idea. But again: it was a case of our leaders decising that they could make moral choices that they had no special insight into how to make. But by and large, we still don't compare.

I really do think that we should strive to be better in the means category, because it does place us on a very different moral level. If we had never carried out military operations of terror on civilian populaces, we would be in VERY good standing to demand that others do not, regardless of their thinking about being in justified conflict with us or not. But there are costs to eschewing such tactics, and again, it's no easy judgement.

[kaylasdad99]

I'm still quite disturbed at the thought that the CIA is assuming a death-dealing role in this whole endeavor. RickJay raises some thought-provoking points about the validity of considering this one or that one a legitimate military target, but the CIA (not being a branch of the military) was not tasked with striking military targets when I was in the service, and I'd be very surprised if that situation has been changed in the past ten years. The wall of seperation between Church and State, erected by the First Amendment, is one that I cherish as an American. The wall of seperation between military and non-military organizations and their utilization, erected by the Posse Comitatus Act, is another that I find to be important, and I'm made uncomfortable by the thought that is can be so porous, in either direction.

[Henry B]

lokij from Nashville, TN, wrote:
It would have been immeasurably preferable to capture them alive, but that was not possible so they went with the second best option. The area these terrorists were in is far into the Yemeni interior near the Saudi border and is part of the largest stretch of sand in the world.
The other posts suggesting that the American citizen was an 'innocent bystander' are ludicrous, it would be like me wandering through the wilderness in Alaska and just happening across a cabal of terrorists. Yemen does not maintain anything approching control of the interior, they did not have the capability to send in forces to capture these people nor did we. (bolding mine)
Do You know or just believe?
By the time we got there they could have crossed a border
So what? Saudi Arabia is also a friendly country, like Yemen.
or evaded detection and the opportunity would have been lost. Plus there is a certain value in this to send a message to other terrorist leaders hiding out in the most gods-forsaken areas of the world.
So to follow a car from the air or per satellite is hard when there is no-one around?
Look at Your next sentence:
This says in effect that we can find you anywhere.. we can take you out, you won't have the opportunity to defend yourselves or harm us and you won't even know what hit you.
Does this mean in any friendly countries or just in Arabic/African/Asian friendly countries. Europe? Germany? (Many terrorists has been living in Germany). Or is it only if there is much sand around? I suppose Australia has a "part of the largest stretch of sand in the world."
That may or may not deter these people but I think it will give them just one more thing to worry about.

I do not know from where You got this information, but let's assume USA has very good electronical devises, as it has:
1) The guy who spotted the "suspect terrorist", reports:
- "He is in a car, colour, model etc., heading north."
- "Is he alone?"
- "No, there is more people. I do not know who, but they are also suspects..."
- "Can our military get them?"
- "No they are far away/have old slow cars etc..., paratroopers can't be sent, the planes has run out of gas... etc."

Seriosly lokij: Where did You get Your information? Do You have a cite?

Think a little bit. In what circumstances do You think USA can bomb anything in a friendly country (like Yemen nowadays is toward USA)?
If another country spots some terrorists in Alaska, can they bomb there? Just a little bit of course? Or doesn't snow count? Only sand? Or New Mexico = no snow, but a small "stretch of sand".

And there is still the question about how many, bystanders, taxi-drivers can be killed per terrorist? (Next time).
How many "suspected" terrorists, as prisoners, do You have on Cuba?
If a "suspected terrorist" is equivalent with "guilty", why did You free some "suspected terrorist" from Cuba?
Are the rest of the "suspected terrorist" already been prosecuted? Or is there still lack of evidence? And why evidence, You just put them in a raft, take a pinpointing air-plain and "send some signals".

About the signals: I think that the result is "How to make a bomb at home"-pages will be more frequently visited. All over the world.

I am not against The War of Terrorism, but if we (the western culture), begin to act like they do, what is the difference?

Btw. I read in some cite, some days ago, can't remember where, that this action is OK according to the one year old laws in USA. Have anyone seen anything about this?

[Henry B]

lokij from Nashville, TN, wrote:
It would have been immeasurably preferable to capture them alive, but that was not possible so they went with the second best option. The area these terrorists were in is far into the Yemeni interior near the Saudi border and is part of the largest stretch of sand in the world.
The other posts suggesting that the American citizen was an 'innocent bystander' are ludicrous, it would be like me wandering through the wilderness in Alaska and just happening across a cabal of terrorists. Yemen does not maintain anything approching control of the interior, they did not have the capability to send in forces to capture these people nor did we. (bolding mine)
Do You know or just believe?
By the time we got there they could have crossed a border
So what? Saudi Arabia is also a friendly country, like Yemen.
or evaded detection and the opportunity would have been lost. Plus there is a certain value in this to send a message to other terrorist leaders hiding out in the most gods-forsaken areas of the world.
So to follow a car from the air or per satellite is hard when there is no-one around?
Look at Your next sentence:
This says in effect that we can find you anywhere.. we can take you out, you won't have the opportunity to defend yourselves or harm us and you won't even know what hit you.
Does this mean in any friendly countries or just in Arabic/African/Asian friendly countries. Europe? Germany? (Many terrorists has been living in Germany). Or is it only if there is much sand around? I suppose Australia has a "part of the largest stretch of sand in the world."
That may or may not deter these people but I think it will give them just one more thing to worry about.

I do not know from where You got this information, but let's assume USA has very good electronical devises, as it has:
1) The guy who spotted the "suspect terrorist", reports:
- "He is in a car, colour, model etc., heading north."
- "Is he alone?"
- "No, there is more people. I do not know who, but they are also suspects..."
- "Can our military get them?"
- "No they are far away/have old slow cars etc..., paratroopers can't be sent, the planes has run out of gas... etc."

Seriosly lokij: Where did You get Your information? Do You have a cite?

Think a little bit. In what circumstances do You think USA can bomb anything in a friendly country (like Yemen nowadays is toward USA)?
If another country spots some terrorists in Alaska, can they bomb there? Just a little bit of course? Or doesn't snow count? Only sand? Or New Mexico = no snow, but a small "stretch of sand".

And there is still the question about how many, bystanders, taxi-drivers can be killed per terrorist? (Next time).
How many "suspected" terrorists, as prisoners, do You have on Cuba?
If a "suspected terrorist" is equivalent with "guilty", why did You free some "suspected terrorist" from Cuba?
Are the rest of the "suspected terrorist" already been prosecuted? Or is there still lack of evidence? And why evidence, You just put them in a raft, take a pinpointing air-plain and "send some signals".

About the signals: I think that the result is "How to make a bomb at home"-pages will be more frequently visited. All over the world.

I am not against The War of Terrorism, but if we (the western culture), begin to act like they do, what is the difference?

Btw. I read in some cite, some days ago, can't remember where, that this action is OK according to the one year old laws in USA. Have anyone seen anything about this?

[jonpluc]

Now im talking out of my ass here but it seems to me that almost anywhere we can get a Predater we should be able to get a blackhawk with US Troops to do what arresting is nessesary. I mean its not like the helicopter has to fly behind enemy lines and anti missle defences to get there. Its a big desert.Where are they gunna go? And in the article i read it was clear they were tracking them for quite some time.

[El_Kabong]

How do you call the attack a 'political' assassination? If some American or British spy had been able to shoot Hitler in 1943 would that have been qualified as apolitical hit?

Uh, in that specific case, simultaneously political assassination and act of war. What was the failed assassination attempt on Hitler by some of his own high-ranking officers but a political act? This isn't a point that I feel the need to defend to the death, however.

Is the US involved in a war or not? If it isn't a war, then what is the term for what has been going on?

Well, our government certainly thinks it is, but it all depends how narrowly one defines war. The strictest sense is "armed conflict between states or nations", and the WoT doesn't quite fit the bill there. OTOH, I suppose if one side believes it's war, and prosecutes it like a war, then it's war.

Whether they were engaged in combat at the time makes no difference. Since when did we have to wait for the enemy to phyiscally be engaged in combat before we killed them? In fact we've done similiar attacks in the past. For example in 1943 US Naval intelligence intercepted a message that Admiral Yamamoto would be visiting the island of Bougainville. The information included he mode of travel, the number of fighters escorting him, when he would arrive, and when and how he was to leave the island. Based on that information a bunch of US P-38's intercepted Yamamoto and killed him. Political assasination or legitimate target?

Both, really: political assassination as he was not just a military commander but a political leader; military target as we were at war with Japan at the time.

But beyond that, Yamamoto was known to be a ranking officer in a well-defined military structure with whom we were unquestionably at war. Can the same be said of the six killed in Yemen?

I should mention here that I shed no particular tears for the loss of some of Al-Queda's leadership if that's who they truly were, but like Apos, who obviously can string together a more coherent argument than I can, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of my country carrying out extra-judicial executions of this type. Bottom line is, I believe the US had a reasonable opportunity to capture this crew and try them but chose instead to carry out a revenge killing, as a 'message' to others.

[Eleusis]

I may soon feel like a jerk for posting without reading the entire thread, but.....

If I'm riding shotgun in Bin Laden's car, I can reasonably expect to get blown up by a hellfire (why was that in quotes in the OP cited article??? oh it wasn't - Ino snuck that in) missile launched from a predator drone.

I'd expect the same if I was in an Iraqi trench.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by Eleusis

If I'm riding shotgun in Bin Laden's car, I can reasonably expect to get blown up

Yeah, but suppose you and Bin Laden both own 1980 Ford Escorts, his vanity plate "Mohammed Rocks" and yours "Mohammed Rocks 2"?

[Hickory6]

jonpluc

<<Now im talking out of my ass here but it seems to me that almost anywhere we can get a Predater we should be able to get a blackhawk with US Troops to do what arresting is nessesary.>>

Well, yeah. You're correct. At least about talking out of your ass.

What troops? From where? How many TO & E combat units do you think we have stationed in Yemen? And how long do you think it takes for the CIA to confirm the intel, send word to the US military's theater headquarters or special ops command (all the way in frigging Tampa, FL). and for anywhere between 3 and 6 layers of the chain of command to conduct troop leading procedures, develop an OPORDER, build a terrain model, brief the troops whose lives are on the line, allow them some time to conduct rehearsals, conduct neccessary coordination between the ground unit and the aviation unit, write up an Air assault annex, and, you know, actually FLY to the site?

And if they get into trouble, how are you going to reinforce them? How are you going to evac your wounded? Well, by putting more people at risk.

You're awfully casual with the employment of troops.

[jonpluc]

Hickory6 it was my understanding that the missle attack was near the Saudi border and unless im mistaken we have a FLEET of helecopters with troops that have ALREADY trained for evac and anything and everything we could possibly need for an arrest extraction or any other possible military manuver the country requires in bases in Saudi Arabia. Although its a WAG id say the same place that these helicoptrers could come from is probably the EXACT same place the Predater came from in the first place.I resent your implication that im "casual" with troops lives. Im simply fairly confident that an army that was capable of killing 100,000 Iraqis and taking tens of thousands more prisoner, while only taking about 100 losses, should be able to handle 6 yahoos in a Ford Taurus or whatever without having our military collapse around us. <aside if i have a partial post before this please disregard>

[jonpluc]

Hickory6 and lets be honest, the reason they wernt captured is because the U.S. didnt WANT them captured..not that they didnt have the capability.

[carnivorousplant]

Do you suppose there is a political angle here, because the Saudis are afraid to let the USA use military bases in an attack on Iraq?

[Henry B]

So there is no US troops in Yemen?
According to news, there is.

[jonpluc]

The equation is pretty simple. Arrest means the guy gets extradicted back to Buffalo NY and he gets to gloat to a national press eager to quote any of his anti Amercanin crap.The other alternative is terrorist dies with invisible death raining down from the sky.And lets admit it Bush is jumping up and down in his office going "good we got some of the bastards" and i really understand the feeling behind that, However that does not address the nuances what should and should not be done under international law. I think the ability of the US to capture these guys was there and in my persoanl opinion was not a factor in our actions. It was a "message" bomb and in the OPs cited article it states as much.

[Hickory6]

Jonpluc,

<<it was my understanding that the missle attack was near the Saudi border >>

Saudi Arabia's a big place. Most U.S. troop deployments are around Riyadh and King Khalid Military City, hundreds of miles to the north.

Your argument also flatly ignores the question of time. Battlefield intelligence is extremely perishable. If the U.S. gets information that an Al Qaeda leader is traveling north on a certain highway at a certain hour, obviously, that can change at any moment. Every minute counts.

It's easy for you to sit in an armchair and say how easy it would have been to load and launch helicopters rather than a predator. But allowing for planning and rehearsal time, it would take hours just to assemble a force on the PZ and get them into the helos. It's much easier and quicker to launch a predator. And puts fewer servicemen at risk (remember Desert One?) http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone_print.html

Also, with a typical cruising speed of 200 knots, the Predator would cover the distance to the target nearly twice as fast as the Black Hawk (cruising airspeed of about 120 knots.)

Again, remember, speed is of the essence. The vehicle could pull off the road or go into hiding at any time, or drop off some of its passengers. If the range to the target is 200 miles (the max a Black Hawk can go and still make it back even without a cargo of troops and combat gear, since their range is 400 miles), the faster vehicle saves you hours.

If any of our troops get hit, they could be hours away from a hospital. (There would probably not be time for prior coordination with a Yemeni hospital to take casualties. If there were, it would risk compromising the operation, thereby further endangering the lives of U.S. servicemen.)

The Predator is also less vulnerable to hostile action (i.e. ground fire.)


Operationally, the decision to launch the predator rather than a ground force was a no-brainer.

<<Hickory6 and lets be honest, the reason they wernt captured is because the U.S. didnt WANT them captured..not that they didnt have the capability.>>

Well, that's a pretty foolish statement. Captured people yield more intel than dead ones. I don't think you have any rational basis at all for making that statement. Occam's razor favors my argument--trying to launch a ground op risks US troops and it risks losing the trail, while providing no guarantee that the targets wouldn't end up killed anyway. It requires no nefarious bloodlust or a 'no prisoners' policy which you can't prove anyway, and which can be easily disproven by the pointing out the existence of hundreds of Al Qaeda prisoners.

<<Let's be honest.>>

Well, let's be honest about your fund of information here, which is sorely lacking. You should make fewer WAGs and do a bit more mission analysis.

<< I resent your implication that im "casual" with troops lives. >>

The best way to avoid the implication would be to not be so casual about advocating the deployment of troops far from reinforcement, fire support, and medical facilities without first going through the steps of a mission analysis.

<<Im simply fairly confident that an army that was capable of killing 100,000 Iraqis and taking tens of thousands more prisoner, while only taking about 100 losses, should be able to handle 6 yahoos in a Ford Taurus or whatever without having our military collapse around us. >>

One of the reasons we were so successful is because US military leaders know how to plan for a mission, because US military leaders are meticulous about rehearsing it, because US military leaders are skilled at employing fire support, because US military leaders leverage superior US logistics and intelligence technology, and because US military leaders employ their units in accordance with their capabilities and limitations.

Your proposal would require the commitment of US troops without adequat planning time, without adequate rehearsal time, far from any indirect fire support, little or no logistical support, and would risk losing the valuable and imminently expiring military intelligence. The mission was not within the reasonable capability of ground troops stationed hundreds of miles away to plan, rehearse, and execute within the amount of time available.

[clairobscur]

May I point out that sending soldiers to conduct a military operation in the territory of a foreign state, without this state government approval is usually not very well perceived? Some posters seem to have overlooked this fact...

[kaylasdad99]

Originally posted by clairobscur
May I point out that sending soldiers to conduct a military operation in the territory of a foreign state, without this state government approval is usually not very well perceived? Some posters seem to have overlooked this fact...

And sending CIA wetboys is the height of statecraft?

I'm beginning to feel like chopped liver, here. If this is intentional, would someone take the time to confirm that?

[jonpluc]

Henery B excellent point there are troops in Yemen as well. I mean come on guys this is basically a super dangerous traffic stop. A car full of possibly armed/possibly not nuts is the kinda stuff your large city police officers can handle. There are highly trained US troops already in Yemen as noted that im sure could handle a dangerous traffic stop even without prior practice. Im a trained firefighter and i practice but does that mean i cant fight a fire in a particular building because ive never practised in that one before? These are trained troops in one of the hottest spots on the planet right now for US troops. You can be sure that assets are everywhere and more are being added daily. If the US wanted them captured im sure they could have. As for risk to troops its no greater in this case than any police officer in LoAAs Angeles if these guys were breezing down the LA freeway. Id expect them to be arrested and if they refused to be shot. No different than if it happened in L.A. or Yemen or anywhere else where arrest is possible over execution

[andros]

EO 11905 is less relevant here than EO 12333, Reagan's 1981 order detailing the function of US intelligence agencies, and prohibiting assassinations by those agencies.

I'm with Kayla'sDad. I find the idea of the CIA knocking off these folks to be distasteful, and entirely against the spirit of 12333, if not the letter.

[lno]

Originally posted by Eleusis
If I'm riding shotgun in Bin Laden's car, I can reasonably expect to get blown up by a hellfire (why was that in quotes in the OP cited article??? oh it wasn't - Ino snuck that in) missile launched from a predator drone.Just a short clarification- I didn't edit the quote from the CNN article in any fashion. The article has changed since I linked to it, which is why I did a direct cut-and-paste of the article's contents. You might as well say "why was the text in the OP different from the article??? oh it wasn't - lno snuck that in".

To add to the discussion on Predator vs Blackhawk, the Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle designed to loiter over an area for hours. It's possible that it was in the area already rather than launched from an American military installation for the purpose of destroying this car. This seems to have been a target of opportunity.

[Hickory6]

jonpluc,

You may be a trained firefighter. But if you're in Pittsburgh, they don't call you to fight a fire in Chicago and only give you 60 minutes to get there, with all your gear. The intelligence would have had to have been acted upon NOW. What part of "NOW" is unclear to you?

<<Henery B excellent point there are troops in Yemen as well.>>

What troops? What unit? How many? What MOS? News flash: Special Forces A Teams, if they were in the AO, operate in teams of 12. Insufficient force to set up two roadblocks and an ambush, with security teams in place, even if they could get there in time.

Were they all in one place? Were they involved in missions of their own they could just drop at a moment's notice? Where were the air assets? Were they in the same place?

You STILL completely ignore the issue of planning and rehearsal time. And no, you don't send US troops to conduct an ambush without rehearsing the operation. And you damn sure don't commit US troops without having taken the time to plan out the operation, in detail. If you do, then you're damn sure being casual about their lives.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by lno
It's possible that it was in the area already ... This seems to have been a target of opportunity.

That would be my thought, and would indicate that the CIA guy or whoever flys it has authority to attack targets on his own judgement.

[Henry B]

Hickory6
U.S. Army Special Forces troops got to Yemen in March, this year, in order "to train Yemen's military to combat terrorists".
Do You really mean that the Special Forces that are training the army there, needs training???
WOW!

Or would it not be a good training, after 6 months of training, for the Yemen army to arrest a car?
_____________________________

OK, Predator is an unmanned vehicle. But I am sure it did not know who drow the car. It does not read register-plates either? Or how?
So a human gave the information. Cell-phone? The Yemenian Security who did not want to call the Yemenian army?

Or is it like in this story, from last January; the guys seemed to have endlessly of time: http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/01/29/yemen.htm

Yemen's foreign minister said Tuesday his country had tracked down two key al-Qaeda suspects wanted by the United States and was prepared to capture them by force if the pair fails to surrender. So this was before USA begun to train (officially) the army.
Al-Qirbi said that Yemen had made its own arrests since Sept. 11. He said government forces in an undisclosed location inside Yemen were negotiating the surrender of the two most important men on the US list, whom he identified as Qaed Salim Sunian al-Harethi and Mohammed Hamdi al-Ahdal.

A US source in Washington, who refused to be further identified, said al-Ahdal is a suspect in the Cole bombing and al-Harethi is believed to be a top al-Qaeda operative in Yemen.
"The government's political security force knows where they are and I think the issue now is whether they will hand themselves over or if the government will have to take stern action to arrest them," Al-Qirbi told AP.
So the Yemenian army is ready.
Al-Qirbi said that Yemen had taken several measures to combat terrorism and uproot al-Qaeda, often with the help of the United States.
Since December, more troops had been stationed in three regions where al-Qaeda suspects were believed to have been active and that close cooperation with tribes in those regions had led to the recent arrest of at least 24 suspects.

Halleluja for that!

It is also hinted in the article, by the foreign minister, that Yemenian army can not go everywhere, because of different tribes etc. I would say that that is a clear signal: "If I can't go - You go, OK?"
So I think US had an silent OK from the Yemenian government. But I am not saying that I know so.

[Henry B]

I did not see this while I was writing my earlier post:

Hickory6 from Fort Lauderdale wrote:
What troops? What unit? How many? What MOS?
What kind of questions are these. Read Your papers or ask Pentagon. ;)
I can not here from Russia begin to ask Pentagon Your questions. Who are You working for anyhow? ;) If I posted those questions, how would You react? Who would I work for?

If You are a solidier, do You have video-games in Your unit?
Which countries can be bombed in Your video-game?
If the information is not classified, of course.

Maybe You can ask my questions in my first post on page 1 in this thread?
I would be happy.

Have a nice day.

[Eleusis]

Sorry Ino for assuming you took it upon yourself to add the quotes. This sounds like something an unsavory journalist would do to point out perceived irony and sneak in his or her anti-war sentiment.

[samclem]

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=20261

This link would indicate that Saudi Arabia arrests, on average, 11,600 "infiltrators" per DAY coming across its border, mainly Yemenis. I still think the US is heading down a slippery slope, but you gotta sympathize with the border guards.

[samclem]

Damn! That would be 1,160 infiltrators per day. Still a massive number, if correct.

[Hickory6]

Geez, I can't believe you guys are belaboring the argument.

Ok. So there are U.S. Special Forces teams in Yemen. Doesn't surprise me.

1.) I already mentioned that there are only 12 people in an SF A-Team. I already said that's not enough to put out two roadblocks and an ambush--an op that would take a platoon strength, minimum. You might do it with three A-Teams. But they probably wouldn't all be in the same place. They don't operate that way. So you'd have to get them all together, somehow, then brief them, then allow them to go through their troop leading procedures and rehearse the operation.

2.) Special Forces teams do NOT have organic aviation assets. The birds will still have to come from somewhere. And again, we're back to staging and planning time.

3.) It's pretty clear you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Hickory6]

Henry B.,

<<Do You really mean that the Special Forces that are training the army there, needs training??? WOW>>

Oh, any A-Team would have the skill sets. But they would still have to rehearse the operation. They rehearse BECAUSE they are well-trained.

<<Or would it not be a good training, after 6 months of training, for the Yemen army to arrest a car? >>

IF they could get there in time. Obviously, the people on the ground, knowing the tactical situation and the assets and time available (unlike you) made a different decision.

Oh, and by the way, this is from the article you cited, Henry:

<<Government forces, [Yemeni foreign minister] Al-Qirbi said, could not just storm into tribal areas to apprehend suspects for fear of turning the powerful tribes against the government.>>

That alone would be a powerful reason not to send US or Yemeni ground troops to attempt a capture, when the vehicle could easily be taken out by a Predator.

Your article also says that the Yemeni government knew where they were in January. That does NOT mean they knew where they were SINCE January. Your article says the Yemeni government was "negotiating their surrender." Obviously, negotiations failed. (Although if they were operating in tribal areas the Yemeni government could not operate in, why they'd surrender in the first place is beyond me.)

But, ok. You advocate throwing US troops into tribal areas of Yemen, beyond reinforcement from Yemeni troops, and in close proximity to an unkown number of potentially hostile tribesmen. You would do it without adequate planning time. You would do it without rehearsal time. You would do it out of range of fire support. You would do it at risk of pissing off the locals and creating a problem for an ostensibly cooperative Yemeni government.

Now I understand why the Russian army embarrassed itself in Grozny.

Sorry, but the decision to take these guys out with a simple predator strike was about a big a no-brainer slam dunk as they come.

[Sam Stone]

I agree with the 'target of opportunity crowd'. I think some of you overestimate how good intelligence is. We don't have satellites that can follow moving cars. We can't be guaranteed to find someone 8 hours after he's spotted moving somewhere on some road.

These predators are just loitering around, gathering intelligence. There are hundreds of them flying around the middle east, from what I understant. The CIA was approved to arm them with the Hellfire last year in Afghanistan.

This thing was probably just cruising in an area of reported activity, spotted the car, and the operator called it in and got a positive identification on the car. The order was given to destroy it before they lost contact with it.

That's my perception, anyway.

[samclem]

These predators are just loitering around, gathering intelligence. There are hundreds of them flying around the middle east, from what I understant. The CIA was approved to arm them with the Hellfire last year in Afghanistan.

And now the CIA has been approved to arm them over Yemen? Sam Any info on where they have been approved? Over DC, looking for terrorist yet??

Sorry, but the decision to take these guys out with a simple predator strike was about a big a no-brainer slam dunk as they come.

That's the second time you've called the decision a no-brainer. At least you got that right. :rolleyes:

[jonpluc]

Hickory6...ok lets approach this from another angle. ASSUMING hypothetically , the training, military resources etc were nearby and ready and the risk as minimized as it possibly could be, would you encourage arrest over assasination? And do you consider any of the international laws against this sort of thing to apply? Or is the "message" sent to the terrorists the most important issue here?

[Hickory6]

<<Hickory6...ok lets approach this from another angle. ASSUMING hypothetically , the training, military resources etc were nearby and ready and the risk as minimized as it possibly could be, would you encourage arrest over assasination? >>

Well, that's a meaningless assumption. Why would Al Qaeda operate openly in such a place?

Besides--Al Qaeda has declared war on the United States.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/strikes980821.html

Therefore, this was an attack on a military objective, on a military leader of an organization that has demonstrated itself to be willing to murder Americans by the thousands.

This was not a political assassination. How could it be? Al Qaeda isn't a political entity. Al Qaeda does not represent a state. The use of the term "assassination" to describe eliminating a C3 node is, quite simply, asinine (and the kind of moral equivalency you draw here is emblematic of why Democrats got so roundly trounced on Tuesday.)

Live prisoners generate more intel than dead ones do, yes. But capture, in this instance, was simply not a realistic alternative.

So why make stupid assumptions?

The U.S. has already demonstrated itself willing to take Al Qaeda alive who surrender. We've got hundreds of them sitting in Gitmo. I've got friends guarding them right now.

But in order to be taken prisoner, you have to, you know, surrender.

These guys already had a chance to surrender to Yemeni authorities. They didn't.

Fuck 'em.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by Hickory6

These guys already had a chance to surrender to Yemeni authorities. They didn't.
Fuck 'em.

Democrat or not, one must admit a certain efficient simplicity to your logic.

[jonpluc]

That logic is absurd. Any criminal who refuses to give up should be executed? That would make the jails EMPTY and the graveyards full for virtually ANY crime. Should they adveretise in the paper Attn all criminals on the Americas Most wanted list..thats it youve been warned and if you dont turn yourselfs in sumary executions shall now begin!

[Hickory6]

<<That logic is absurd. Any criminal who refuses to give up should be executed? >>

The analogy to criminals is a false analogy. As I have already established, Al Qaeda has declared "war" on the United States.

This was a military strike against a military leader.

Hey, they wanted a war. They've got one. The Al Qaeda declaration of war allows the U.S. to treat their members as combatants in an armed conflict, rather than as criminals.

Further, there is no reading of the constitution which entitles these guys to constitutional protection. They were combatants on foreign soil. The legality of applying military force against Al Qaeda operatives on foreign soil has long since been established.

But you, of course, are free to belabor your long-since lost argument. Just be prepared for increasing irrelevance. The American government, legal system, and public opinion have long since left your side behind.


If any logic is absurd it's yours. These were combatants, rather than criminals.

[samclem]

Hickory6 said The Al Qaeda declaration of war allows the U.S. to treat their members as combatants in an armed conflict, rather than as criminals.

But the question remains. Can you simply chose to eliminate a "C3 node"(makes is seem less inhumane, right?) without regard to whether a suspect is truly who you think? And as for collateral damage, they shouldn't have been there. Right?

They were combatants on foreign soil. The legality of applying military force against Al Qaeda operatives on foreign soil has long since been established.

Cite?

[David Simmons]

Hey you guys, shut up! Hickory6 has spoken!

[kaylasdad99]

PLEASE!!!!

Provide the justification for the Central Intelligence Agency performing military tasks.

How is the Central Intelligence Agency to be evaluated regarding its responsibility to conduct itself according to internationally accepted standards governing the prosecution of wars? I'd like a link to the relevant document, if it's not too much trouble.

If your whole justification is that the CIA had assets in the right ploace at the right time to carry out this action, and nobody else did, just say so. Then we can start debating the question of ends and the means they justify.

[Henry B]

quoting Hickory6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were combatants on foreign soil. The legality of applying military force against Al Qaeda operatives on foreign soil has long since been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullshit!
1) They were not proven to be, as far as I know, terrorists. But even if they would (all) have been proven guilty;

2) You can not begin a war on "foregn soil" without permission.
I could somehow, very, very long streched, understand if this would have had happened in a country of "the evil axis", and thus declared a war, but absolutely not in a country that is on friendly terms with USA, (if they do not have a permission for this).
Anyhow, Your statement is pure bullshit.

The U.S. has already demonstrated itself willing to take Al Qaeda alive who surrender. We've got hundreds of them sitting in Gitmo.
And as You know, many of them was not found guilty. And the rest? As far as I know they are just sitting there, not beenig prosecuted for anything.
_____________________________

And it is not about somebody having "constitutional rights" it's about international law.

Live prisoners generate more intel than dead ones do, yes. But capture, in this instance, was simply not a realistic alternative.

We do not know:
- where it happened (nobody gave a cite of the location, just assumptions)
- what were the circumstances
- was there a permission from the Yemenian authoroties (Personally I think there was, because they have asked for help, but also this is just a speculative assumption).

We know:
- CIA or any army can not operate (by killing) on foreign ground.
- Hickory6 thinks that USA can combat Al Qaeda on foreign ground.
- CIA did not know who was in the car.
- USA has freed suspect Al Qaeda warriors before (from Cuba).
As I know, Al Qaeda has been fighting in Afghanistan long before US went to Afghanistan. They were at those days fighting USSR and they were paid by USA.

My questions to Hickory6:
- in what countries can US strike against Al Qaeda?
- can the other countries do the same?
- Do You think all the Al Qaeda solidiers fighting in Afghanistan are guilty of the attacks against USA?
- Do You think Al Qaeda is feeling sorry for one or more guys lost? Or do You think they are happy about the anti-US reaction it caused?
_______________________________

One thing I know for sure: USA will win every battle it goes into, if it is doing as Hickory6 is describing, but it will not win the war. The war will be endless.

The goals of he terrorists are, (all back from the -70ties beginning with the Balder-Meinhof-group):
- to start the war all over the world
- to crumple down the the wester democracy, by cornering it to a situation where as many as possible of the constitutial rights are minimized.
- to press as many countries as possible to a situation where they are "a pure police state", and thus getting easier to reqruite new members to their ranks also inside these countries.
(Let me remaind You that Bader-Meinhof was operating/educating in Europe, Asia and Africa. It was not just a group sitting in Hamburg.
Nevertheless, the international community got them with "as normal matters as possible" and put them in court.

Nowadays there is new aspects (for the terrorists):
- They are, most probably, praying for an "evil axis" war to begin, just to get more reqruits.
- They are happy every time when the western countries are violating the international law. (That they are doing that, does not concern them so much, because in the end the world will come to a "chicken and egg"-situation about who violates more the international law. (From the point of view of new reqruits. Our point of view? - well they do not give a shit about what we are thinking).

The situation is very serious. Giving up the corner-stones of our western democracy, will make it even more serious.

[Hickory6]

Ok, let me try to address some of your questions one at a time.

Samclem:

<quote> Can you simply chose to eliminate a "C3 node"(makes is seem less inhumane, right?) without regard to whether a suspect is truly who you think? </quote>

Well, two points. First, no one is arguing that we have a mistaken identity in this case. It seems we hit who we meant to hit. So the 'wrong-guy' argument is a non-issue here. It might be an issue in other strikes--but that's as much true in Afghanistan and Iraq as in Yemen, and as much true with ground troops and manned aircraft as drones.
Second, well, why on earth would you EVER strike without regard to whether your target is truly what you think? If you didn't have reason to believe the target was valuable, then you wouldn't bother to attack it in the first place. Why waste the assets?

<<As for collateral damage, they shouldn't have been there, right?>>

Who shouldn't have been there?

The law of land warfare allows for collateral damage. No legal problem there.

Hickory6

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were combatants on foreign soil. The legality of applying military force against Al Qaeda operatives on foreign soil has long since been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samclem:

<<Cite?>>

I would cite as Exhibit A the entire operation in Afghanistan. I would cite as Exhibit B the congressional resolution of 14 September 01, authorizing the President to use all reasonable military force against Al Qaeda.


From the actual resolution:

<quote> That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. </quote>

Looks pretty clear to me. And, I might add, to the vast majority of Americans, who don't have a problem with this strike.

[Hickory6]

Kaylasdad:

<<Provide the justification for the Central Intelligence Agency performing military tasks. >>

The President, with a nearly unanimous authorization from congress, asked them to.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&u=/nm/20021110/ts_nm/yemen_usa_policy_dc_3&printer=1

No further justification is needed.

You're inventing legal roadblocks that don't exist. There has never been any legal problem with the CIA or other civilian agencies providing support to military operations, or even conduct lethal operations. Civilian agencies have been doing exactly that since WWII. See also John Paul Vann in Viet Nam.

<<How is the Central Intelligence Agency to be evaluated regarding its responsibility to conduct itself according to internationally accepted standards governing the prosecution of wars? >>

Easy. Like all other combatants, the CIA and other civilian agencies are subject to the Law of Land Warfare--most prominently, the Hague and Geneva conventions--neither of which was broken in this instance. What's so hard about that?

[Hickory6]

Henry B.

<<1) They were not proven to be, as far as I know, terrorists. But even if they would (all) have been proven guilty; >>

Since when did courtroom standards of proof of guilt apply to combatants on foreign soil? You're arguing from false pretenses. These were not criminals. They were combatants. Neither U.S. nor international law requires us to hold a trial by jury for every member of an Iraqi anti aircraft missile crew before blowing them to smithereens, either. Neither did every Kraut on Normandy Beach get an appointment with a government defense attorney before we did our damnedest to perforate their vital organs with well-aimed fire. Nor did the victims in the World Trade Center and Flight 93 and the Pentagon, for that matter. And neither are Al Qaeda operatives abroad entitled to such niceties.

2.) <<You cannot begin a war on foreign soil without permission.>>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Watch us. (indeed, a war is about the only thing you CAN start on foreign soil without permission).

(although in this case, the Yemeni government granted permission. Check your facts.)


Hickory6
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has already demonstrated itself willing to take Al Qaeda alive who surrender. We've got hundreds of them sitting in Gitmo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Henry B.
And as You know, many of them was not found guilty. And the rest? As far as I know they are just sitting there, not beenig prosecuted for anything.

Why should we "prosecute" them. Combatants are not "prosecuted." They are simply held until cessation of hostilities. International law allows it.


<<We know:
- CIA or any army can not operate (by killing) on foreign ground. >>

That's about as dumb a statement as I've ever seen. Cite, please?

<<- Hickory6 thinks that USA can combat Al Qaeda on foreign ground. >>

Well, so does every single friggin' member of Congress except Barbara Lee.

<<- CIA did not know who was in the car.>>

False.


<<- in what countries can US strike against Al Qaeda? >>

Anywhere.

<<- can the other countries do the same? >>

That's up to them.

<<- Do You think all the Al Qaeda solidiers fighting in Afghanistan are guilty of the attacks against USA? >>

Al Qaeda declared war against the U.S. Their members are free to quit and go home. The congressional resolution authorizes the President to strike at the organization, as well as the individuals involved. Guilt or innocence, in the criminal sense, is not part of the equation. Al Qaeda members are combatants, and fair game to target.


<<- Do You think Al Qaeda is feeling sorry for one or more guys lost? >>

Why should we care?

<<Or do You think they are happy about the anti-US reaction it caused? >>

Life is tough all over. It's a tempest in a tea-pot. No foreign government is going to risk its relationship with the U.S. over these guys. It changes nothing, except there's a few fewer scumbags the U.S. has to worry about.

You keep harping on "international law." Please cite the international law that was broken by the attack.

[kaylasdad99]

Okay, I'm going to have to back out of this one. I simply don't have the education to argue Hickory6's assertions.

I'm still not persuaded that they are correct, but all I have to offer in refutation are my own emotion-fueled ideas about how America is supposed to work and behave.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, Hickory6. I will return to counting down the days until january 20, 2005.

802.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by kaylasdad99
Okay, I'm going to have to back out of this one. I simply don't have the education to argue Hickory6's assertions.

I'm still not persuaded that they are correct, but all I have to offer in refutation are my own emotion-fueled ideas about how America is supposed to work and behave.



Don't worry about it. The US laws that Hickory6 cites in justification are regarded by some of us as the panicked reaction of politicians of all stripes to the WTC attacks on 11 Sept. Most of them, it seems to me, result in ineffective and misdirected actions and many of them endanger fundamental US principles. Airline security measures are an example of the first kind and the so-called Patriot Act of the second kind. The Congressional resolutions authorize the President, without many controls, to take actions that will, in my opinion ultimately leave us all alone and endanger national security and not strengthen it.

Knocking off a few terrorist operatives from time to time doesn't look to me like a very effective way to conduct this operation. I'm not a big fan of analogies, but my analogy for this would be the difference in effectiveness between shooting down enemy airplanes one at a time in aerial combat and shooting them up on the ground before they can get airborne.

Already this president has alienated an awful lot of Germans, Ialians, French and if I'm not mistaken many British, Tony Blair being a notable exception. Mid East countries are uniformly opposed to the idea of unilateral US military action against Iraq, even such good "friends" as the Saudis. If I'm wrong about that I'd like to hear it from German, Italian, French, British and mid-east posters.

[kaylasdad99]

801.