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?
*"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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So what? Saudi Arabia is also a friendly country, like Yemen.
So to follow a car from the air or per satellite is hard when there is no-one around?
Look at Your next sentence:
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.”
I do not know from where You got this information, but let’s assume USA has very good electronical devises, as it has:
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?
So what? Saudi Arabia is also a friendly country, like Yemen.
So to follow a car from the air or per satellite is hard when there is no-one around?
Look at Your next sentence:
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.”
I do not know from where You got this information, but let’s assume USA has very good electronical devises, as it has:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<<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.
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>
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.