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!
<<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.
Hickory6 said
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?
Cite?
Hey you guys, shut up! Hickory6 has spoken!
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.
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!
-
They were not proven to be, as far as I know, terrorists. But even if they would (all) have been proven guilty;
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kaylasdad:
<<Provide the justification for the Central Intelligence Agency performing military tasks. >>
The President, with a nearly unanimous authorization from congress, asked them to.
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?
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.
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.
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.