Why did we have “jurisdiction” in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?
Go ahead. Think about it.
The word “jurisdiction” implies we are talking about a criminal justice matter. We are not. The entire point of the “War on Terror” is that military resources are being used because the traditional law enforcement model was proven inadequate.
The US has suffered attacks from Al-Qaeda for years, but we persistently clung to the idea that terrorism was a criminal justice problem and the police should be used to fight it. This is exactly why OBL was able to escape justice for decades: Because he was located in Afghanistan, he could launch attacks on the US with impunity and we could not respond effectively because we lacked “jurisdiction” in Afghanistan. All three presidents (Clinton, Bush, and Obama) recognized that the entire idea of terrorism as a criminal justice problem was obsolete. (Yes for those of you who think this is a Bush policy, even Bill Clinton launched airstrikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan).
We are now dealing with global terror insurgencies that cross national boundaries with impunity. This is why he declared terrorism to be a military problem rather than a law enforcement problem, and authorized military force against Al-Qaeda regardless of what “jurisdiction” that they happened to occupy at any given moment.
No. As I mentioned above, the Yemeni government actively supports the drone program and basically begs us to whack these guys.
Who do you suppose has ‘jursidiction in Yemen’?? Do the terrorists organizations operating there have ‘jursidiction’? What about in other countries they are operating out of? Do you see the double standard you are implying here? If THEY operate there, then why shouldn’t we?
The short answer is, if a country can deal with terrorist groups operating in their borders then the US et al won’t be striking them there. The countries where we do such strikes, basically, can’t or won’t (or a combination of both) deal with those terrorists operating i their borders…so, the US and it’s allies use drones and other tools to strike them in those places.
Getting back to your OP, however, unless you want to start focusing on something like the Geneva Convention and which article we are violating with our drone strikes you are just going on your own gut feelings about whether the US is or isn’t committing ‘a war crime’ with our drone program. And, just as a hint, I’m fairly sure Obama (and even that idiot Bush) have consulted more lawyers on both US and international law to ensure we aren’t, since the orders for those strikes ultimately come from the White House.
I’m not trying to be dense, but I don’t understand your response. Do you think Obama is racist against Yemenis? What do you mean by “political realist?” Do you think these are irrelevant questions? I just can’t tell if they are rhetorical questions or if you’re implying something.
And just to be clear - you’re saying that the US won’t do drone strikes in Germany because “we” aren’t racist against Germans? And what about the argument that the Germans have a highly effective police force, and that the interim government of Yemen has zero control over AQAP-held territories? That seems like a pretty reasonable argument, but that isn’t right because this is about race, not government capability?
They aren’t assumed to be too weak–they are too weak. Yemen has no functional government at the moment and is in the midst of a prolonged civil war. Pakistan’s tribal region has essentially no government at all.
Britain or France or Germany or any OECD country or even many other non-OECD major allies have the capacities to control their fucking country and if our intelligence told them they had a terrorist cell hiding there they’d have them arrested with their equivalent of police special forces or paramilitary force within a few hours.
If we need to have a terrorist arrested in Yemen who should we talk to? The Houthi group that has taken the capital and forced out the old government? That is not recognized by the U.N. or any major ally or country as the valid government of Yemen? Or do we talk to the Hadis, who are recognized as the legal government (and backed by Saudi Arabia), but control less territory (and people)? Or do we talk to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula/Islamic State, since the east-central part of the country is under their control? I suspect they’d be less than helpful in effecting an arrest.
Of course, you’re right. We want to stop people we think are terrorists from “operating”. When they’re in France or Belgium, it’s a rather trivial matter to send the police to arrest them. When they’re in the hinterlands of Pakistan, there are no police to send to arrest them, so our choice is to leave them be / give them free rein to do as the please, or find some other way to stop them. Since 9/11 we’re not really big fans of giving terrorists free rein to continue operating, so the way we seem to have settled on stopping them is via drone strikes / Hellfire missiles.
The UK based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights believes the civilians were killed by accident:
Manbij is a war zone, our allies are fighting to conquer and take this territory from ISIS, specifically Kurdish forces in this area. We are bombing in support them–and some civilians were killed. This is a tragedy, but it appears after over one hundred posts you don’t understand there’s a difference between deliberate targeting of civilians and accidentally hitting civilians while conducting warfare.
Wars are so terrible because at least in part, civilian deaths are unavoidable; the idea that someone should be executed for this is simply ludicrous.
Drones have a place in warfare and will so going forward. There is nothing wrong with wanting some oversight, but to suggest the program in its entirety is a warcrime sounds terribly naive. Every country will use drones for war and security by the time all is said and done.
Dozens of civilians killed including 10 children. We need to stop wasting human lives for the egos of American politicians. If someone did this to us on a regular basis, we would start WW3 over it. But our politicians don’t seem to care when we kill civilians abroad.
Just so you know, the article you linked to doesn’t say anything about drone strikes. It’s talking, as far as I can tell, about air strikes by the coalition. So, you seem to have broadened things from drone strikes being war crimes to all air strikes being…something…and that we should cease immediately since the only reason we are doing them is ‘for the egos of American politicians’.
News flash: The US isn’t Syria. There is no reason to do it to us, because we have highly effective national security and law enforcement. We are not in a state of civil war, and we have no Islamic terrorist insurgencies seizing miles of territory. People keep saying, “Well, if someone did this to us…” when the situation is completely and utterly different in every imaginable respect. You haven’t read a single word of this thread and seem astonishingly ignorant of the state of affairs in Syria.
The pilots and their commanding officers in that strike should all be charged with murder. Dropping bombs on innocent children doesn’t solve any of the worlds problems and only breeds more terrorism. Dropping bombs to stop terrorists is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Except they weren’t dropping bombs on innocent children, of course. As for breeding more terrorism, it’s a toss up between doing nothing obviously breeding more terrorism and attacking them when they are in and amongst the population, which is inevitably going to result in some civilian deaths by the very nature of reality. Considering the things that ISIS/ISIL has been doing when they had free reign in the region (as well as the things Asad has and had been doing), I think the US is on good ground in at least trying to limit civilian casualties, even if you don’t see it. But then you link to an article about air strikes with a picture of an American F-16 in a thread you started about drone strikes being war crimes, so it’s not really surprising you don’t see it.
Are these innocent civilians harboring terrorist? Are these the same “civilians” that change death to America and threw a party to celebrate 9/11? The people your worried about support those who kill our civilians deliberately. Sorry if I don’t shed any tears.