[quote]JEATON wrote:
and this…[/quote]
You aren’t a fan of the drone program I take it?
Why so serious?
Actually just saw these pics over at Zero Hedge and thought they were humorous.
But now that you mention it, I am conflicted on the issue.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
But now that you mention it, I am conflicted on the issue.
[/quote]
I’m more curious then serious. Care to elaborate?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
But now that you mention it, I am conflicted on the issue.
[/quote]
I’m more curious then serious. Care to elaborate? [/quote]
Suffice it to say that “targeted killings” are often much less targeted than we like to think. The 2001 Authorization for the use of military force left the “use of all necessary and appropriate force” a little to open to Presidential interpretation for my confort. Especially when the target is US civilians.
I can see where you are coming from. The Disposition Matrix developed by counterterrorism expert John Brennan is intended to be a permanent fixture of American Foreign policy. By US civilians, are you speaking in a general sense? Or are you referring to Anwar al-Awlaki?
No, the general sense.
I need to catch up on the Disposition Matrix before I feel qualified to comment much more deeply.
The biggest problem with drones and “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists imo is the lack of standards. There are standards developed for how we treat and deal with official armed conflicts that involve state-sponsored soldiers, on the one hand (e.g., Geneva Convention), and standards for how we treat and deal with criminals and criminal organizations (i.e., criminal law), on the other, but both the Bush and Obama administration put suspected terrorists in some third category where there are no truly recognized international standards of treatment and they act like anything goes, which can’t be the default consistent with basic human rights and international law. I don’t mind if they create a third category, but they have to develop recognized rules of the road so to speak that meet basic standards of human rights.
Really, what the fuck is the disposition matrix, anyway, other than just a big list of people some spooks decided they want to assassinate, and if its the “law” or a cornerstone of foreign policy, why is it a secret?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The biggest problem with drones and “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists imo is the lack of standards. There are standards developed for how we treat and deal with official armed conflicts that involve state-sponsored soldiers, on the one hand (e.g., Geneva Convention), and standards for how we treat and deal with criminals and criminal organizations (i.e., criminal law), on the other, but both the Bush and Obama administration put suspected terrorists in some third category where there are no truly recognized international standards of treatment and they act like anything goes, which can’t be the default consistent with basic human rights and international law. I don’t mind if they create a third category, but they have to develop recognized rules of the road so to speak that meet basic standards of human rights.
Really, what the fuck is the disposition matrix, anyway, other than just a big list of people some spooks decided they want to assassinate, and if its the “law” or a cornerstone of foreign policy, why is it a secret?
Disposition Matrix - Wikipedia [/quote]
I don’t really have any qualms with how our leadership decides to deal with extremists groups who feel divinely mandated to fly airliners into packed skyscrapers or shoot 12 year old girls in the head for attending school. I would also argue that a legal distinction between assassination and targeted killings can be made. It’s a sophisticated and streamlined tool to combat terrorism. I could see your train of thought before I got to “why is it secret?”. Do you think it a good idea to publicize our latest military and intelligence methodologies in the name of “transparency?”
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The biggest problem with drones and “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists imo is the lack of standards. There are standards developed for how we treat and deal with official armed conflicts that involve state-sponsored soldiers, on the one hand (e.g., Geneva Convention), and standards for how we treat and deal with criminals and criminal organizations (i.e., criminal law), on the other, but both the Bush and Obama administration put suspected terrorists in some third category where there are no truly recognized international standards of treatment and they act like anything goes, which can’t be the default consistent with basic human rights and international law. I don’t mind if they create a third category, but they have to develop recognized rules of the road so to speak that meet basic standards of human rights.
Really, what the fuck is the disposition matrix, anyway, other than just a big list of people some spooks decided they want to assassinate, and if its the “law” or a cornerstone of foreign policy, why is it a secret?
Disposition Matrix - Wikipedia [/quote]
I don’t really have any qualms with how our leadership decides to deal with extremists groups who feel divinely mandated to fly airliners into packed skyscrapers or shoot 12 year old girls in the head for attending school. I would also argue that a legal distinction between assassination and targeted killings can be made. It’s a sophisticated and streamlined tool to combat terrorism. I could see your train of thought before I got to “why is it secret?”. Do you think it a good idea to publicize our latest military and intelligence methodologies in the name of “transparency?”[/quote]
I’ll spot you for the sake of argument that probably most of the people on the list need killing, but what are the rules? How do you get on the list? How do you get off it? What evidence is required to get on the list? What is the margin of error for correctly I.D.'ing terror suspects? Does anybody really know the margin of error? If you are on the list and the subject of a drone strike, what are the acceptable standards for collateral damage? The wife? The kids? Neighbors? A whole City? How big is the list? 10 people? a 1000? 10,000?
The benefits of a system that is “sophisticated and streamlined” and “secret” for security reasons also has costs, like the lack of due process; alienation of allies and potential allies; mistakes; and abuse down the line if the program is expanded beyond “terrorists” or if the word “terrorist” becomes broadened to include more and more classes of suspected criminals for the sake of “efficiency.” There’s a difference between keeping specific intelligence secrets secret and keeping the rules of the whole fucking game secret, and the latter is a really, really slippery slope in my book.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The biggest problem with drones and “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists imo is the lack of standards. There are standards developed for how we treat and deal with official armed conflicts that involve state-sponsored soldiers, on the one hand (e.g., Geneva Convention), and standards for how we treat and deal with criminals and criminal organizations (i.e., criminal law), on the other, but both the Bush and Obama administration put suspected terrorists in some third category where there are no truly recognized international standards of treatment and they act like anything goes, which can’t be the default consistent with basic human rights and international law. I don’t mind if they create a third category, but they have to develop recognized rules of the road so to speak that meet basic standards of human rights.
Really, what the fuck is the disposition matrix, anyway, other than just a big list of people some spooks decided they want to assassinate, and if its the “law” or a cornerstone of foreign policy, why is it a secret?
Disposition Matrix - Wikipedia [/quote]
I don’t really have any qualms with how our leadership decides to deal with extremists groups who feel divinely mandated to fly airliners into packed skyscrapers or shoot 12 year old girls in the head for attending school. I would also argue that a legal distinction between assassination and targeted killings can be made. It’s a sophisticated and streamlined tool to combat terrorism. I could see your train of thought before I got to “why is it secret?”. Do you think it a good idea to publicize our latest military and intelligence methodologies in the name of “transparency?”[/quote]
I’ll spot you for the sake of argument that probably most of the people on the list need killing, but what are the rules? How do you get on the list? How do you get off it? What evidence is required to get on the list? What is the margin of error for correctly I.D.'ing terror suspects? Does anybody really know the margin of error? If you are on the list and the subject of a drone strike, what are the acceptable standards for collateral damage? The wife? The kids? Neighbors? A whole City? How big is the list? 10 people? a 1000? 10,000?
The benefits of a system that is “sophisticated and streamlined” and “secret” for security reasons also has costs, like the lack of due process; alienation of allies and potential allies; mistakes; and abuse down the line if the program is expanded beyond “terrorists” or if the word “terrorist” becomes broadened to include more and more classes of suspected criminals for the sake of “efficiency.” There’s a difference between keeping specific intelligence secrets secret and keeping the rules of the whole fucking game secret, and the latter is a really, really slippery slope in my book.
[/quote]
You spoke my thoughts, only way better than I could express or organize them. War is hell, but humanity still needs certain rules and standards in which to operate. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
I thought the circumstances surrounding his death were still unclear.
Do you have more information?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
I thought the circumstances surrounding his death were still unclear.
Do you have more information?
Mufasa[/quote]
Government assassin.
On January 3, 2012 the U.S. Dist. Court for the District of New York ruled that the Administration is allowed to keep the legal justification for its hit list and drone strikes “classified.”
From New York Times Co. v. United States DOJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 979 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013):
"The FOIA requests here in issue implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The Administration has engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing to any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions. More fulsome disclosure of the legal reasoning on which the Administration relies to justify the targeted killing of individuals, including United States citizens, far from any recognizable “hot” field of battle, would allow for intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated. It might also help the public understand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty.
However, this Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules–a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for its conclusion a secret."
In my opinion, if you have a team of lawyers at your disposal and can’t explain why a course of conduct is legal, it probably isn’t.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
I thought the circumstances surrounding his death were still unclear.
Do you have more information?
Mufasa[/quote]
Government assassin.
[/quote]
The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness. Very sad though.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
I thought the circumstances surrounding his death were still unclear.
Do you have more information?
Mufasa[/quote]
Government assassin.
[/quote]
The shooting range is perhaps not the best place to treat mental illness. Very sad though.[/quote]
Certainly not PTSD…
Mufasa
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Another high-profile gun advocate was killed yesterday. RIP Chris Kyle, SEAL Sniper and author of ‘American Sniper’. Also the guy who punched Jesse Ventura in the face (always wanted to high-five him for that). He died while trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD.
This is the first thing that I read today and it saddens my soul. Chris was a very honorable, dedicated and patriotic man. Loved his country and especially his SEAL teams.
After recovering from a difficult start when first out out of the teams, we was contacted by and met with Kyle Bass of Hayman Capitals fame out of Dallas. Kyle’s original intent was to hire Chris as his personal security chief. He soon realized that their relation would benefit both more abundantly by becoming business partners.
Here is a statement from SOFREP, a news sit run by a close friend of Chris, former SEAL Brandon Webb.