[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let’s try another hypothetical, Beans (and whoever…even Harold):
American civilian defects to Nazi Germany in early 1945. He’s been there since '41. We know through intel he is collaborating with the Nazi war machine. We even have photos of him traipsing in and out of Reichstag.
Could/should George Patton have legally ordered a tank commander to toss a 75mm round in his direction when Allied troops entered Berlin?[/quote]
I would still say it depends.
We are actively “invading” (lack of a better word) the nation and city he is in.
However if he is sitting at a coffee shop teaching the locals the finer points of homemade pron (damn germans make some good stuff) then no. If he is in a Nazi building helping scientist perfect human trials, then yes.
I know it isn’t a perfect answer, and may contradict some of what I said prior, but I’m being honest.
His killing likely invigorated more people to join his cause than it prevented anything. Again, this is war of ideology. Not state control of resources. unfortunately we’re playing the latter and losing the former. [/quote]
If it’s this, then the question is more one of efficient strategy rather than constitutionality.[/quote]
See that is the thing, IMO, that is the war we are fighting.
Because it is an ideological war, we have no option but to actually, and completely toe the line of ours, otherwise it is all lost.
The signing of the Patriot Act was losing a battle in the war, NSA, HLS, extension of PAtriot Act, drone killings, is us losing the war.
We’ve lost. And all we’re doing now is trying to drive up the body count so elected politicians can use Vietnam tactics to get elected. “But we killed 386 today…”
A counterpoint would be that the military acts on a completely different level than normal civilians.
I believe the military reserves the right to shoot deserters on sight. Used to, anyways. [/quote]
It’s an archaic practice. Many that would be called “deserters” in past conflicts are afflicted with severe PTSD. The U.S. military recognizes that they are in need of medical treatment. We’ve come a long way since Patton beat a soldier with “shell shock.”
Washington prefers the use of kill/ capture missions utilizing special operations forces when a ground approach is a viable option. A live man provides more intelligence than a corpse blown to kingdom come.
Finding and apprehending a criminal within the United States is a completely different animal than finding and apprehending a senior member of a transnational terrorist organization operating in an ineffectual state.
No. They are within the purview and capability of domestic law enforcement agencies if they are on American soil. Counter terrorism operations that are a necessity in states like Yemen are not only tactically inappropriate, but a gross legal violation. Their actions would be viewed in the context of a federal criminal offense.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because he was never captured.[/quote]
Sure.
And yet everyone back in the day knew him as a traitor and he probably would have gotten shot without a trail the moment the Continental forces got their hands on him.
I don’t know much about the drone attacks on U.S. citizens that Obama ordered.
What I do understand to be true is that they were in foreign territory and professing to be a part of an organization that was actively fighting against U.S. forces abroad.
Tell me how that is in any way different from what Benedict Arnold, the quintessential American traitor, did.[/quote]
How do we know he was guilty of what the government has told us he was guilty of?[/quote]
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence collaborated by multiple sources that Anwar al-Awlaki was a senior Al-Qaida recruiter and spokeman who led and directed the planning of numerous operations to murder American citizens. From a legal standpoint, his actions and words were enough to convict him in absentia. Do you believe the DOD, which has more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats, would give the go ahead on such an operation if they didn’t have a preponderance of evidence? The man was publicly acknowledged by the organization itself to be the leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Did the U.S. need a confession from the man himself to be targeted by counter terrorism operations? He publicly did as much through the videos he posted on youtube and on Al-Qaida’s “Inspire” website in which he stated his position.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The preeminent concern of the state is to provide security for its citizens.[/quote]
Since when?
Executing citizens in the name of “national security” wasn’t listed in the Constitution as far as I’m aware. Maybe I was absent the day they went over it.
I’m not even going to get into the conversation about whether this execution of a citizen actually adds to the security of its citizens. I mean, I guess in newspeak we can say “killing citizens is securing citizens”.
[/quote]
Since collective human communities were established in the city-states of ancient Sumer, so… the late 4th millennium BC. The constitution, which written in the late 18th century, doesn’t cover many of the complex problems faced by the U.S. government in the 21st century. I doubt the founding fathers would have had an issue with authorizing defense forces to neutralize an American who was explicitly and actively engaged in inspiring, calling for, and planning attacks as a member of an organization that was killing thousands of his “countrymen.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The person who was slaughtered with a drone wasn’t exactly riding in an armored personal carrier. [/quote]
Again, language is important. You’ve already made a normative judgement when you use a word like “slaughtered.” That poor senior commander of Al-Qaida. I take it you don’t have much familiarity with weapon systems or their employment in combat. The Hellfire series of missiles are far and away the most appropriate munitions to use for targeted killings with UACVs. They are long range, (8000 meters) extremely accurate, and have enough high explosives (18-20 pounds) to reliably kill their targets while minimizing collateral damage. Why does it matter if the vehicle he was traveling in was armored or not?
Perhaps if you believe that it truly is a “War on Terror,” which it arguably was at its onset. John Brennan, who was previously chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama (who also worked in the Bush admin., albeit in a lesser capacity) and is now the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has led the charge in narrowing the scope of U.S. counter-terrorism operations to focus on Al-Qaida and its regional affiliates. It is less of a war with an idea (militant Islam) than it is with non-state actors (Al-Qaida and other transnational terrorist groups associated with it). If it is an idea vs. idea war, what is the U.S.'s ideological position? It’s difficult to characterize it as nothing more than physical security.
They (Al-Qaida and like minded organizations) do not hate the West “for our freedom”. That line of reasoning was the result public rhetoric in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. Although it’s inaccurate, I’m not criticizing those per say. They hate what they see as the pervasive invasion of corrupt Western culture, ideas, and values throughout the Islamic world, an unforgivable affront to Islam. They’re essentially fighting against the effects of globalization and the intrusive presence of “neo-crusaders”.
We aren’t and we shouldn’t. To do so is to commit ourselves to perpetual warfare. Terrorism is widely defined in the literature of security studies as the intentional use of or threat of violence against civilian populations, usually to bring about political or ideological goals. This is most assuredly NOT what the U.S. is engaging in.
Sure, but it is quite a bit more justified if the person bombing is defending his or her life (or the lives of soldiers on the ground) than it is to just bomb a man fro driving to church. [/quote]
Why does it matter? A man who inspired, called for, and directly planned terrorist operations against segments of the population in the Arabian peninsula and citizens of the West is no longer on this mortal coil.
What are you basing that interpretation on? Your gut? This man was a prolific and charismatic senior recruiter for Al-Qaida. His death, along with those of many of his fellow commanders, were a substantial blow to both morale and operational capability.
It is not a war of ideology. State control of resources? What empirical evidence do you have of that?
We’ve lost. And all we’re doing now is trying to drive up the body count so elected politicians can use Vietnam tactics to get elected. “But we killed 386 today…”
[/quote]
That’s a gross mischaracterization of both the drone program and of U.S. grand strategy. You seem to be quite unfamiliar with COIN doctrine.
The big questions Beans, and the ones you continue to deflect are:
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE YOU PROPOSE?
HOW WILL THIS ALTERNATIVE BE IMPLEMENTED?
DOES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY HAVE A REALISTIC CHANCE OF SUCCESS?
DOES IT PLACE THE WARFIGHTER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK?
He is concerned about abuses of power, and the fact that attempting to circumvent supposed rights in an effort to deal with the situation is not a good thing in the long run.
The problem is that the real world doesn’t generally care about those things, and you have to accept that.
It’s sort of like how the founding fathers first had all this grand ideas of what their new republic will be like when they were all “We’ll win the war with citizen soldiers! Who will fight out of duty and won’t care about money! Ya!” Only to turn to creating the very same professional army made of the dredges of society that they disdained.
Much of U.S. history is idealism clashing with reality, with idealism losing.
It’s just that this particular idealism is something that I would very much not to see go away. I agree with him; Al-Qaeda won, at least in spirit. They won the moment the Patriot Act passed and the fear of terrorism and all the attempts to curtail it (though I will say that I don’t mind all the airport security and the TSA) became so rampant in the U.S. They won the moment every Muslim became a terrorist in the eyes of the American public.
If nothing else, it would be nice to see people at least speak of the idealism more often. That way it won’t go the way of the dodo bird.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The big questions Beans, and the ones you continue to deflect are:
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE YOU PROPOSE?[/quote]
Rule of law.
Pretty much the same way anything is implemented.
If killing citizens without due process is success to you, and I suspect it is, than no.
[quote]DOES IT PLACE THE WARFIGHTER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK?
[/quote]
We have a volunteer standing army. One, unless a fool, has an understanding there are significant risks involved with signing that contract.
I’m not deflecting anything.
We’re obviously talking about two different things.
You’re trying to make a rational cause for the erosion of the very freedoms and protected rights I’ve grown quite fond of. I’m trying to show you how you are part of the problem.
You can ramble on about COIN shit all day, and it doesn’t matter. Perception matters. You post like some desk jockey at the Pentagon that logs in here to make himself feel better on the day to day that you’re doing “the right thing” when you know it isn’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I do agree we “lost” for the various reasons listed but I don’t think al-Quaeda necessarily “won.”
[/quote]
I don’t think they “won” either really.
All that matters is we lost, and things aren’t going to get any better anytime soon. You have a handful of people intelligent enough to rationalize it in the manor Biz has, and then vast majority that are like “MERICA! Kill da terrorizts! We safe now, and I don’t care spying, big bird and iPhone, man. Twitter! YOLO!”
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Do you believe the DOD, which has more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats, would give the go ahead on such an operation if they didn’t have a preponderance of evidence?
[/quote]
Yes. I believe this 100%. Not in every case, but in some cases, which is why you have trials. And sometimes even if they are acting in good faith they are just wrong. Which, again, is why you have trials.
And having “lots of lawyers” as a reassurance assumes the lawyers are there to act as a check, not to try and justify things like torture through legal techniques like intentionally forgetting the meaning of common english words, like the meaning of the word “torture.”
I recognize that sometimes complying with standards and the law means you don’t get the bad guy as quickly or as easily as you might otherwise, or even at all. That’s the price of due process.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I do agree we “lost” for the various reasons listed but I don’t think al-Quaeda necessarily “won.”
[/quote]
I don’t think they “won” either really.
All that matters is we lost, and things aren’t going to get any better anytime soon. You have a handful of people intelligent enough to rationalize it in the manor Biz has, and then vast majority that are like “MERICA! Kill da terrorizts! We safe now, and I don’t care spying, big bird and iPhone, man. Twitter! YOLO!”
[/quote]
It was really not something that could be won. You can’t win a war against terrorists. They aren’t wearing blue jerseys and you will know you’ve won once they surrender.
It was far different from fighting another country. We were doomed from the beginning. Americans wanted vengeance for 9/11 and we certainly got some. We also let President Bush and President Obama take away much of our liberty in achieving that vengeance.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by Al-Qaeda winning.
They want to topple America? America is BUILT on ideals. That is its entire point, and what the founders and many others considered its saving grace. Yes, there obviously has been numerous times where it slipped on the ideals, sometimes into the deep end, but so long as the general public believed in the ideals, then we always had the chance to come back a bit straighter than we were before.
But if Americans do truly show themselves ready to surrender freedom for security, then you’re in trouble. It is one thing to have goverment-issued health care and another thing completely to allow the government to spy on you legally. This is a distinction that I wish Republicans actually made, instead of incessantly issuing sound-bytes that win them votes with their regulars about how “Obamacare is so taking away our rights and freedom to do things. Blah blah blah.” No mention at all about the Patriot Act. No mention at all about government spying on us unless it happens under Obama’s watch.
Partisan bullshit.
Anyways, if Al-Qaeda succeeds in toppling the U.S.'s foundation of ideals, then they’ve come closer to winning than any other countries that the U.S. ever went to war with.
[quote]magick wrote:
I suppose it depends on what you mean by Al-Qaeda winning.
They want to topple America? America is BUILT on ideals. That is its entire point, and what the founders and many others considered its saving grace. Yes, there obviously has been numerous times where it slipped on the ideals, sometimes into the deep end, but so long as the general public believed in the ideals, then we always had the chance to come back a bit straighter than we were before.
But if Americans do truly show themselves ready to surrender freedom for security, then you’re in trouble. It is one thing to have goverment-issued health care and another thing completely to allow the government to spy on you legally. This is a distinction that I wish Republicans actually made, instead of incessantly issuing sound-bytes that win them votes with their regulars about how “Obamacare is so taking away our rights and freedom to do things. Blah blah blah.” No mention at all about the Patriot Act. No mention at all about government spying on us unless it happens under Obama’s watch.
Partisan bullshit.
Anyways, if Al-Qaeda succeeds in toppling the U.S.'s foundation of ideals, then they’ve come closer to winning than any other countries that the U.S. ever went to war with.[/quote]
Al-Qaida’s stated aims do not include the toppling of American society or its ideals. I have a feeling that anyone who legitimately believes that they “hate us for our freedom” and seek to deprive us of it has never bothered to study UBL’s 1996 fatwah against the United States, or any relevant literature for that matter.