[quote]Legionary wrote:
I’m glad to see you made this into a thread Jackrash. What’s the alternative in your opinion? On the ground snatch and grab operations which are exponentially more expensive, both monetarily and in terms of American lives lost? Also, I find that these topics need a little more specialization than something that Yahoo news or a flagship media outlet can provide. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627[/quote]
Its interesting. In this link, which is a link within the link you provided, Johnson states that:
First: in the conflict against an unconventional enemy such as al Qaeda, we must consistently apply conventional legal principles. We must apply, and we have applied, the law of armed conflict, including applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, core principles of distinction and proportionality, historic precedent, and traditional principles of statutory construction. Put another way, we must not make it up to suit the moment.
This is news to me. I think once you elevate al Qaeda to being entitled to Geneva protections, this is arguably–at least in some ways–stronger protection than just treating them like civilian criminals and has certain other ramifications. I’m going to keep reading through these links, thanks for them.
Here’s another link from within the link. Its a letter to the Administration from Human Rights Watch. I generally respect what HRW has to say more so than other similar “lefty” type organizations because they seem to be cognizant of the fact that unsupported claims and overreaching cost them credibility and usually their claims are well documented.
Edit: From the link above, and this strikes at what I was saying earlier about the granting al Queda Geneva protections:
“Even in combat zones, it may in some circumstances be prudent for the US to attempt to capture rather than to kill a legitimate target-not only to gain intelligence, but also to delegitimize terrorists as criminals rather than elevating them to the status of warriors.”
I doubt that holding a trial or tribunal for a captured Osama would be much better than killing him outright in the eyes of Muslim extremists. Undoubtedly, they would see the trial as a farce and a mockery of justice, and, whatever the punishment, he would still be a martyr in their eyes.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Here’s another link from within the link. Its a letter to the Administration from Human Rights Watch. I generally respect what HRW has to say more so than other similar “lefty” type organizations because they seem to be cognizant of the fact that unsupported claims and overreaching cost them credibility and usually their claims are well documented.
Edit: From the link above, and this strikes at what I was saying earlier about the granting al Queda Geneva protections:
“Even in combat zones, it may in some circumstances be prudent for the US to attempt to capture rather than to kill a legitimate target-not only to gain intelligence, but also to delegitimize terrorists as criminals rather than elevating them to the status of warriors.”[/quote]
I’m glad to see that you’re enjoying the link. CFR is a great site. I agree with the above passage. A live body and an intact base of operations yield more intelligence than a rubble covered corpse, which is why I’m only in favor of targeted killings when other military options are either impractical or pose an unacceptable risk to SOF personnel. That’s interesting about the delegitimizing aspect. Did you ever get to see this link regarding the Disposition Matrix? I know that was among your chief concerns.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Here’s another link from within the link. Its a letter to the Administration from Human Rights Watch. I generally respect what HRW has to say more so than other similar “lefty” type organizations because they seem to be cognizant of the fact that unsupported claims and overreaching cost them credibility and usually their claims are well documented.
Edit: From the link above, and this strikes at what I was saying earlier about the granting al Queda Geneva protections:
“Even in combat zones, it may in some circumstances be prudent for the US to attempt to capture rather than to kill a legitimate target-not only to gain intelligence, but also to delegitimize terrorists as criminals rather than elevating them to the status of warriors.”[/quote]
In many ways trying to capture someone wouldn’t be worth the risk for the soldiers on the ground. It really just comes down to what happens during the mission itself. If things go well it’s easy to capture someone, I’ve heard of Rangers flexcuffing HVTs before they even knew what happened. If they’ve contact with enemies in a village it wouldn’t necessarily be the best course of action to try to capture that HVT. Another problem is if they stick around for an extended period of time trying to capture someone they could be ambushed.
I think a bigger problem is how limited our use of Special Forces soldiers have been in Afghanistan. Instead of devoting most of their time developing a relationship with the people of Afghanistan, providing them with medical treatment and making their lives a little easier they could really just be doing direct action missions and rolling into villages for 45 minutes to give some prayer rugs and saying “we like you guys” before having to leave. I’ve read the opinions of some SF guys and they haven’t cared for how they’ve been utilized either.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
It’s a pretty slippery slope between an American abroad and an American in the USA.
Indeed, no legal difference, at all, under the Constitution.
Taken to the logical extreme, if Obama decides you are a threat under whatever bullshit he cooks up, he can send a drone and kill you — judge, jury, and executioner, all in one.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
[/quote]
Then the question is essentially, “can we kill terrorists in targeted strikes overseas?”[/quote]
You missed the part about being deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation.
Hurry, we don’t have time to dispute these things at length (if we did, we wouldn’t even be thinking about a drone strike). You could be an imminent threat to National Security. Do we kill you, or not?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
[/quote]
Then the question is essentially, “can we kill terrorists in targeted strikes overseas?”[/quote]
You missed the part about being deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation.
Hurry, we don’t have time to dispute these things at length (if we did, we wouldn’t even be thinking about a drone strike). You could be an imminent threat to National Security. Do we kill you, or not?[/quote]
Uncertainty is rough. It has sent innocent men to prison and to the electric chair.
The alternative is worse and fantastically stupid.
Concrete evidence that a non-American-citizen is a terrorist + a reasonably high rank or strategic importance within AQ/comparable organization + knowing their whereabouts + likelihood that a raid may cost American lives and/or be geopolitically dangerous and/or fail - likelihood of collateral damage = push that button.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
[/quote]
Then the question is essentially, “can we kill terrorists in targeted strikes overseas?”[/quote]
You missed the part about being deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation.
Hurry, we don’t have time to dispute these things at length (if we did, we wouldn’t even be thinking about a drone strike). You could be an imminent threat to National Security. Do we kill you, or not?[/quote]
Uncertainty is rough. It has sent innocent men to prison and to the electric chair.[/quote]
That is not how American Justice works. Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law leaves no room for uncertainty.
Damned right. Execution without charges, trial, or legal representation is indeed fantastically stupid.
This statement means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It means nothing because it gives the accused no means of countering the accusations.
So in your hypothetical case, you agree that with the bogus eyewitness report (concrete evidence) that was given, plus the fact that you have a cache of weapons in a bunker in the woods (knowing their whereabouts + likelihood that a raid may cost American lives and/or be geopolitically dangerous + likelihood of collateral damage) means they have every right in the world to launch a drone strike and kill you and your family while you sleep in your home.
Uncertainty is rough. It has sent innocent men to prison and to the electric chair.[/quote]
That is not how American Justice works. Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law leaves no room for uncertainty.
Uncertainty is rough. It has sent innocent men to prison and to the electric chair.[/quote]
That is not how American Justice works. Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law leaves no room for uncertainty.
The people responsible for these wrongful convictions are the same people you think should have the power to kill whoever they want. Provided they have ‘concrete evidence’, of course.
Uncertainty is rough. It has sent innocent men to prison and to the electric chair.[/quote]
That is not how American Justice works. Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law leaves no room for uncertainty.
The people responsible for these wrongful convictions are the same people you think should have the power to kill whoever they want. Provided they have ‘concrete evidence’, of course.
lulz[/quote]
Nope, the people responsible for those wrongful convictions are jurors–you and me. I proffered that in response to your gem about the American legal system leaving “no room for uncertainty.” A less truthful remark has rarely graced this board.
It’s a dangerous business when one man decides another’s fate. But it’s necessary, and the procedural restrictions on that decision are far laxer when a foreign-born enemy during a time of war is concerned. Let’s leave aside your hypothetical and consider reality: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi–a self-described enemy of the United States of America, a terrorist, a torturer and executioner. And six feet under, where he belongs.
Now, it can be rightfully argued that our system failed in these cases. The defendants had legal representation and the chance to defend themselves, but it wasn’t enough to overcome false accusations, false ID’s, coerced confessions, and false or ignored evidence.
BUT, without having the chance to even be a defendant, do you think that somehow the same contributing factors would simply go away? Or do you think maybe it would be even easier for an official to drum up some false accusations and have you whacked without you even knowing there was anything going on?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Nope, the people responsible for those wrongful convictions are jurors–you and me.[/quote]
Absolutely false.
From the page you posted:
George Allen, Jr.: False Confession, False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct
Charles Wilhite: Mistaken Witness ID, Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct
Bennie Starks: False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation
Seth Penalver: Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct
How is this the fault of the jury? [/quote]
Exonerations sometimes result from misconduct. They’ve also come in droves because of DNA overturns–not because of foul play, but simply because the jury decided and it decided wrong, and now that we have DNA evidence, we know the truth.
Is it really your contention that juries don’t choose incorrectly?
Nope.
Therefore, there is uncertainty int he legal system.
Therefore, you were wrong when you said that there wasn’t.
