cheney doth protest too much.

[ducks]

This guy basically did whatever he wanted for 4 or 5 straight years. No surprises here. I hope he burns in .

do you not do what you want
do you want to burn in l?

[Jacob1983]

What the is wrong with this? A group of assassins that was going to kill terrorists? Why are people being es about this? Terrorists deserve to be ed up by assassins. I give props to Cheney on this one. He made a lot of mistakes and had a lot of epic fails as VP but this one is a triumph. I mean it shows he was pretty clever and sneaky to keep this hidden for this long. Besides, Congress probably shouldn't have been aware of this anyways. Sometimes it's good not to know. Besides, shouldn't all the Democrats follow the lead of their almighty leader and the leave the past in the past?

[antimvp]

cheney wanted that war to make a profit and let his oil buddies get a hold of those oil refineries and that is a fact.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[LnGrrrR]

What the is wrong with this? A group of assassins that was going to kill terrorists? Why are people being es about this? Terrorists deserve to be ed up by assassins. I give props to Cheney on this one. He made a lot of mistakes and had a lot of epic fails as VP but this one is a triumph. I mean it shows he was pretty clever and sneaky to keep this hidden for this long. Besides, Congress probably shouldn't have been aware of this anyways. Sometimes it's good not to know. Besides, shouldn't all the Democrats follow the lead of their almighty leader and the leave the past in the past?

Jacob, use your brain, and think about this for two seconds.

What if another country killed a US citizen in the middle of the street, claiming he was a terrorist?

Do you think that would go over well here in the US?

[Winehole23]

In addtion WH23, if we have CIVILIAN agents, in plainclothes, attacking and killing terrorists, then how's it any different than civilians from any country killing whoever they deem a 'terrorist'?

We can get away with it. OTOH, we'll punish anyone who does it to us. Severely.

(En serio, I agree there's no difference in principle.)


I was pointing out that the result isn't much different than using drones. The target is the same, and many Americans aren't too particular about the instrumentalities, so long as we are the ones doing the killing.

[LnGrrrR]

But the person OPERATING the drones is wearing a uniform!

Yes, it definitely does present interesting questions. However, I think drones are legal because they are obviously combat drones.

The major point of the Geneva conventions is that, as long as you're wearing a uniform of some sort, that you have IDENTIFIED yourself as a combatant, then you are a legal target. I'm guessing those drones are identified as such.

Now, if drones were small enough to look like other items, and were disguised as such, I have no doubt would be breaking the Geneva conventions.

[ElNono]

You guys didn't get the memo. We have the moral high ground. We're always the good guys. Plus, "You're either with us, or against us".

[Winehole23]

But the person OPERATING the drones is wearing a uniform!

It makes a difference to me. I was alluding to the fact that this sort of nuance is growing scarcer, even if it is officially in vogue right now.

PFA: The official nuance is out of step with the majority of US voters.

(BTW, are you sure the drone operators are all uniformed US armed forces?)

Yes, it definitely does present interesting questions. However, I think drones are legal because they are obviously combat drones.

Used without permission within the borders of Pakistan, our ally, or Yemen, a sovereign country with which we are not at war?

This goes back to a *battlefield* of global dimensions, in the case of the *war* on terror. The battlefield lies on a procrustean bed, and the duration of the war has no rational limit.

Within Iraq and Afghanistan you are obviously right, LNGR. These are traditional and recognizable war zones. Actions elsewhere are of more dubious "legality" IMO.

The major point of the Geneva conventions is that, as long as you're wearing a uniform of some sort, that you have IDENTIFIED yourself as a combatant, then you are a legal target. I'm guessing those drones are identified as such.

The targets are "unlawful enemy combatants," but this is a quibble.

There is an obvious problem with using uniformed troops under official orders for targeted assassinations *out of theater*. It's not the most dignified use of our warriors (gives us a bad reputation and as such may tend to imperil such soldiers as may fall into the custody of the enemy) and it sets a bad example for others.

As a matter of strategy, I can see the reasoning behind using civilians for black ops targeted killings, instead of US armed forces. You want the enemy to focus on the *evil* USG, not our brave men and women at the point of the spear.

[Winehole23]

Back on topic, the case as presented suggests Cheney got cold feet. If the program was never operational, but purely notional, I can see the argument that Congress was not en led to be advised.

OTOH, that Cheney specifically directed the CIA to keep mum, suggests to me that advising Congress may have been considered obligatory within the Bush Administration with regard to this program or at least, within the CIA.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

cheney wanted that war to make a profit and let his oil buddies get a hold of those oil refineries and that is a fact.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

well, i hate to break it to you, but look at the current administration and this global warming farce.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Back on topic, the case as presented suggests Cheney got cold feet. If the program was never operational, but purely notional, I can see the argument that Congress was not en led to be advised.

OTOH, that Cheney specifically directed the CIA to keep mum, suggests to me that advising Congress may have been considered obligatory within the Bush Administration with regard to this program or at least, within the CIA.

did you not read the article i posted?

[Winehole23]

It's rather long. Is there something in it you'd care to direct my attention to?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It's rather long. Is there something in it you'd care to direct my attention to?

ah, i should address you as Congressman Winehole from now on. nevermind. carry on

[Winehole23]

The article is one long winded self-justification for a ragbag of unspecified covert actions. I do not bow to it as you seem to.

I understand that Bush officials sanctified all their actions in advance and covered their behinds afterwards, by pointing to 9/11.

Was that your point, VLE?

[ElNono]

did you not read the article i posted?

I actually have, and after reading it, I think it's unrelated. The article mentions the CIA doing covert operation to inform the military to carry operations.
The plan we're talking about mentions civilian CIA operatives carrying the operations.

[Winehole23]

Too nuanced, ElNono. I think VLE sees his post as a blanket amnesty for anything the President chooses to do in the GWOT.

[LnGrrrR]

It makes a difference to me. I was alluding to the fact that this sort of nuance is growing scarcer, even if it is officially in vogue right now.

PFA: The official nuance is out of step with the majority of US voters.

(BTW, are you sure the drone operators are all uniformed US armed forces?)

Oh yes, it's definitely a question that will only come up more and more. I'm rather well-read in the philosophical questions that future technology bring... being a geek who's into philosophy and dystopian futures, that kind of topic is right up my alley.

And you as well as I know that the only people who are "sure" are the people behind the instruments, and their bosses. Hence my smiley face.

Used without permission within the borders of Pakistan, our ally, or Yemen, a sovereign country with which we are not at war?

This goes back to a *battlefield* of global dimensions, in the case of the *war* on terror. The battlefield lies on a procrustean bed, and the duration of the war has no rational limit.

Within Iraq and Afghanistan you are obviously right, LNGR. These are traditional and recognizable war zones. Actions elsewhere are of more dubious "legality" IMO.

I would argue that they are most likely illegal. Again, put the shoe on the other foot. Would we allow other countries not at war with us to have drones in our nation, shooting down suspected terrorists? Of course not. Everyone would be screaming bloody murder about sovereignty.

The 'everywhere battlefield' is total bull , and anyone with half a brain can see the obviously dire implications it has.

The targets are "unlawful enemy combatants," but this is a quibble.

So our government says.

There is an obvious problem with using uniformed troops under official orders for targeted assassinations *out of theater*. It's not the most dignified use of our warriors (gives us a bad reputation and as such may tend to imperil such soldiers as may fall into the custody of the enemy) and it sets a bad example for others.

As a matter of strategy, I can see the reasoning behind using civilians for black ops targeted killings, instead of US armed forces. You want the enemy to focus on the *evil* USG, not our brave men and women at the point of the spear.

I would argue that the damage to America done by not standing on high moral ground would outweigh far more any damage from the military performing assassinations.

After all, the evil US government is in charge of the military, correct?

And enemies won't care if it's the military or CIA using drones illegally once a soldier is kidnapped.

[Winehole23]

At any rate VLE missed my point that putting the kibosh on the assassination program suggests officials felt themselves under obligation to disclose it to Congress.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I actually have, and after reading it, I think it's unrelated. The article mentions the CIA doing covert operation to inform the military to carry operations.
The plan we're talking about mentions civilian CIA operatives carrying the operations.

well i can care less about whatever "plans" are being hatched here. it's simply an article published a little more than a month after 9/11 to let everyone know pretty much that they were going after the taliban at all costs. it pretty much voids out the "hiding from congress" claim. that is all. sorry, congressman hole, for not posting an article from your favorite rag. which rags do you "bow down" to?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

At any rate VLE missed my point that putting the kibosh on the assassination program suggests officials felt themselves under obligation to disclose it to Congress.

like i said. i could care less about points. the article i posted addressed what the thread opened up with.

[Winehole23]

I would argue that the damage to America done by not standing on high moral ground would outweigh far more any damage from the military performing assassinations.

The damage is already done IMO. Panetta is in full damage control mode. We no longer occupy the moral high ground in the eyes of others.

After all, the evil US government is in charge of the military, correct?

And enemies won't care if it's the military or CIA using drones illegally once a soldier is kidnapped.

If we hold ourselves to a higher standard that is because we care about our own moral worth.

Our own scruples do not bind the enemy, but they do not prejudice him against our troops either, as using them to bomb weddings and funerals may.

[LnGrrrR]

If we hold ourselves to a higher standard that is because we care about our own moral worth.

Our own scruples do not bind the enemy, but they do not prejudice him against our troops either, as using them to bomb weddings and funerals may.

Agreed. I'm not a believer that it is morally acceptable to lower ourselves to the level of our enemies. Didn't we learn that lesson as children? I guess only some of us did.

[Winehole23]

well i can care less about whatever "plans" are being hatched here.

Obviously. If you think the conversation is over or have nothing further to contribute or respond to, please feel free to excuse yourself. Your points have been duly noted.

it's simply an article published a little more than a month after 9/11 to let everyone know pretty much that they were going after the taliban at all costs. it pretty much voids out the "hiding from congress" claim. that is all. sorry

Blanket amnesty, self-proclaimed in advance, for any unspecified action. Gotcha.

That may dispense with the necessity of Congressional notification for you. The US Congress may not share your sentiment, and I have argued that Cheney's kibosh suggests he may not have thought notification avoidable in the normal administrative course of things.

If it was avoidable, what need was there to order the CIA to be silent?

, congressman hole, for not posting an article from your favorite rag. which rags do you "bow down" to?

None. For damn sure it isn't the Washington Post.

[Winehole23]

The 'everywhere battlefield' is total bull , and anyone with half a brain can see the obviously dire implications it has.

I disagree. The universal battlefield appeals to the common sense of fully intact brains as well as anyone who has ever played a first-person shooter video game.

At any rate, it has been our official war policy for some time now, and already possesses the dignity that attaches to settled custom.

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree. The universal battlefield appeals to the common sense of intact brains as well as anyone who has ever played a first-person shooter video game.

At any rate, it has been our official war policy for some time now, and already possesses the dignity that attaches to settled custom.

I'm sure you're being facetious here. Sadly, many people push war as if it were a giant game of Risk.