Ron Paul rocks. The man had no criminal record.
That may be true, but this is another one of the few times I disagree with Paul. I see Al-Awlaki as changing alliances, to a faction we are at war with. It is now no longer a criminal act, but he is warring against us.
People are targeted in war. just that simple.
Tough call. If it's war, it's war. I thought all the law enforcement theories about terra have been thrown out. I'll let the supremes figure that one out.
War or no, I'm against torture.
Are you for torture?
We did what? Had a trial for him? We invaded Iraq long before his capture. We had boots on the ground. A trial was easy. We aren't in Yemen though, just like we weren't in Pakistan when we killed Bin Laden. Drones make sense in these situations.
Welcome to the war on terror. These concerns have been there since the beginning. I honestly don't see that big of an issue in saying a war zone would be wherever AQ operates. What's the big deal?
You also need to put the tin foil hat down. Wikileaks never flew a plane and into a building or killed a us citizen or propagandized the destruction of all things western.
If the concern was Saddam and the liberation of Iraq, we could've used a drone then too. We had full control of their airspace.
And Saddam wasn't even a US citizen...
But it isn't a war zone. Saying it and being are two different things. I understand the kind of leverage the US has having the bigger guns. But at some point some country isn't going to take it kindly that we fly some robot and start firing missiles down.
We invaded a country on ty intel. We didn't know WTF to do once we were there. Don't tell me how infallible we are, or the kind of drones (not the robot kind) that can happen to be in command.
You didn't answer the question either. Where's the check and balances on all this?
The idea of a war zone in the way you think of is antiquated and not really useful. With the war on terror, legal concepts have to evolve and adapt to the exigencies of the real world. So, from that perspective, it is a warzone. If you're interested, you should check out Phillip Bobbit. He's a legal scholar who writes a lot on this specific issue.
What does te Iraq war have to do with anything? A US Wikipedia member is not Al-Qaeda and equivocating the two is non-sense. There is no slippery slope.
Terror attacks are way over 200 years old. AQ isn't breaking any new ground here. What needs to be understood is that the US is operating outside the country and there are international laws and conventions that apply. I don't like Pakis at all, but they're absolutely right yelling "Sovereignty!" whenever a drone fires a few rockets within their borders. If a Paki drone fires a few rockets in Arizona to kill whoever they deem terrorists, the US would have boots in Pakiland before you can say o.
Thanks for the Bobbit recommendation. I'll check some of his work.
It has to do with who or how these summary decisions are made, and based on what intel. It's clear this guy got what he had coming, but who's next? Based on what intel? Who checks on this power?
It's not like we didn't had Gitmo packed with people we had to eventually let go because they had nothing to do with anything. Frankly, from the whole "enemy combatant" onwards, the whole thing is a slippery slope and ripe for abuse.
The 9/11 plot was mostly hatched in Germany. Is Germany now a war zone?
The UK? Spain? Indonesia? India? The US?
How does one determine how/where AQ operates without an expansive surveillance/imperial presence throughout the world? A surveillance and security presence that, as we are seeing and will continue to see, can only tend to exacerbate the problem of terrorism and extremism.
You're absolutely right that terrorism in some form or fashion has existed for centuries. And you're also right that terrorism has transcended national boundaries prior to the advent of Al-Qaeda. But you're absolutely wrong in asserting that Al-Qaeda brings nothing new. Technology (ranging from the Internet to the ability to detonate a dirty bomb and everything in between) makes "this" terrorism radically different than its prior iterations. Because the world we live in now is way more global than what existed 20-30 years ago, notions like nation state sovereignty (which owes it's creation to 17th century political philosophy) is just not useful.
You're hypothetical has some validity in the abstract. But it's also admins in that Pakistan isn't going to fly drones in AZ. No chance in . It's disingenuous to suggest that US anti-terrorism policies undermine all notions nation state sovereignty.
By the way, you should definitely check out terror and consent by Bobbit. I had him in law school and he's an incredible author and academic on these exact issues.
As for the slippery slope, there are two points.
1. You seem to have retreated from your assertion that US Wikileaks members are now at risk. That's what I was originally arguing so I'll move on.
2. Your newer point has a lot of validity. If I had the answers to them, I'd be a way richer man. But what I will say is that our notions of due process, checks and balances, and the like will have to change. That's just part of the process of legal evolution - concepts change and adapt as society evolves.
As for the case of awlaki, why wouldn't his involvement as AQ's ideological moutpiece have essentially waived his due process rights as an American? I'm far less concerned about this particular incident as I would be with a much closer call.
Sure. I don't see the problem with that assertion as long as we agree that we're not fighting Germany, Indonesia, etc...
Why does increased surveillance exascerbate militant Islam?
Surveillance seems to require boots on the ground, drones in the air and alliances with despotic regimes -all of which can and will be exploited by militant islam. Our position becomes even more untenable as democracy spreads and develops in the Arab world.
To paraphrase Thomas More, Fear mongers and authoritarians such as yourself are so frightened that you insist we need to cut a great road through the law to pursue the Devil. And once the last law was cut down or "evolved" as you put it, and the Devil turned round on you, where will you hide? Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!But what I will say is that our notions of due process, checks and balances, and the like will have to change. That's just part of the process of legal evolution - concepts change and adapt as society evolves.
Academic apologies for the dismantling of the rule of law and the subversion of our civil liberties aren't that interesting to me.
If you're looking for a critical examination of the issues discussed on this thread, I recommend Jane Mayer's seminal book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 10-01-2011 at 11:39 PM.
No I'm not for torture. I'm ok with the "enhanced interrogations" in the few cases it was used given the cir stances at the time. Just as I'm ok with assasinating a US citizen in this case. I don't support either as a general practice though. As you said it's war, there are lots of tough calls.
Nonsense. The only novelty is that they messed with the US. Groups like ETA in Spain have been terrorizing in the internet era (called a ceasefire as recently as 2010). Yet, Spain tries ETA members in a court of law, and they don't send drones launching missiles into France, where some ETA members like to hide. You don't think France would rise a stinker if they acted like that?
Spain and England were also targets of AQ, and they're not flying drones into other countries either, or entertaining the notion of "moving war zone". That's entirely an American construction.
Of course they won't. But it has everything to do with who has the longer (both militarily and economically, let's not pretend here that we've not been sending billions that way year after year), and very little with respecting state sovereignty or abiding to international laws.
I will, thanks for the heads up.
Perhaps it wasn't as clear or as good an example. I presented the "US Wikileaks member" as a contemporary example of somebody that the US might identify as a treat to national security and might have a hard time extraditing or reaching. The war on AQ might go on for a while, and eventually end, or not. But the precedent that was set here (IMO, anyways) is an action directed strictly from the executive (this was a CIA mission, I don't even think it needed to be under the AUMF umbrella), on a country we're not at war with against a US citizen that was a civilian in that country (he was an asshole, he deserved every missile he got, he was a sponsor/advocate/mastermind for terror, etc etc etc, still a civilian on a country we're NOT at war with. Sure, it was a hole like Yemen, and if it was Germany/China this might not have happened, but that's besides the actual point). Under those premises, there's nothing stopping operations like this to happen in the future under no scrutiny against whoever the lords of the US at the time deem an "enemy combatant". At least that's the way I see it.
I completely disagree with this. Separation of power and checks and balances, the actual checks on power, are exactly what separates the US as the "good guys" versus the Nazis (pardon the Godwin) and "bad guys". I think we know enough from history to know that unchecked power is abused power.
I think law does evolve as society evolves, but certain pillars that our society has been built upon, which made this society as great as it is, such as due process, check and balances are simply non-negotiable. And the erosion of those pillars is exactly where the concern should be, regardless if that asshole had it coming.
Because the Cons ution, where the 5th is stamped on, doesn't provide a clause where such actions work as a waiver. And AFAIK, he never waived his right to the 5th. I'm also relatively unconcerned with THIS specific case. What concerns me is the precedent it sets going forward, and tentatively the erosion that I pointed out above.
"I think we know enough from history to know that unchecked power is abused power."
Many know it ("Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"), but there's no way to stop the financial sector/UCA unchecked (aka, unregulated) power. Their money and power is now/has been surpra-national, beyond the reach of any govts that they have anyway corrupted and compromised.
All these sterile threads, debates about the Cons ution, law, etc, and 10s of 1000s of Human-Americans in the streets, are moot, academic.
Basque terrorists are not analogous to Al-Qaeda at all. For one, ETA is way more local in nature than AQ. Yes, some members might jump over the "fence" into France, but the groups operations are predominately located in Spain and directed towards the Spanish government. That can't be said of AQ who's operations range from Northern Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia.
More importantly, there is nothing that suggests that Basque terrorists have or are seeking nuclear weaponry. This greatly distinguishes AQ - who have said they would like to detonate a dirty bomb - from ETA. This isn't just rhetoric either - AQ has tapped Pakistani scientists for a program wherein they are actively seeking and potentially acquiring the materials to make a nuclear bomb.
Ultimately, why can you compare a separatist movement which seeks independence (ETA) with another, larger group who's ideology is the destruction of the West? This is a terrible analogy.
But Spain and England provide support for our anti-terrorism activities both in the Middle East and Europe. There might not be a Spanish or English flag on a drone, but don't act like their hands are clean either.
I'm curious as to why you think Spain and England haven't signed onto the idea that the "warzone" with AQ isn't cir scribed to a particular geographic area.
So then this isn't going to dismantle nation-state sovereignty as we know it huh?
In this specific case, I don't see why undermining sovereignty is a bad thing.
But it's a ty example and won't set the precedent that you think it will. The reason why it's ty is because a wikileaks member poses way less of a threat to US security than the mouthpiece of AQ.
Re-reading your post I'm left wondering if you're more concerned with the threat to the due process rights of US citizens abroad or the sovereignty of other countries. As for the due process notion - the specific facts of the Awlaki case present no threats to our cons utional rights. On this point - you agree that the guy had everything he got coming.
As for the sovereignty notion - you do realize that Yemen provided logistical and intelligence support for the operation?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5b71fca-e...#axzz1ZeMBMBim
If Yemen not only has no problem with the operation but provides intelligence to the US, how is their sovereignty being harmed?
And if you think that there is no review of like this - you're wrong. The precedents set by the Guantanemo cases show that there is court-based scrutiny of presidential military operations when they infringe on the cons utional rights of US citizens. This case, however, doesn't pose the same cons utional issues that the Guantanemo cases do.
I never said end separation of powers, due process, etc... What I'm saying is that those notions evolve along with technology, society, etc... That's been happening since day one.
Your fears are exaggerated. We're talking about the murder of one of the leaders of AQ - granted a US citizen - who was participating in AQ operations in the Arabian Peninsula. This wasn't a guy who could present a legal defense or who had facts/cir stances militating in his favor.
I'm reminded of this quote from Abraham Lincoln where he discusses the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. He says something like he's not willing to sacrifice the union just to prevent the transgression of one law - i.e. due process. That's a pretty good analogy here.
See above. Also - you can waive your fifth amendment rights by, for example, taking the stand in a criminal lawsuit brought against you. Sure its not the same clause from the fifth amendment, but the point is you can waive those rights.
Just sit back and think about this case: this was a high ranking member of AQ who was coordinating and controlling AQAP operations. The guy was a mouthpiece for the whole "kill the infidel" ideology and had trained several terrorists who ended up killing innocent lives. The government of Yemen not only had no problems with the US operation - but provided intelligence for the operation. Yes, the guy was an American. But that doesn't mean that his cons utional rights attach automatically. Given these facts - I have a real difficulty in seeing the Orwellian nightmare you're suggesting.
increased drone use is one of the smart things Obama has done while in office.
in a perfect world, these countries would work with the U.S. in taking the terrorists out without us having to invade their air space. the problem is either these countries don't want to work with us or they're inept in dealing with the problem, or both (i.e. Pakistan). in that case i believe we have to act alone.
the countries you mentioned (i don't know about Indonesia though) would work with us in trying to take out the terrorist threat. the reason we send drones into Yemen and Pakistan is because they're corrupt and cohorts of terrorism. how'd our military alliance with Pakistan work out? they harbored Bin Laden for 7 years. it's not our first choice to send drones into these countries. it's that these countries are so indept in dealing with the threat, which they are probably in bed with anway, that we have to take desperate measures.
Last edited by mingus; 10-02-2011 at 07:13 PM.
The comparison stems from your claim that AQ has brought anything new to the table ("internet age" or "detonating a dirty bomb"). The contention is simply baloney. AQ or ETA or any other terror group would have no qualms using whatever they can get their hands on to terrorize. That's exactly what they do. Direct comparisons between the groups might not necessarily directly apply (goals, strategy, operations), but for all intents and purposes they use the same medium, terror, to get their point across. If I had to mark any other difference between other terror groups and AQ is that a good bunch of them were actually trained by the CIA during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That's just a somewhat minor detail though, IMO.
For what you pointed out as AQ bringing something 'new' to the table, it's an apt comparison. ETA was doing what you claim AQ started doing way before AQ was even a group.
Spain completely removed their troops from Afghanistan after Zapatero was elected IIRC (and after the Madrid bombing). You need to show me what kind of support Englad provided or provides in US attacks in Pakistani soil. AFAIK, the brits provided troops for Afghanistan and Iraq (actual invasions), and that's where the buck stopped for them. If you have info showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.
My impressions is that every country, except the US and their own "doctrines", attempt to follow international law, and the UN charter. You know, the charter that states that a unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is a war crime and should be punished accordingly. Do I think this is an issue for the US right now? No. But you eventually reap what you sow. If you on being a good citizen, don't expect other countries not to on you too.
It won't as long as the US has the longest . Germany once thought they had the longest too. You know what happened then. When you start walking down that road, there's no coming back.
I don't think sovereignty was undermined in this particular case, seeing Yemen was hunting for this guy too. The thing is, sovereignty or the lack of respect of it, happens on analogous missions such as the ones in Pakistan.
That's what you think. You don't know what the administration thinks. It only takes a Yoo or a Bybee clown to claim this action as precedent for blanket authorization. I'm sorry, I don't trust politicos not abusing what's unchecked.
I'm concerned with the rule of law, and the shortcuts to go around it. As I stated earlier, from "enemy combatant" onwards, everything looks like a parallel system of justice that's not the civilian nor the military and IMO, presents a huge slippery slope. This action breaks new ground but it's a continuation of the same theme.
I do. However, the fact we're flying the same drones in Pakistani airspace and shooting the same missiles, tells me that sovereignty isn't seemingly a concern in these operations.
Not true. It took a lawsuit to reach the SCOTUS to restore Habeas Corpus to the GITMO detainees. You saw the garbage memos on torture, that, once public (checked) finally allowed torture to be outlawed (again).
I don't underestimate the ability of politicians in power to bend the rules to make them fit whatever it is that they want to do.
What due process was here? What power checked the power used? It's nice and all to say "things change" but what you're really saying is "it's ok to overlook these fundamentals when we see fit". And I don't agree with that at all.
The particulars of this case certainly do not worry me as long as it was exceptional. But was this an exception or the new rule? Maybe I exaggerate, time will tell. Politicos on a power trip do make me nervous. Especially when there's nothing/nobody to checking on their powers.
You know as well as I do that Lincoln also was dealing with a rebellion, that he declared martial law, and that the Cons ution allows the suspension in those cases. This is nothing like that. Hamdi established that US citizens have the ability to contest their classification as "enemy combatants" before an impartial judge and thus access to habeas corpus, and that the executive simply has no power to hold citizens indefinitely without basic due process protections.
I never said you can't. I said AFAIK, he never did.
Again, unconcerned about this case in solitary. Concerned with the bigger picture. If this ends up being an exception, then there's nothing to worry about. If it's the new normal, then I think it warrants worrying about.
There's consequences for acting alone, especially when mistakes are made, and other countries' rights are violated. Remember that when China or whoever else decides to 'go it alone'.
The day we have our people over in China flying planes into their buildings, they'd be completely justified in sending drones over here if we're hiding/protecting those who carried it out.
The US certainly had (has?) Uyghur in GITMO, who are considered terrorists by the Chinese, and wouldn't hand them over to the Chinese. So you think China has every right to send drones over to GITMO and start blowing stuff up?. Okay.
I don't know who Uygher is...
Bottom line for me is if a country is going to obstruct us from finding terrorists within its borders, I hope our govt. takes them out. Letting a man whose made plans to kill hundreds of Americans live is negligent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
