Reply With Quote
Not to completely ignore what you wrote ElNono, but here's a question: should international peacekeepers not intervene in a country where genocide is being committed in order to respect that country's sovereignty?
Uyghur people
My concern isn't particularly with this guy or action. If you were to tell me these operations will be cir scribed to AQ members, then outside of any concerns over sovereignty (which as stated was no concern in this particular case, but has been in, say, Pakistan), I wouldn't have much problem with it.
The thing is, nobody, not you, vy, me or pretty much anybody else can tell you what the criteria is for these missions. And where does the buck stop.
And that's the concern. I don't lose sleep over it, but I think it's a legitimate concern.
Not to completely ignore what you wrote ElNono, but here's a question: should international peacekeepers not intervene in a country where genocide is being committed in order to respect that country's sovereignty?
That question again.
In any event, I'm not happy with this killing, at all. Being a US citizen means a lot. Or at least it used to. When our citizenship is so easily tossed away it is a really bad time in our history.
vy, it's ok. It got a little long and winded.
About your question, that's what the UN was put into to place for, wasn't it?
A forum where countries can discuss, vote and eventually, if needed, authorize punitive actions (military or otherwise) against whichever country. See Lybia for a contemporary example (resolution 1973).
From the US side, if Congress declares war on Pakistan under the premise that they're protecting terrorists, then you have a formal declaration. I always stated part of the problem is of form (Paki is a country we're NOT at war with).
where does the buck stop? we're in a war. using drones is an act of war. it's justifiable if it aligns with American values and it makes logistical sense. the criteria is conditional.
We are? Where's Congress declaration of war on Yemen? Pakistan?
and lol @ "American values". What's the definition of what falls within "American values", who decides that, and who checks on that?
It's completely invidious. Whoever is pointing his finger decides; checking is what the rest of us are for.
when you make your country a safe haven for terrorists you've pretty much asked for some type of military action from the U.S. the ball was in Yemen's and Pakistan's court. they could've cooperated with us, but they didn't. they obstructed us. i would consider that an act of war on their part. we just responded. and they won't admit to it being an act of war either. they're dancing around it just like Iran is. but it's clear who our enemies are.
and by American values i generally mean in this instance "are they trying to kill us?" protecting our people from terrorists, from any kind of violent threat, is an American value, or at least i thought it was until i got into this debate.
so let me get this straight: if we had to do things you're way--if ElNono were president-- both Bin Laden and this guy would still be living and plotting against our people?
Agreed. You would hope that at least some of it abides with established law. My preference anyways.
Well, in the Yemen's case, they did cooperate with us.
But you haven't flipped your point around. What happens when the US is non-cooperative with what other countries consider terrorists. The US certainly provides political asylum to a number of people that would fit that criteria.
Do you feel the other country is justified in attacking the US? If not, why not?
If the response is "American values", then is it a war on terror, or a war on spreading "American values"? What happens when a sovereign country does not want or agrees with "American values"?
I haven't really entertained the "Nono president" angle, because I'm not American born, so I could never hold office. I do think that your view that eliminating these people will suddenly stop the plotting is fairly naive. The problem includes our relation with Israel and it's much, much more complex than that. A quick thought over the hypotetical would be that under Nono's America, we either not be involved in any wars and doing much more work in intelligence and locking down the border (defensive stance) or, should Congress approve declaring war on them, we would stop ing around with Pakistan, secure their nuclear arsenal, and wipe their tribal region (offensive stance). Be it drones or boots or both. I do think we're headed that way eventually.
So your issue isn't with sovereignty per se - it's with unilateral decisions to violate that sovereignty. Right?
In a nuts , correct.
The guy was wanted for treason, a crime punishable by death.
Sure. Determining what the punishment should be is up to the judicial (courts) though.
Not in acts of war.
Congress never declared war, so we're not at war.
I believe there needs to be two eyewitnesses to hold someone accountable for treason. That said, I'm not sure how stringent the determination for "eyewitness" is. (ie. say Awlaki puts out a video saying he supports AQ, etc etc, do people who have watched that video count as eyewitnesses, or would they have had to been there with him?)
There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there. He was encouraging people with the support of AQ to attack American targets. At the same time there is the entire issue of us not having him in custody. If only we could count on Yemeni extradition.
The guy needed to die my issue is that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendment.
Rule of law in this country is a joke.
It happened in Yemen.
That was the point. Yemeni extradition basically means that we would count on the Yemeni to obtain him to extradite back to us. That was not going to happen.
My point being the "rule of law in the United States" was not a factor here. I view that terrorist just like any other, an enemy combatant that needs to be eliminated.
So who gets to arbitrarily conclude that hes a traitor and execute him? God help those who leave the country apparently.
Yeah. Especially those that become terrorists.
I believe OBL was in another country as well.
They need to know we will come after them, that they cannot hide.
I have no sympathy for these mother ers.
Move to Yemen. Much better there obviously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions