http://lewrockwell.com/akers/akers201.html
"White Paper" from Ob DOJ justifies assassination - Page 3
Forum Index > General Forum |
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
http://lewrockwell.com/akers/akers201.html | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of Law I especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: We've decided that we will have the right to take your life after a secret and legally unaccountable conclave of vaguely defined experts has decided that you are a member of al-Qaida or a vaguely defined associate group and that you are vaguely senior enough in said organization to be responsible for vaguely defined activities and threats that may be posed at a vaguely defined time, and that attempting to capture and try you is too much of a fucking hassle. I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want? | ||
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
On February 06 2013 15:13 Jisall wrote: Last i checked Obama was left wing. Nice try however. Didn't know nojok said anything different but you can try reading whatever you want into his comment. | ||
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
| ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote: This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message): We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of Law I especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English: I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight. The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do. As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want? What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:33 XenOmega wrote: While this particular way of wagin war (assuming there is war against terrorists) is still uncertain to me (i have not thought it through), what poses me problem is the risk of casualties among innoccent people. I for one would condemn drone EVEN if you had 1 innoccent person in 100 successful strikes. Of course, if you take it from a pure statistic, obviously its pretty good. But I am not willing to sacrifce lives like that ; I don't believe that we can discard innoccent lives like that for the greater good, assuming that is the case What if there would be more than one innocent civilian death if we didn't do any of those 100 drone strikes, because there would be at least one terrorist attack against civilians? | ||
KwarK
United States40765 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote:What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Yes. Democratic principles are the stake in this war. | ||
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:39 Doodsmack wrote: What if there would be more than one innocent civilian death if we didn't do any of those 100 drone strikes, because there would be at least one terrorist attack against civilians? Then that civilian death would be on the terrorist and not the "good guys". | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
seems like a case of expediency and pragmatism against a theory of law that stress consistency. | ||
KwarK
United States40765 Posts
| ||
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote: What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Notice how China is not the target of terrorist attacks? The reason for attacks by al qaeda in the 90's was because of America's interference and control over muslim nations. The more the USA attacks, the more likely people will want to take revenge. It is a natural reaction. The policies of the war on terror are an utter failure. Look at the world today and compare it with 2001. The people who want to attack America today are 10 fold greater than 10 years ago. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:01 sekritzzz wrote: china has basically a regional revolt. of course they would not call that terrorism, but heyNotice how China is not the target of terrorist attacks? The reason for attacks by al qaeda in the 90's was because of America's interference and control over muslim nations. The more the USA attacks, the more likely people will want to take revenge. It is a natural reaction. The policies of the war on terror are an utter failure. Look at the world today and compare it with 2001. The people who want to attack America today are 10 fold greater than 10 years ago. | ||
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: easy to make this look bad, but i don't think the slippery slope argument holds much weight here. the administration's side is that they only act with credible information, as well as tactical necessity. i.e. not creating legal shelter for terrorists. seems like a case of expediency and pragmatism against a theory of law that stress consistency. How do you define terrorism though? I recall some government agency listing a bunch of groups/characteristics potentially linked with terrorism, and it listed stuff like veterans, libertarians, people opposed to the North American Union, people opposed to the federal reserve, anti-abortion activists, people who believe in the Constitution, opponents of the Federal Reserve, etc. What if the excuse of "it was ok to kill him because he was a terrorist/supported terrorism" was abused to assassinate people with unpopular opinions? When wikileaks released a bunch of damning evidence against the government, there were calls to label it a terrorist group. What if criticizing the government/whistleblowing becomes terrorist activity? | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote: How do you define terrorism though? I recall some government agency listing a bunch of groups/characteristics potentially linked with terrorism, and it listed stuff like veterans, libertarians, people opposed to the North American Union, people opposed to the federal reserve, anti-abortion activists, people who believe in the Constitution, opponents of the Federal Reserve, etc. What if the excuse of "it was ok to kill him because he was a terrorist/supported terrorism" was abused to assassinate people with unpopular opinions? When wikileaks released a bunch of damning evidence against the government, there were calls to label it a terrorist group. What if criticizing the government/whistleblowing becomes terrorist activity? iirc, the administration's side is that they are not basing their decisions on a categorization like terrorism, but on tactical necessity and immediate impact. it's only used for high priority targets. specifically, those who carry out acts of war against the u.s. the argument is that enemy combatants, once designated, are treated under international just war law rather than american civil law. but yea, certainly a lot of room for abuse, if bad people are in charge. but then again, when the bad people are in charge, they could create loopholes easily. the best safeguard for the rights of citizens still comes from politics, not legal blah | ||
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote: Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills. This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before. You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China. The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it. | ||
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
jackalope1234
122 Posts
On February 06 2013 09:09 Solarsail wrote: Yes. The US citizen angle makes headlines, but honestly America shouldn't be doing this at all. The deaths of many civilians of any nationality do not justify killing a handful of genuine terrorists (and, how many attacks have there been on the US in the last year? Zero? Then that's the assumed number of genuine terrorists.) They must be doing a good job. :p | ||
zatic
Zurich15223 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:23 emythrel wrote: You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China. The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it. Well, I suppose the biggest difference here is that the Cold War assassinations were extralegal, and not justified at all, whereas the drone strikes are virtually officially sanctioned policy. The US will to this day deny CIA murders 40 years ago, but will openly admit to and advertise their current drone attacks. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just war theory is pretty bullshit for obvious reasons. war as a human activity is peculiar. it is large scale and organized, yet has a readily available conceptual container. the ease wiht which it is comprehended as a concept contrasts with the complex operation itself, so whatever moral sensibility justifying war based on that concept alone, isn't going to carry much weight. surely, surely some intermediate solution is available but overlooked. yet just war theory encourages overlooking because it defines things in terms of a simple binary, blow shit up or do nothing. | ||
| ||