Al Queda scores an own goal :-)

[Master of Ossus]

Since Zaia appears to be living in a fantasy world, I will try to bring her back to reality. Here we go.

Zaia, you are essentially saying that the lives of terrorists are more important to you AND to the Law than the lives of American citizens and our allies overseas. Why are you doing this simply by saying that we should wait for proof of a crime? Because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MURDER BEFORE A MURDER IS COMMITTED! If you overheard a conversation in which two Al Qaeda members were saying that they were going to detonate a Nuclear device in Washington DC next Thursday, would you wait until they had detonated that device in order to do anything about it? After all, you could arrest them of smuggling a nuclear device into Washington, but could you PROVE that they were going to detonate it? Clearly the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of people who plan to take those lives away.

Further, the idea that WE as CIVILIANS have a right to know information linking Al Qaeda members to terrorist acts is just stupid. Let's say that two Al Qaeda members both talked to one senior member. One of them died in the car, but the other one is in the US, now. He hears that part of the evidence against the guy who blew up with the car is that the senior Al Qaeda member squeeled to US authorities. He now knows that he needs to get underground before the leader also turns him in, which in turn would potentially allow an Al Qaeda member to escape. There is a reason why the government maintains classified files. This is a perfect example of it.

I am also disturbed by the fact that you ignore legal and moral precedents established by BOTH the target region AND the United States. US operatives in WWII hunted down Nazi war-criminals without a trial, but no one had to ask Nazi Germany if that was okay, first. When the Mossad arrested a Nazi criminal living in Argentina, they did not have to ask permission from the Argentine government first. Further, in many Arab countries you ARE guilty until proven innocent. By the laws of both the target country, and of the United States, the attack was perfectly reasonable. Why is it up to us to prevent the CIA from launching such an operation, even though it could potentially save American lives?

[Zaia]

First of all, I should explain that I have a fairly extensive background in law, which forces me to see things differently than most others here. I understand how my view is opposite military precedents, but I can't help but see this act as a court of law would view it. I apologize if this perspective is inappropriate for this discussion.

Secondly, if there was evidence linked to this action, I would not expect it to ever reach the general public. It would be irresponsible on the government's part to share such knowledge. The point that I so eloquently misstated earlier was that none of us really knows what evidence exists, and so I don't think we have the right to say what actions are justified and what are not. Unless one of you is really G.W....

Correctly or incorrectly, I also have a tendency to mistrust information made available to the public which pertains to war. Maybe I had too many history classes that dealt with the dangers of propaganda, or perhaps I need to lay off of 'The X-Files" for a while, but I have a very difficult time trusting everything I hear or read, even if it comes from a reliable source such as CNN. In my mind it parallels Christian fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is truly the word of God; they take it at face value, as if God himself handed a beautifully leather-bound edition directly to them. Of course, historically and logically speaking, the Bible has undergone a few thousand changes, due to translations, rephrasing, abridgements, etc., so obviously no one can accurately say that it is exactly as it was originally worded. I think news pertaining to worldly issues, especially war, mirrors this. Unless one is high enough in government or the military to know all information (ie: God in previous example), the complete and unabridged edition of what is going on will never be known to the general public. It puts doubt in my mind concerning what percentage of the news is fact and what percentage is propaganda.

[tharkûn]

First of all, I should explain that I have a fairly extensive background in law, which forces me to see things differently than most others here. I understand how my view is opposite military precedents, but I can't help but see this act as a court of law would view it. I apologize if this perspective is inappropriate for this discussion.
Al Queada are properly classified as unlawful combatants. As such they have no right to a trial, indeed unless the US has recently signed the 1977 protocol to the Geneva Convention and I missed it ... summary execution of unlawful combatants is perfectly legal.


If they are beleived to be armed and in the feild ... fill em with lead. Hell its leagal to do that to LAWFUL COMBATANTS.


Secondly, if there was evidence linked to this action, I would not expect it to ever reach the general public. It would be irresponsible on the government's part to share such knowledge. The point that I so eloquently misstated earlier was that none of us really knows what evidence exists, and so I don't think we have the right to say what actions are justified and what are not. Unless one of you is really G.W....
Madam, the person killed in this incident has been wanted since the attack on the USS Cole. His name has been bandied about on numerous occassions and if memory serves was even applauded by bin Ladin. If the Yeminis, Washington say he's Al Queada ... and have done so for YEARS ... I'm inclined to believe them.

Correctly or incorrectly, I also have a tendency to mistrust information made available to the public which pertains to war.
Which is why you should be releived that he has been wanted before the war on terror began.

In any event categorically rejecting every claim a government makes in war is just as stupid as beleiving every claim they make.

It puts doubt in my mind concerning what percentage of the news is fact and what percentage is propaganda.
Of course but we have to ask ourselves about MOTIVE. Why would they get the facts wrong? He was wanted years ago and I'm loath to beleive the US government waited years to off him just a ratings boost at the polls. They could of course be incompotent, but the Yemenis also claim he's guilty.

The fact of the matter returns to these:
These were unlawful combatants.
I have yet to hear the law broken whilst killing said unlawful combatants.
The chances were quite high they intended and would have harmed far more innocents.

It comes down to simple, cold algebra ... do you expect more innocents to die by killing them ... or do you expect more to die by leaving them alive.

Only a bloodthirsty fool would prefer to kill them than to capture them. But if capture is not viable it is morally negligent not to kill them.

[Crown]

You know I generally have this thought that all Americans are ignorant, self-righteous fucks, and then people on this board show me that Americans are more knowing than I usually give them credit for. And then they post stuff like this and it all goes back to my original thought.

The point that weemadando is making is that it's not the part of the politicians, intelligence agencies, civil servaints or for that matter every joe blow on the street to determine guilt. That is reserved for the courts. The point is that this no more different than one person playing the role of judge, jury and executioner on a whim. An aglamation that doen't sit well in any free democratic nation.

A yet here we have a case of it being applied by the very forces which claim to be 'good' and are battling the forces of 'evil' and 'tyrany'. I believe that if you all stop this whole 'knee jerk' reaction to more 'American bashing' you might be able to see what weemadando is saying. The only reason that it's targeted at 'America' and Americans in general is because it's the only country that's using the actions taken upon it by a few, to give it the moral 'right' to do the same.

The critisism isn't just reserved for American's though, I remember when the American government was having the same reservations about Russia in Chechnya. How times have changed. In closing these 'actions' are not just by your own standards and certainly not by International standards. These are at best unilateral illegal assansinations to *protect* America, or at worst just vigilanty attacks. Either way call it what it is and stop window dressing it.

On another note, but same thread, has anyone actually *seen* the videos where Ossama declairs responcibility? I mean not reported on the news with some file footage, I mean actually seen and heard the tape where he claims responsability. Anyone? I haven't, I watch the news. I have heard the reports and bulletins, but have never seen or heard the actual video. I have never read a transcript or anything. Anyone?

[TrailerParkJawa]

I saw the video footage from the Arab version of CNN. Dont know how to spell it. It was translated into english, not sure it that counts.


I dont have a problem with us killing terrorists with something like what happend in Yemem, but before I heard more of the story I did have several thoughts.

1. Are we operating combat aircraft without authorization in another country?
2. Does'nt it bother you a bit that this reportedly was a CIA aircraft and not
a US military aircraft. Is the CIA allowed to carry out paramilitary actions?
3. What if these people were really innocent? Then what? Reparations?

I dont think this was orchestrated for the elections but it did help. I dont think Wee is wrong in bringing up some of his points.

[Edi]

A question for you Americans here, would you be okay with the government of some country assassinating American citizens on American soil with a missile strike because those American citizens had been guilty of organizing terrorist activities and funding terrorist organizations in that country and the actions of those terrorists had resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents?

If your answer to the above question is 'no', you are hypocrites and might as well STFU about the issue. Or just admit that you're okay with the US doing stuff it would never tolerate others doing. Crown and Zaia seem to be the only people in this thread who get weemadando's point about the principles involved, the rest of what I've seen is merely semantic nitpicking of terms that amounts to nothing but trying to stay within the letter of the text while ignoring its spirit.

Not that principles don't sometimes have to bend before practicality, and I certainly won't mourn the people who died in that strike, seeing as they were identified as A-Q, but it's unbelievable how you people seem to be so blase about the way your government cheerfully ignores international law, and how in the course of this "war on terrorism" it has ignored your own laws and even the damned Constitution you like to spout at every turn.

Edi

[Knife]

I saw the video footage from the Arab version of CNN. Dont know how to spell it. It was translated into english, not sure it that counts.


I dont have a problem with us killing terrorists with something like what happend in Yemem, but before I heard more of the story I did have several thoughts.

1. Are we operating combat aircraft without authorization in another country?
2. Does'nt it bother you a bit that this reportedly was a CIA aircraft and not
a US military aircraft. Is the CIA allowed to carry out paramilitary actions?
3. What if these people were really innocent? Then what? Reparations?

I dont think this was orchestrated for the elections but it did help. I dont think Wee is wrong in bringing up some of his points.

1. No, and if we were I think the Yeman's would have kicked us out by now and all hell would have broken out on all of the news channels.

2. No, the CIA has, should and to my limited knowledge does use military equipment and tatics for various cotengencies. Think, Bay of Pigs and some of the reported happenings in Loas durring Vietnaum, not to mention Afganistan durring the 80's.

3. While some are content to accuse and blame the goverment for everything they do, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt but will keep an open mind in case some of the accusations are correct.


And Crown, we didn't elect a Judge in Chief. When military actions are authorised, then the Executive branch can designate valid targets for the military to destroy. As with everything in the goverment, this has check and balences but its the Commander and Chiefs job and his staff to decide who and what the targets of a military campaign are and not the Juditial branch. The war on terror is not a criminal law case.

[TrailerParkJawa]

2. No, the CIA has, should and to my limited knowledge does use military equipment and tatics for various cotengencies. Think, Bay of Pigs and some of the reported happenings in Loas durring Vietnaum, not to mention Afganistan durring the 80's.

The Bay of Pigs is a prime example why it bothers me the CIA is conducting paramilitary actions. I just rather leave this mission to the USAF.

1. No, and if we were I think the Yeman's would have kicked us out by now and all hell would have broken out on all of the news channels.

From what I saw, I dont think we were operation without permission either. The Yemenis probably are not telling that to their people, but I bet we got their co-operation one way or another.

[Knife]

A question for you Americans here, would you be okay with the government of some country assassinating American citizens on American soil with a missile strike because those American citizens had been guilty of organizing terrorist activities and funding terrorist organizations in that country and the actions of those terrorists had resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents?

If your answer to the above question is 'no', you are hypocrites and might as well STFU about the issue. Or just admit that you're okay with the US doing stuff it would never tolerate others doing. Crown and Zaia seem to be the only people in this thread who get weemadando's point about the principles involved, the rest of what I've seen is merely semantic nitpicking of terms that amounts to nothing but trying to stay within the letter of the text while ignoring its spirit.

Not that principles don't sometimes have to bend before practicality, and I certainly won't mourn the people who died in that strike, seeing as they were identified as A-Q, but it's unbelievable how you people seem to be so blase about the way your government cheerfully ignores international law, and how in the course of this "war on terrorism" it has ignored your own laws and even the damned Constitution you like to spout at every turn.

Edi

What international law has been broken?

What American law has been broken?

Weemadando, Crown, and Zaia are insistent on the point that all matters must be cleared by a judge to be legal, when in reality they do not have to be. This is not a criminal case to be put infront of a court. Some elements might but not military action. If the military action is fucked up, then the accused may stand before a judge, but the action itself does not have to go before a judge to be authorized.

As to your point of American's being hypocrites, if another country askes and is given permission to hunt a suspected terrorist here, and the terrorist is kill by any realitive means then what the fuck is the problem. You seem to think we are in Yeman incognito, we are there with the Yeman goverments permission and the fact that 2 day's later, we haven't been kicked out says to me that the knew and at some point agreed with our operation.

[Knife]

2. No, the CIA has, should and to my limited knowledge does use military equipment and tatics for various cotengencies. Think, Bay of Pigs and some of the reported happenings in Loas durring Vietnaum, not to mention Afganistan durring the 80's.

The Bay of Pigs is a prime example why it bothers me the CIA is conducting paramilitary actions. I just rather leave this mission to the USAF.

1. No, and if we were I think the Yeman's would have kicked us out by now and all hell would have broken out on all of the news channels.

From what I saw, I dont think we were operation without permission either. The Yemenis probably are not telling that to their people, but I bet we got their co-operation one way or another.

As long as the CIA's para military actions are limited and supervised on one level or another I don't mind. Direct action teams are useful is some situations.

[Crown]

Weemadando, Crown, and Zaia are insistent on the point that all matters must be cleared by a judge to be legal, when in reality they do not have to be. This is not a criminal case to be put infront of a court. Some elements might but not military action. If the military action is fucked up, then the accused may stand before a judge, but the action itself does not have to go before a judge to be authorized.

So if I understand correctly there is no such thing as an illegal invasion? No such thing as illegal aggression against another state? Because it's military action that the law doesn't apply? Am I understanding this correctly?

[Knife]

Weemadando, Crown, and Zaia are insistent on the point that all matters must be cleared by a judge to be legal, when in reality they do not have to be. This is not a criminal case to be put infront of a court. Some elements might but not military action. If the military action is fucked up, then the accused may stand before a judge, but the action itself does not have to go before a judge to be authorized.

So if I understand correctly there is no such thing as an illegal invasion? No such thing as illegal aggression against another state? Because it's military action that the law doesn't apply? Am I understanding this correctly?

No your not understanding correctly. A court is there to make sure laws are followed correctly. A military action is not a law to be interpreted but durring a military action if one or many people abuse or break laws while carring out a military action then a court can judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. A judge doesn't have the power to say what military action one can undertake, that power is for the Executive and Congress by virtue of declaring a war.

[Edi]

What international law has been broken?

Granted, in this Yemeni case, none, as the US operations are apparently sanctioned by the Yemen government. I concede the point in this instance.

In the larger context of the "war on terror", the Geneva convention regarding the treatment of POWs. Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo is sort of old news, but there are still Taliban soldiers held there as 'unlawful combatants' without being charged with anything specifically. Point here being that Taliban soldiers were organized, carried arms openly and fought for a government (albeit one with little international recognition), yet they are being classified as 'unlawful combatants'. Taliban != A-Q.

What American law has been broken?

The American Constitution, which among other things specifies right to a fair trial. The constitution applies to all people within US jurisdiction, not just US citizens. If US laws apply in Guantanamo, then the constitution does too, and those people have a right to trial and the government cannot hold them indefinitely. Of course there's the decision by that court that said otherwise and which the Bush Administration used as a pretext to ignore criticisms regarding the situation, but that's complete hogwash. If it were true, murder committed on the base could not be judged in US courts, but let's actually see what happens if a murder is committed there, shall we? And don't even get me started on the arrests related to this "war on terror" in the US, where the arrested people have been held for days, weeks or months even without being charged with anything, without being allowed to see lawyers or granted any of the other rights that belong to them.

Weemadando, Crown, and Zaia are insistent on the point that all matters must be cleared by a judge to be legal, when in reality they do not have to be. This is not a criminal case to be put infront of a court. Some elements might but not military action.

True up to a point, though they were not the only ones to drag this discussion to legal technicalities.

As to your point of American's being hypocrites, if another country askes and is given permission to hunt a suspected terrorist here, and the terrorist is kill by any realitive means then what the fuck is the problem.

Would such permission ever be given? And would the US government take any action against those people itself? Hint: The US government has actually protected Americans guilty of such actions, and such actions have often been done at the behest of the US government, or at least with its silent approval. Many of those actions were undertaken in the name of fighting communism, but if the resulting cure is worse than the disease, it's hardly justifiable...

A judge doesn't have the power to say what military action one can undertake, that power is for the Executive and Congress by virtue of declaring a war.

Declaration of war against another state and following it with military action is still an illegal invasion if you're the aggressor, unless it has been cleared with the UN Security Council first. Military action following a declaration of war (and even before the declaration of war) is quite justified if you're the defender.

Edi

[weemadando]

As to your point of American's being hypocrites, if another country askes and is given permission to hunt a suspected terrorist here, and the terrorist is kill by any realitive means then what the fuck is the problem.

Would such permission ever be given? And would the US government take any action against those people itself? Hint: The US government has actually protected Americans guilty of such actions, and such actions have often been done at the behest of the US government, or at least with its silent approval. Many of those actions were undertaken in the name of fighting communism, but if the resulting cure is worse than the disease, it's hardly justifiable...

Just look at the Americans governments policy re: ICC and "The Hague Invasion Act". If that isn't representative of an unwillingess to use international law to settle disputes I don't know what is.

[Dargos]

FUCK THE STUPID FUCKERS UP THEIR FUCKING PATRIOTIC FUCKING ARSES!

Can you tell I'm pissed? What kind of fucking moron launches an attack on a potentially "civilian" target in another nation (in the middle of the area that you guys are supposed to be currying favour with to support a FUCKING WAR), whose government was not even INFORMED of this strike, let alone approving it!

And then you people say that this will get the government more support in the mid-terms? WHAT KIND OF FUCKED UP COUNTRY ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN? Maybe I should just fire several fucking hellfires at Dubya next time he does a public appearance? I mean, if one nation is exempt from internation law - Why shouldn't we all be? Stupid fuckers.

[/rant]

(Sarcasim!!!)
AHA!!!! Australia has delared itself as member of the "AXIS OF EVIL"(TM) Prepare to be invaded you evil kangaroo riders you! YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!!!!

but seriously...this action...basicly sactioned assassination.. sets up a dangerouse situation. Whats to stop Isreal from killing some exiled disident in some other country...or Russia assassinating some exiled Chechnian(sp) in Europe...why shouldn't they when the US was allowed to do it?? danger danger danger!!!

[weemadando]

Like I said, it was a rant. My later posts are a bit more calm.

And also what I was exploding at there was Sheps p.o.v. on the issue.

Sorry.

My bad.

But still...

[tharkûn]

A few points loads of people seem to be forgetting:
1. This is legit military action. Congress okayed military action, hell NATO invoked the mutual defense clause. Us forces are fully authorized to take action against Al Queada, the only issue is where are they allowed to fire. This means if Yemen doesn't give a rat's ass there is no problem with taking military action to kill unlawful combatants.
2. Al Queada are unlawful combatants. As such they are not afforded hardly any rights under US, International, or Yemeni law. Given the US's refusal to adopt certain protocols anything up to and including summary execution is an option.
3. Any combatant is classified as lawful or unlawful. Lawful ones follow these simple rules:
a. The commander's ass is on the line. If his subordinates do something horrid ... he is responsible too. Al Queada, with it's cell structure, would likely not fit this criteria; likewise the Taliban has no history of holding military commanders accountable for the actions of their subordinates. Both of these are debatable, but by and large it would likely lose if pressed before a military judge.
b. You have to wear a uniform. A clear distinctive marker recognizable at a distance is mandatory. Niether Al Queada nor the Taliban used these, this is NOT trivial as these markings allow the enemy to minimize civillian casualties, this is often cited as grounds for summarily executing snipers when they are caught. Attempts by both Al Queada and the Taliban to melt into the civillian populace means they aren't holding here.
c. You have to show your guns. Al Queada ... don't make me laugh. Taliban depends some tired to melt into the crowds others didn't.
d. You have to fight by the rules. If your organization doesn't play by the rules of war you are unlawful combatants and its pretty much open season on your ass. Both Al Queada and the Taliban have broken numerous rules of war. This is rarely enforced as the rules of war are incompatable with effectively waging war unless you have an obnoxious advantage over the enemy.
4. Unlawful combatants have no access to US courts or the protections of the US constitution. In ex parte Quirin it was ruled that unlawful combatants do not have constitutionally protected rights. Even if these losers were on the mall in DC, they have no protection to stop them from getting killed.
5. Persons outside the US are not garunteed access to US courts. Prisoners are held in Guantanamo because the US constitution is not in effect, rather military law. Murder, rape, etc. on the base are tried in a military court. If you aren't on sovereign US soil you can't demand a civillian court, be that Yemen or Cuba.
6. Military law is DEFINATELY APPLICABLE the whole way through here. Remember unless the US operates this war under military law (overseas) then the military cannot apprehend ANYONE. Posse commitatus is a rather damning, the military is explicitly barred from serving in a law enforcement capacity. If the US played this by the civvie books, then the military is not allowed even go after these guys ... period.


Some people want to talk about US cold war actions, yes it is leagal for people to off unlawful combatants on US soil. The US will likely get pissed and take political reprocussions. This has nothing to do with the present case as Yemen had invited the US in and hasn't kicked them out over it. Further in the cold war we have to remember that the US was fighting the single bloodiest ideology in the history of the world. The democides racked up by Pinochet, The Colonels, etc. are nothing compared to the death tolls under communism they were trying to prevent. At times you have to choose the lesser of two evils and you have lousy information to make such a choice on, sometimes you make the wrong choice.


Leaving all the legal crap aside for the moment I return to the basic morality of the action. You have been presented with a choice, door one most likely kills fewer innocents than door two. Why in hell would you pick door two? So long as the action directly prevents the loss of innocents, it is the moral thing to do, even if that means killing "suspects" or killing outright innocents to save a greater number of innocents.