About them doggone drones.

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

So an American overseas is what... an enemy soldier or enemy leader?

That's the difference you chose to ignore.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was the leader of the Al Qaeda faction known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [Acronym: AQAP]. This is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of the governments and intelligence agencies of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. If you differ, we must assume that you THINK you are 'smarterer' than all of those intelligence agencies. Which would be fascinating to know.

In fact, many observers believe that Anwar might well have become the overall leader of Al Qaeda, as a replacement for Ayman Al-Zawahiri, as Anwar was generally held to be far more 'charismatic' than Zawahiri, and could speak fluent English.

When I shook Anwar's hand---and I am probably one of the few Americans who can say that they have done that---he gave me a grade-A case of the creeps. Just an anecdote. I am not saying we were justified in killing him because I thought he was a creep. I am saying we were justified in killing him because he was a leader of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that we are at war with.

 

[Arkady]

I know of NO nation, at any point in recorded history, that has applied the concept of judicial review to the killing of enemy soldiers during wartime, excepting only cases where we have CAPTURED enemy soldiers.

If anyone ever suggests that, I'll keep that in mind. But you've strayed badly off the topic again. We're not talking about the killing of enemy soldiers during war time. We're talking about the killing of alleged terrorist collaborators, far from any battlefield, during a permanent worldwide state of low-grade para-military hostilities that doesn't meet any traditional definition of an actual war. It's a war in the same figurative sense as our war on drugs. And yes, when we used our military in the war on drugs, such as with the apprehension of Noriega, we certainly did have judicial review. And in the same sense, when, in our Founders' time, they had to deal with pirates, who functioned a lot like international terrorists, they used court trials. If a pirate was killed during an engagement on the high seas, that was fine. But if you apprehended a suspected pirate (like Captain Kidd), you put him on trial.

I might be more sympathetic to Obama on this if he was championing a law that would bring oversight and rules to the process, and was merely exercising his own authority when he thought it was absolutely necessary, in the meantime. But that's not the case. He seems perfectly content playing King Barack I, and his apologists seem perfectly content kissing his pinky ring as he has our military bump off whoever he wants dead.

Man, it's too bad for England that George III didn't have the creative souls defending him who are defending Obama. When British troops killed protestors in the Boston Massacre, those soldiers were put on trial. He should have just declared those protestors "enemy combatants" and said they were executed under his legal discretion, in the interest of the realm. He then could have declared any associated evidence a "state secret, " so he wouldn't have to demonstrate they were ever enemy combatants. And the lick-spittle loyalists could have sneered at anyone who would suggest involving a judge or jury in such a determination, which obviously must remain the sole discretion of the Crown, with its divine mandate.

 

[middleview]

So let's go on killing innocent people just like we have the past 200 years. That's the spirit.

1. We were attacked. We could either plead with the attackers not to attack us again....maybe pay them a bribe to stop the attacks or we can fight back.
2. Given that we are using the very best information and technology available and the number of civilian dead is very small...I'd say it is an improvement over the 58 million who died in WWII....a very small proportion were soldiers....we have improved in our execution of the war. On the other hand, of the 3,000 people killed by Al Qaeda on 911...how many were innocent civilians?

On the other hand, what we could do is never ever fire a bullet, drop a bomb or fire a missile unless we are absolutely certain that there are no innocent civilians present. We could even drop leaflets or broadcast a warning, prior to any attempt to kill the enemy. Hmmm, wouldn't that encourage the enemy to hang out with lots of children and innocent civilians around?

 

[Arkady]

The invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake. In fact, it may well have been the most serious, world-class, geopolitical blunder the United States has ever made. I think we know who to blame for that.

Agreed. Now tell me what you'd be writing if the invasion of Iraq had been Obama's decision. Because I'm thinking it would be very different.

 

[NightSwimmer]

One could argue that we are not at war with Al Qaeda, but there can be no doubt that Al Qaeda is at war with us.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Agreed. Now tell me what you'd be writing if the invasion of Iraq had been Obama's decision. Because I'm thinking it would be very different.

Idle speculation.

 

[Arkady]

I am saying we were justified in killing him because he was a leader of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that we are at war with.

What is the evidence for that?

 

[Arkady]

Idle speculation.

It's speculation, to be sure..... but speculation driven by observations of his posting history.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Agreed. Now tell me what you'd be writing if the invasion of Iraq had been Obama's decision. Because I'm thinking it would be very different.

If the invasion of Iraq had been Obama's decision, I'd be writing this:

The invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake. In fact, it may well have been the most serious, world-class, geopolitical blunder the United States has ever made. I think we know who to blame for that.

You're welcome.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

What is the evidence for that?

I'm now convinced you think you are 'smarterer' than the intelligence agencies of the governments of the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, ALL of whom were in agreement that Anwar Al-Awlaki was not only the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but the most dangerous terrorist in the world. At the time of his death, Anwar was far more 'operational' than Osama bin Laden was. At the time of Anwar's death, Osama was living in his compound in Pakistan, not having much of anything to do with ongoing terror plots. There was a lawyer in the State Department who was, at first, very much against the targeting of Anwar Al-Awlaki, and had grave misgivings about it. [I am forgetting his name at the moment, but can find it.] He went into a room at the State Department for five hours and read all the evidence they had accumulated on Awlaki, and on the terror plots that he fomented and organized. He said his criterion was to determine if Awlaki was 'evil'. After his five hours of reading, he had decided that Awlaki was more than 'evil'; he was 'monstrous', and NEEDED to be eliminated.

I know you're smart, Arkady. But you are NOT 'smarterer' than all the intelligence agencies of all the advanced countries, plus a few in the Middle East, to boot.

Get over yourself.

 

[Arkady]

One could argue that we are not at war with Al Qaeda, but there can be no doubt that Al Qaeda is at war with us.

Is there any possibility that this "war" will ever end? I mean, is there any plausible series of events that could result in us declaring victory and our senior leaders admitting that any special powers that had been justified by a state of war are no longer available to them? Because I just can't picture how that would happen. As long as we keep bombing people in the middle east, new generations of terrorists will pop up. And even if they're so incredibly weak that they don't manage to carry out a single successful attack on our homeland in over a decade, so long as once in a while some American somewhere gets killed by one of these radicalized Muslims, we can go right on saying we're at war.

Maybe, some day, the Al Qaeda brand name will fall into disuse. But given the natural gravitation of that kind of a brand name for any Muslim looking to take revenge on American aggressors, I only see that happening when some alternate brand name is promoted by a group. And so even if we go years without any attack anywhere in the world being claimed on behalf of Al Qaeda, we'll still be able to pretend we're at war with those who attacked us on 9/11, by simply pointing to the new group as the successor to Al Qaeda. We've always been at war with Eurasia, right? This is effectively a "war on terrorism," and since terrorism can never be defeated, if you regard it as a true war, justifying the things that get justified in the extraordinary case of a war, then that's the new permanent state.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

If anyone ever suggests that, I'll keep that in mind. But you've strayed badly off the topic again. We're not talking about the killing of enemy soldiers during war time. We're talking about the killing of alleged terrorist collaborators, far from any battlefield, during a permanent worldwide state of low-grade para-military hostilities that doesn't meet any traditional definition of an actual war. It's a war in the same figurative sense as our war on drugs. And yes, when we used our military in the war on drugs, such as with the apprehension of Noriega, we certainly did have judicial review. And in the same sense, when, in our Founders' time, they had to deal with pirates, who functioned a lot like international terrorists, they used court trials. If a pirate was killed during an engagement on the high seas, that was fine. But if you apprehended a suspected pirate (like Captain Kidd), you put him on trial.

Excuse me. We most certainly ARE talking about the killing of enemy soldiers during wartime. Once again, you appear to be oblivious to the fact that we ARE at war with Al Qaeda. If you dispute this, I invite you once again to read the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was passed by Congress in 2001, by a vote of 420-1 in the House and by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate. I am thinking you simply don't respect our democratic institutions and our duly elected representatives that made this determination.

I might be more sympathetic to Obama on this if he was championing a law that would bring oversight and rules to the process, and was merely exercising his own authority when he thought it was absolutely necessary, in the meantime. But that's not the case. He seems perfectly content playing King Barack I, and his apologists seem perfectly content kissing his pinky ring as he has our military bump off whoever he wants dead.

Long ago, Mr. Obama should have passed on to Congress the Justice Department memo that contained the legal justification for the targeting of Anwar Al-Awlaki, which was put together by a team of lawyers from the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Defense Department, months before the actual death of Anwar. I have been critical of him for not doing so. I have always wanted more Congressional oversight in these matters. President Obama finally turned over that memo yesterday, to the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate. Although it should have taken place much earlier, these are NOT the actions of a 'King' ruling by 'divine right'.

Man, it's too bad for England that George III didn't have the creative souls defending him who are defending Obama. When British troops killed protestors in the Boston Massacre, those soldiers were put on trial. He should have just declared those protestors "enemy combatants" and said they were executed under his legal discretion, in the interest of the realm. He then could have declared any associated evidence a "state secret, " so he wouldn't have to demonstrate they were ever enemy combatants. And the lick-spittle loyalists could have sneered at anyone who would suggest involving a judge or jury in such a determination, which obviously must remain the sole discretion of the Crown, with its divine mandate.

I don't find this argument persuasive. Al Qaeda is not fighting a war of independence. They are not fighting a revolution. They are not protesting in the streets. They are trying to kill as many Americans as they can. Just as Anwar Al-Awlaki encouraged them to do.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Is there any possibility that this "war" will ever end?

Yes. I think that the "Arab Spring", as chaotic as it is, could be the first step toward a normalization of relationships between the West and the Middle East. Only time will tell.

We certainly need to stop engaging in ground wars in the Middle East and we don't need to continue our old habit of propping up puppet dictators in Islamic nations. Most of the rest of it is up to them. It appears to me that the Obama administration is attempting to take us in that direction. It will take time. I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[Arkady]

I'm now convinced you think you are 'smarterer' than the intelligence agencies of the governments of the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, ALL of whom were in agreement that Anwar Al-Awlaki was not only the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but the most dangerous terrorist in the world.

Once you have the ad hominem temper tantrum out of your system, I ask again: what is the evidence for that?

I don't know what they were relying on if, in fact, they were all in agreement on that. Maybe it was one of those things like where the US and the UK were supposedly in agreement on the "fact" that Hussein had tried to get yellowcake from Niger. In that case, the "fact" was rooted in a single amateurishly forged memo injected into the UK's intelligence stream by some indeterminate party looking to trick us into conquering Iraq. We had plenty of reason to doubt the evidence, at the time, including the research of Joe Wilson. But, we wanted to believe, and so we believed, and the statement got presented to the public as if it were a fact known to us and the Brits. Was the case against al Awlaki stronger than that? Maybe. Or maybe it was weaker, since we only needed to be convinced enough to kill one guy, rather than to start a major war. I don't know. Neither do you. I'm just honest enough to admit it.

At the time of Anwar's death, Osama was living in his compound in Pakistan, not having much of anything to do with ongoing terror plots.

Since I don't have top secret clearance to know what evidence we have about Bin Laden's activities at the time, I guess I'll have to defer to you on that.

There was a lawyer in the State Department who was, at first, very much against the targeting of Anwar Al-Awlaki, and had grave misgivings about it. [I am forgetting his name at the moment, but can find it.] He went into a room at the State Department for five hours and read all the evidence they had accumulated on Awlaki, and on the terror plots that he fomented and organized. He said his criterion was to determine if Awlaki was 'evil'. After his five hours of reading, he had decided that Awlaki was more than 'evil'; he was 'monstrous', and NEEDED to be eliminated.

Well, as long as some unnamed lawyer for the Justice Department thought he was monstrous based on evidence I'm not allowed to see, then that's great. I'm an unnamed lawyer, too. I think you're behaving monstrously. Should the government go ahead and eliminate you? Or do you think that, just maybe, you have a right not to be deprived of your life without due process of law? Because that's what I think.

I know you're smart, Arkady. But you are NOT 'smarterer' than all the intelligence agencies of all the advanced countries, plus a few in the Middle East, to boot.

Now, tell me what your response would be to a conservative who made that deeply asinine argument to you in the context of the planned Iraq invasion (which, of course, was supported by plenty of top decision makers at all sorts of advanced countries)? Would you have said, "Oh dear, I'm sorry, I've gotten over myself and now realize that if all those people think invading Iraq is justified it must be."? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[NightSwimmer]

This is effectively a "war on terrorism," and since terrorism can never be defeated, if you regard it as a true war, justifying the things that get justified in the extraordinary case of a war, then that's the new permanent state.

It's not really a "war" on our part. It is a series of targeted police actions against small groups of radical terrorists. It may never end. We may always need police forces in our own nation as well, since the "war on crime" here at home may never end either.

 

[Arkady]

If you dispute this, I invite you once again to read the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was passed by Congress in 2001, by a vote of 420-1 in the House and by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate.

Thanks for the invitation. I just did... yet again. Still no mention of it being a war. Maybe if I keep checking.

They authorized the president to use force against those he determines were behind 9/11, and those who harbored those who were. It was a terrible resolution, but what it wasn't was a declaration of war.

 

[CatsEye]

I am NOT arguing that "all wars are the same". We are trying, we are trying very HARD, to minimize civilian casualties. That is VERY different from earlier wars. The ancient Assyrians used to gouge out the eyes of captured enemies. I like to think that we are a little more civilized.

In answer to your question, I do not KNOW that we are making progress in the war on terror. I would LIKE to think that we are. Maybe you should ask me again in five years. I MIGHT have a better idea then.

Will you answer my earlier question? Did the U.S. government MURDER Timothy McVeigh?

Sorry, didn't see the question about McVeigh? No we didn't murder him. Seems he had a trial.

 

[Arkady]

It's not really a "war" on our part. It is a series of targeted police actions against small groups of radical terrorists. It may never end. We may always need police forces in our own nation as well, since the "war on crime" here at home may never end either.

Yes, but fortunately nobody is yet arguing that the "war on crime" gives Obama the unilateral authority to have suspected criminals summarily executed. But, I'm sure if Obama were to claim that authority, there'd be some eager to defend that interpretation.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Damnation!! You really have forgotten all the history leading up to the invasion of Iraq! I am shocked. NO, Arkady, ALL the intelligence agencies of the Western World were NOT in unanimous consent that the invasion of Iraq was appropriate. Not even close. I'll take the time to remind you that the governments of Canada, France, and Germany, and quite a few others as well, were OPPOSED to the invasion of Iraq, which caused a great deal of friction with the Bush/Cheney cabal, who took to calling them the "chocolate-producing nations of Europe".

You REALLY are apparently disputing that Awlaki issued death threats....fatwas....against numerous American citizens (most of them still in hiding, to this day), and that he has been definitively linked to numerous terrorist attacks (many of them unsuccessful, thankfully), such as the attempted Christmas Day airplane bombing in Detroit. [Had that attack been successful, hundreds of Americans along with some foreigners would have died. Do you care?]

I find all this remarkable, when the bulk of the evidence is out there, only waiting for you to go in search of it.

And, oh yes, I will find you the name of that Justice Department lawyer, so that you can try to get him fired, if you wish.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Yes, but fortunately nobody is yet arguing that the "war on crime" gives Obama the unilateral authority to have suspected criminals summarily executed. But, I'm sure if Obama were to claim that authority, there'd be some eager to defend that interpretation.

On Monday of this week, the state of Alabama killed Jimmy Lee Dykes, without benefit of a jury trial, or due process, or anything of the sort. A monstrous miscarriage of justice, no?