4 ms·

Okay, but let's examine the other side. I am not directly supporting this, but I'd imagine the case is "This is asymmetric warfare in which the adversary is no

Okay, but let's examine the other side. I am not directly supporting this, but I'd imagine the case is "This is asymmetric warfare in which the adversary is not a hypothetical threat, but has killed many thousands of people globally (not just 9/11). By joining a hostile armed force they can be legally killed in combat operations against that force. By operating asymmetrically, they are relinquishing more rights under the Geneva convention. Because of the nature of this, trial by jury could put humint allies at risk" Parts of the way this "war" is being prosecuted is wrong, but I don't think this an utter abdication of a moral compass. There really are people planning and executing plans to kill other people, and they should be stopped. Obviously this story shows that are some disgraceful flaws in the the way the process is set up and executed.

jacquesm 8y ago
You care conflating acts of with crimes. When a country does it these things are acts of war, when an individual or a group of individuals does this it is a crime. A really bad one, but still a crime.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  I agree with you completely. But it's not like criminal justice resources aren't being utilized in addition to drone operations. And I think the question of how to fight armed combatants in remote areas of the world is a real moral gray area (really: how many people should die to apprehend someone committing crimes of this type in a remote area of the world? The law enforcement/military people that would do this are 3-dimensional and their lives count).
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I think it's necessary to take this out of both the "crime" and "war" frameworks and call it what it is, which is insurgency. Fortunately there's been detailed study of counterinsurgency since the end of WW2, looking for the most effective strategies, e.g.: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR291z2.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR291z2.html "The "iron fist" COIN path, focused primarily on eliminating the insurgent threat, is historically less successful. A motive-based path (one that focuses on eliminating the incentives to support or participate in an insurgency) has been much more successful."
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > But it's not like criminal justice resources aren't being utilized in addition to drone operations. So? Of course the criminal justice resources are being used but at the same time there is a long list of transgressions that if they weren't a response to terrorism would invite just that. > And I think the question of how to fight armed combatants in remote areas of the world is a real moral gray area (really: how many people should die to apprehend someone committing crimes of this type in a remote area of the world? It's actually really simple, and not morally gray at all: If you can name your foe then you ask kindly for the nation where the foe is hiding to extradite them so they can be put on trial. If that fails then you're out of luck. > The law enforcement/military people that would do this are 3-dimensional and their lives count). This is the basis of the doctrine of 'force protection', worthy of a chapter all by itself and in many ways a substantial part of the problem. American lives are not worth even a little bit more than the lives of people of other nations. So, in short: getting your hands on the perpetrators of terrorist attacks is roughly as hard as getting US 'contractors' extradited from the United States to Iraq for the crimes they committed. And that means that if it does not work you do not have an automatic 'ok' to go and kill those people because that makes you stoop to the level of nation state sponsored terrorism, aka acts of war.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
The process violates human rights. This is not war, since no war was declared, and even in times of war responses need to be adequate in particular with respect to the number of civilian casualties. It is illegal and unambiguously immoral to conduct political assassinations of suspect combatants without judicial oversight or giving them a right to defend themselves. Add to that the fact that practically every drone strike kills innocent civilian bystanders including children[1], and there is nothing to discuss here. [1] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war
- cglace 8y ago
  How do you declare war on a non nation state? What does that look like.
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    You can't, but that is the point: there shouldn't be a way for governments to legally go around assassinating random people without due process.
  - freddie_mercury 8y ago
    I imagine it looks like this: JOINT RESOLUTION Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: Declaring that a state of war exists between the armed militant groups of Jundallah, Tehrik-i-Taliban, Lashkar-e-Islam, TNSM, al-Qaeda, ISIL and their successor and fraternal organizations within Waziristan and neighboring provinces and the Government and people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas, the recent acts of by the militant groups are acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States: Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of War between the United States and the militant groups of Waziristan which has been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and That the President be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to take immediate steps not only to put the country in a thorough state of defense but also to exert all of its power and employ all of its resources to carry on war against the militant groups and to bring the conflict to a successful termination. ------------------- And then they vote on it and it passes. And the Supreme Court finds that there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
megous 8y ago
What is this "operating asymetrically"? And how exactly does that justify anything? Seems like I can say US is opperating asymmetrically, so it's ok to kill all US citizens (or at least people who voluntarilly became US citizens). And it will have just as much validity. Like none...

jacquesm 8y ago

You care conflating acts of with crimes. When a country does it these things are acts of war, when an individual or a group of individuals does this it is a crime. A really bad one, but still a crime.

throwaway5752 8y ago
I agree with you completely. But it's not like criminal justice resources aren't being utilized in addition to drone operations. And I think the question of how to fight armed combatants in remote areas of the world is a real moral gray area (really: how many people should die to apprehend someone committing crimes of this type in a remote area of the world? The law enforcement/military people that would do this are 3-dimensional and their lives count).
- pjc50 8y ago
  I think it's necessary to take this out of both the "crime" and "war" frameworks and call it what it is, which is insurgency. Fortunately there's been detailed study of counterinsurgency since the end of WW2, looking for the most effective strategies, e.g.: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR291z2.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR291z2.html "The "iron fist" COIN path, focused primarily on eliminating the insurgent threat, is historically less successful. A motive-based path (one that focuses on eliminating the incentives to support or participate in an insurgency) has been much more successful."
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > But it's not like criminal justice resources aren't being utilized in addition to drone operations. So? Of course the criminal justice resources are being used but at the same time there is a long list of transgressions that if they weren't a response to terrorism would invite just that. > And I think the question of how to fight armed combatants in remote areas of the world is a real moral gray area (really: how many people should die to apprehend someone committing crimes of this type in a remote area of the world? It's actually really simple, and not morally gray at all: If you can name your foe then you ask kindly for the nation where the foe is hiding to extradite them so they can be put on trial. If that fails then you're out of luck. > The law enforcement/military people that would do this are 3-dimensional and their lives count). This is the basis of the doctrine of 'force protection', worthy of a chapter all by itself and in many ways a substantial part of the problem. American lives are not worth even a little bit more than the lives of people of other nations. So, in short: getting your hands on the perpetrators of terrorist attacks is roughly as hard as getting US 'contractors' extradited from the United States to Iraq for the crimes they committed. And that means that if it does not work you do not have an automatic 'ok' to go and kill those people because that makes you stoop to the level of nation state sponsored terrorism, aka acts of war.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

The process violates human rights. This is not war, since no war was declared, and even in times of war responses need to be adequate in particular with respect to the number of civilian casualties. It is illegal and unambiguously immoral to conduct political assassinations of suspect combatants without judicial oversight or giving them a right to defend themselves. Add to that the fact that practically every drone strike kills innocent civilian bystanders including children[1], and there is nothing to discuss here. [1] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

cglace 8y ago
How do you declare war on a non nation state? What does that look like.
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  You can't, but that is the point: there shouldn't be a way for governments to legally go around assassinating random people without due process.
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  I imagine it looks like this: JOINT RESOLUTION Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: Declaring that a state of war exists between the armed militant groups of Jundallah, Tehrik-i-Taliban, Lashkar-e-Islam, TNSM, al-Qaeda, ISIL and their successor and fraternal organizations within Waziristan and neighboring provinces and the Government and people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas, the recent acts of by the militant groups are acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States: Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of War between the United States and the militant groups of Waziristan which has been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and That the President be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to take immediate steps not only to put the country in a thorough state of defense but also to exert all of its power and employ all of its resources to carry on war against the militant groups and to bring the conflict to a successful termination. ------------------- And then they vote on it and it passes. And the Supreme Court finds that there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

megous 8y ago

What is this "operating asymetrically"? And how exactly does that justify anything? Seems like I can say US is opperating asymmetrically, so it's ok to kill all US citizens (or at least people who voluntarilly became US citizens). And it will have just as much validity. Like none...