7 ms·
Groups like Al Qaeda are launching a military, not criminal campaign of violence against the West. It warrants a military response. Patton wasn't rounding up N
by redthrowaway 14y ago
Groups like Al Qaeda are launching a military, not criminal campaign of violence against the West. It warrants a military response. Patton wasn't rounding up Nazis and delivering them to district attorneys in France; he was shooting them. That's the fundamental difference between military and criminal actions. AQ is not a criminal organization. They're a paramilitary group that has declared war on a state, and they should be treated as such.
- bratsche 14y agoDo you trust our current and future U.S. government to always define "terrorist" the way you do right now? What happens when some kid who's hacking into websites in ten years suddenly gets labeled as a "terrorist"?
- redthrowaway 14y agoNot at all, but this white paper has nothing to do with the definition of "terrorist". It is concerned solely with senior Al Qaeda leadership.
- rhizome 14y agoWhat constitutes "senior Al Qaeda leadership" in a decentralized and cell-oriented phenomenon?
- redthrowaway 14y agoExecutive decision. It's far from a perfect system.
- jlgreco 14y agoYou mean "Executive decision with no judicial oversight".
- rhizome 14y agoWould you agree that by the same logic someone could identify the senior leadership of bit torrent?
- redthrowaway 14y agoOnly in a tinhatty sort of way. Yes, theoretically, any group the Executive doesn't like could be treated like this. Until you fly a couple of jetliners into skyscrapers killing thousands, however, I think you're safe.
- saraid216 14y agoHere's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Al-Qaeda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Al-Qaeda
- steveklabnik 14y agoI've always been a fan of your username, but this post really put it over the top. And your point is 100% correct: the whole claim about 'leadership' is based on a model that doesn't even apply to these organizations, which makes me really question the competence of those making such proclamations, and even _more_ uneasy with their judgements about extrajudicial killings.
- mc32 14y agoWhat would you consider "senior AQ leadership"? Do you believe there isn't any? Cells don't just "form" from thin air. There are people with ideas, people who coordinate, the hands behind the organization, the financiers. Kind of like a crime syndicate. There are foot soldiers, capos, consiglieri and bosses and boss of bosses. I would say, you watch the organization, follow the trails of financing, ideas, commands, etc. While it's cell-based, like biological cells, they are conected to a larger organism, albeit they can act independently when necessary.
- jlgreco 14y agoIf this is all just standard rules of engagement, then why is such a memo necessary? These are very plainly executions.
- redthrowaway 14y agoCall them what you will. They are military attacks against military targets. We can debate the appropriateness of particular measures in given situations, like whether or not drones should be used, but I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that members of paramilitary organizations that are dedicated to our destruction should not be treated as military targets. As to why the memo was necessary, I see it as a memo limiting, not expanding executive power. The memo spells out when the Executive must treat an American member of a terrorist organization as a criminal, and not a military target.
- jlgreco 14y agoWhy the secrecy, if this were really as uncontroversial and cut and dry as you assert? Why would they deny the existence of a document granting additional rights to American citizens in standard engagements? Your reading of this memo is ludicrously generous.
- redthrowaway 14y agoI disagree. As CiC, the President has total authority over the conduct of military campaigns. This memo limits that authority and describes under what circumstances military power may be used.
- jlgreco 14y ago...for unreasonable definitions of military power.
- anigbrowl 14y agoThey're not executions just because you say so. That term has legal meaning that doesn't apply to military combatants.
- aetherson 14y agoIn what essential way are Al Qaeda "military" rather than "criminal"? They aren't taking to a battlefield or wearing uniforms. We certainly aren't treating them as Prisoners of War when they are captured. Draw me a bright line. Or, hell, even a dim, wiggly one.
- jlgreco 14y agoI believe the answer is "'Members' of Al Queda are whatever it is that allows us to treat them however we wish.".