3 ms·
If this is all just standard rules of engagement, then why is such a memo necessary? These are very plainly executions.
by jlgreco 14y ago
If 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.
- jlgreco 14y agoIn any reasonable situation what these people are allegedly doing would be grounds for trying them for treason, for which they could be executed. We are skipping the "pesky" catching/trial step because we find it inconvenient. Now yeah, everyone is saying that expecting people to arrest others in a military engagement is crazy... but what is happening here can hardly be called military engagements. These killings are not taking place in the heat of a firefight, they are meticulously planned with the sole objective of killing the target. Any reasonable man outside a court of law would call these executions. Execution by missile, without a trial.
- bloaf 14y agoDoes a military sniper execute his targets?
- jlgreco 14y agoIs this military sniper on a battlefield? If not, then I would consider it an execution.
- gnaritas 14y agoWars are no longer fought only on battlefields.
- tptacek 14y agoWhat's a "battlefield"? World War 2 was fought all across the cities and suburbs of Europe. It's been centuries since people flew banners and lined up to whack each other in the heads with halberds in an orderly fashion.
- bloaf 14y ago
- snowwrestler 14y agoIt's not military standard rules of engagement, but it doesn't seem like standard law enforcement SOP either. I'm not saying that I agree with the reasoning in this particular document, just that I think it's reasonable to believe that modern terrorist groups are a new flavor of threat and may require new legal frameworks to address them.