3 ms·

I'm not certain that either of your points are relevant? I'm not arguing efficacy, more legality and morality: If it is not plausible to bring someone to custod

I'm not certain that either of your points are relevant? I'm not arguing efficacy, more legality and morality: If it is not plausible to bring someone to custody, and if the US is at war with them, then it seems reasonable that assassination would be perfectly legal and moral.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Totally. The US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto during WWII and I think that was a perfectly valid and even moral thing to do. But, as with all things, the devil is in the details. Assassination as a weapon of war can sometimes be worthwhile, even moral, but when it requires the spread of the "battlefield" to nearly the entire world and when it routinely takes the lives of bystanders needlessly then its validity and usefulness comes into sharp question. Even more so when it is exercised based on secret information. We've been blowing up a lot of down-level al qaeda leaders and operatives (at least folks who have been alleged to be such) and in the process we've killed a substantial number of bystanders and innocents. Either through accidents or through collateral damage. As I mentioned, in practice the drone strikes have been about as effective and as precisely targeted as using car bombs would have been. If the US had been blowing up al qaeda leaders using car bombs I think the perception of the campaign would be markedly different. The existing rules of warfare are there because war is chaotic and anarchic, and without a firewall between warfare and civilized society then it becomes all too easy for violence and warfare to be used as a political tool at home. Caesar crossing the rubicon, as it were. I believe we are dangerously close to such a situation today.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Okay, so I think that we're distilling closer to where we actually disagree. Here's what I think is the strongest argument I can make about why this particular assassination of a US citizen is not the harbinger of anarchy nor a new low in the morality of war: Imagine a conversation via time machine the between framers of the US Constitution and the National Security Advisor. Current Day National Security Advisor: So, hey guys. We're about to assassinate a US citizen who's on foreign soil. Framers: WHAT?!?!? NSA: Well... it's a tough situation. F: NONONONO. This is not acceptable under any circumstance! What the hell?? NSA: Well, he's joined a foreign army. And we're at war with that army. We've been at war with them for a really long time. F: So what? Why do you have to assassinate him? He'll meet you on the field of battle somewhere, and he'll fight and live or die just like any other soldier. NSA: Well yeah, that's the thing. This army doesn't ever fight our army. They disguise themselves as civilians and bomb our own civilians, or the civilians of other countries. F: Huh. NSA: Ya. They don't really even try to attack our military. They seem pretty happy just killing bystanders. F: So just arrest him and bring him to trial then. NSA: Well... he's living in a lawless part of the world. The nominal government there doesn't have the ability to arrest him. And it's too dangerous to send our own officers to make the arrest. But we've got this really cool weapon which can kill him from afar. F: So this guy has joined an army which he knows is at war with the US, he's stationed in an area where no legitimate government - even our own - can reasonably arrest him, and there's no foreseen situation in which our army and his army will actually get to fight? NSA: Yup. -- The extraordinary nature of this situation is what, to my mind, makes such assassinations totally unthreatening to traditional notions of law, moral war, and international order. If the guy were located in any part of the world with a functioning and accountable government, the situation would be different: in that case, the US gov't must work with local authorities to bring him to justice. So no, I'm not talking about waging war in the whole world. A few very small slivers of the world, and slivers which may change over time: Maybe one day Somalia will be Kenya and Kenya will be Somalia - though I certainly hope both become Kenya!

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Totally. The US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto during WWII and I think that was a perfectly valid and even moral thing to do. But, as with all things, the devil is in the details. Assassination as a weapon of war can sometimes be worthwhile, even moral, but when it requires the spread of the "battlefield" to nearly the entire world and when it routinely takes the lives of bystanders needlessly then its validity and usefulness comes into sharp question. Even more so when it is exercised based on secret information. We've been blowing up a lot of down-level al qaeda leaders and operatives (at least folks who have been alleged to be such) and in the process we've killed a substantial number of bystanders and innocents. Either through accidents or through collateral damage. As I mentioned, in practice the drone strikes have been about as effective and as precisely targeted as using car bombs would have been. If the US had been blowing up al qaeda leaders using car bombs I think the perception of the campaign would be markedly different. The existing rules of warfare are there because war is chaotic and anarchic, and without a firewall between warfare and civilized society then it becomes all too easy for violence and warfare to be used as a political tool at home. Caesar crossing the rubicon, as it were. I believe we are dangerously close to such a situation today.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Okay, so I think that we're distilling closer to where we actually disagree. Here's what I think is the strongest argument I can make about why this particular assassination of a US citizen is not the harbinger of anarchy nor a new low in the morality of war: Imagine a conversation via time machine the between framers of the US Constitution and the National Security Advisor. Current Day National Security Advisor: So, hey guys. We're about to assassinate a US citizen who's on foreign soil. Framers: WHAT?!?!? NSA: Well... it's a tough situation. F: NONONONO. This is not acceptable under any circumstance! What the hell?? NSA: Well, he's joined a foreign army. And we're at war with that army. We've been at war with them for a really long time. F: So what? Why do you have to assassinate him? He'll meet you on the field of battle somewhere, and he'll fight and live or die just like any other soldier. NSA: Well yeah, that's the thing. This army doesn't ever fight our army. They disguise themselves as civilians and bomb our own civilians, or the civilians of other countries. F: Huh. NSA: Ya. They don't really even try to attack our military. They seem pretty happy just killing bystanders. F: So just arrest him and bring him to trial then. NSA: Well... he's living in a lawless part of the world. The nominal government there doesn't have the ability to arrest him. And it's too dangerous to send our own officers to make the arrest. But we've got this really cool weapon which can kill him from afar. F: So this guy has joined an army which he knows is at war with the US, he's stationed in an area where no legitimate government - even our own - can reasonably arrest him, and there's no foreseen situation in which our army and his army will actually get to fight? NSA: Yup. -- The extraordinary nature of this situation is what, to my mind, makes such assassinations totally unthreatening to traditional notions of law, moral war, and international order. If the guy were located in any part of the world with a functioning and accountable government, the situation would be different: in that case, the US gov't must work with local authorities to bring him to justice. So no, I'm not talking about waging war in the whole world. A few very small slivers of the world, and slivers which may change over time: Maybe one day Somalia will be Kenya and Kenya will be Somalia - though I certainly hope both become Kenya!