8 ms·

Because they are also hiding it from the enemy. If you know the rules, you can exploit the rules.

Crito 12y ago
How would knowing that the rule is "We kill those who are a clear threat to others" help the enemy? I am pretty sure that they are already operating under the assumption that, because they want to kill others, America wants to kill them. If that is indeed our legal justification for killing them, publicizing it would not modify their behaviour in any way. This isn't about getting the list of people targeted for killing. This is about getting the legal justification for the killings at all. If the justification is as you suspect it is, then there is no value in hiding it. That they are fiercely protecting the justification itself strongly suggests that you are wrong.
- clavalle 12y ago
  I am pretty sure everyone is aware of that particular rule. But the devil is in the details. How does the US define 'clear threat', exactly, I think would be useful for an enemy to know and possibly exploitable. And I don't think the US is hiding the overall justification which is "These are people who wish to use violence to act against the United States and its citizens to push their own political agenda. In short; terrorists." I mean, these are not people who are running for Mayor in their particular part of the world and we don't like their policy decisions. They are doing things like running training camps where they teach others how to make IEDs.
  - Crito 12y ago
    > "But the devil is in the details. How does the US define 'clear threat', exactly, I think would be useful for an enemy to know and possibly exploitable." Rest assured that anyone who could be considered a terrorist knows that, if they surface on the US's radar, they will be targeted. They take it for granted that they are targeted, because that is the safe assumption to make. > "And I don't think the US is hiding the overall justification which is..." I am not interested in the "PR justification", which is indeed "Turrusts!" I am interested in the legal justification. The only thing that they want us to know of that is that it is secret. If it were nothing out of the ordinary, it would not be so secret. (Also, normally I try to avoid doing this, but since you are being so persistent in using strong wording in your comments, I feel that I don't have any choice: These are not people running training camps or making IEDs; these are people accused of doing those things. The difference is important, because it is the reason we are having this discussion. It is particularly important because it is suspected that their legal justification extends beyond people who have actually allegedly done anything, and in fact also covers "people who have communicated with those who have allegedly done things" or "any 'military-aged' male in the family of anyone who has allegedly done things")
    - clavalle 12y ago
      The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. If these people are not terrorists, what would the US have to gain by killing them? I am all for oversight and checks and balances. We need to be sure that we are killing actual threats. But I also understand that, as a practical consideration, it might be counterproductive to make the oversight public. We don't have the luxury of doing full investigations and putting people on trial. It sounds nice, but it is impossible. For the record: I think it is unfair that you charge me with "Using strong language" and in the same breath deride my position as merely parroting PR "Turrist" propaganda. Cheap shot.
      - insuffi 12y ago
        Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen. The US declared an open-ended war against those people and organizations that the President determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaeda is one of those organizations. While one might argue (as many have) that the an open-ended declaration of war was a bad idea, or (as others have) that "al-Qaeda", given its nature, is more of an ideological alignment than an actual organization, the power to declare war has never been Constitutionally limited to declarations with nation-states as the target of the war declared.
        insuffi 12y ago
        Alright, I stand corrected. However, I must point out one important characteristic of these pseudo-wars the U.S. keeps having - it's always on foreign soil.
        12y ago
  - insuffi 12y ago
    You're delusional. There is plenty of evidence even operators of drones don't always have evidence that the people they're killing are "terrorists", they just "feel" it. Without disclosing the rules, it opens us to moral hazard. There is no incentive to feel accountable, and as we've learned lately, the government does not do well without accountability.
- webmaven 12y ago
  Obviously, knowing the rule would then allow them to say "La la la, I'm not a threat to you" and therefore avoid being put on the kill list. Hey, it worked for me as a kid.

Crito 12y ago

How would knowing that the rule is "We kill those who are a clear threat to others" help the enemy? I am pretty sure that they are already operating under the assumption that, because they want to kill others, America wants to kill them. If that is indeed our legal justification for killing them, publicizing it would not modify their behaviour in any way. This isn't about getting the list of people targeted for killing. This is about getting the legal justification for the killings at all. If the justification is as you suspect it is, then there is no value in hiding it. That they are fiercely protecting the justification itself strongly suggests that you are wrong.

clavalle 12y ago
I am pretty sure everyone is aware of that particular rule. But the devil is in the details. How does the US define 'clear threat', exactly, I think would be useful for an enemy to know and possibly exploitable. And I don't think the US is hiding the overall justification which is "These are people who wish to use violence to act against the United States and its citizens to push their own political agenda. In short; terrorists." I mean, these are not people who are running for Mayor in their particular part of the world and we don't like their policy decisions. They are doing things like running training camps where they teach others how to make IEDs.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "But the devil is in the details. How does the US define 'clear threat', exactly, I think would be useful for an enemy to know and possibly exploitable." Rest assured that anyone who could be considered a terrorist knows that, if they surface on the US's radar, they will be targeted. They take it for granted that they are targeted, because that is the safe assumption to make. > "And I don't think the US is hiding the overall justification which is..." I am not interested in the "PR justification", which is indeed "Turrusts!" I am interested in the legal justification. The only thing that they want us to know of that is that it is secret. If it were nothing out of the ordinary, it would not be so secret. (Also, normally I try to avoid doing this, but since you are being so persistent in using strong wording in your comments, I feel that I don't have any choice: These are not people running training camps or making IEDs; these are people accused of doing those things. The difference is important, because it is the reason we are having this discussion. It is particularly important because it is suspected that their legal justification extends beyond people who have actually allegedly done anything, and in fact also covers "people who have communicated with those who have allegedly done things" or "any 'military-aged' male in the family of anyone who has allegedly done things")
  - clavalle 12y ago
    The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. If these people are not terrorists, what would the US have to gain by killing them? I am all for oversight and checks and balances. We need to be sure that we are killing actual threats. But I also understand that, as a practical consideration, it might be counterproductive to make the oversight public. We don't have the luxury of doing full investigations and putting people on trial. It sounds nice, but it is impossible. For the record: I think it is unfair that you charge me with "Using strong language" and in the same breath deride my position as merely parroting PR "Turrist" propaganda. Cheap shot.
    - insuffi 12y ago
      Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen. The US declared an open-ended war against those people and organizations that the President determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaeda is one of those organizations. While one might argue (as many have) that the an open-ended declaration of war was a bad idea, or (as others have) that "al-Qaeda", given its nature, is more of an ideological alignment than an actual organization, the power to declare war has never been Constitutionally limited to declarations with nation-states as the target of the war declared.
        insuffi 12y ago
        Alright, I stand corrected. However, I must point out one important characteristic of these pseudo-wars the U.S. keeps having - it's always on foreign soil.
        12y ago
- insuffi 12y ago
  You're delusional. There is plenty of evidence even operators of drones don't always have evidence that the people they're killing are "terrorists", they just "feel" it. Without disclosing the rules, it opens us to moral hazard. There is no incentive to feel accountable, and as we've learned lately, the government does not do well without accountability.
webmaven 12y ago
Obviously, knowing the rule would then allow them to say "La la la, I'm not a threat to you" and therefore avoid being put on the kill list. Hey, it worked for me as a kid.