8 ms·

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

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.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        Not at all. You forgot the "War" on Some Drugs.
      - bradleyjg 12y ago
        > The US declared an open-ended war No it did not. There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things. No, they aren't different Constitutionally at all. The AUMF is an exercise of the Constitutional power to declare war, which does not require any particular language to be used in exercising it, just as the Constitutional power to levy a tax depends only on whether the effect is a tax, not whether the Congressional action imposing the liability calls it a tax. (It's possible that statutory provisions passed by Congress under its other powers may be conditioned on the specific language in a declaration, such that there may be different effects of something like the 9/11 or Iraq AUMF and something that explicitly uses language like "declares war", but that's a distinction caused by the exercise of other Congressional powers, not a Constitutional distinction that makes the former something other than an declaration of war from a Constitutional perspective.)
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.

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.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        Not at all. You forgot the "War" on Some Drugs.
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      > The US declared an open-ended war No it did not. There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things. No, they aren't different Constitutionally at all. The AUMF is an exercise of the Constitutional power to declare war, which does not require any particular language to be used in exercising it, just as the Constitutional power to levy a tax depends only on whether the effect is a tax, not whether the Congressional action imposing the liability calls it a tax. (It's possible that statutory provisions passed by Congress under its other powers may be conditioned on the specific language in a declaration, such that there may be different effects of something like the 9/11 or Iraq AUMF and something that explicitly uses language like "declares war", but that's a distinction caused by the exercise of other Congressional powers, not a Constitutional distinction that makes the former something other than an declaration of war from a Constitutional perspective.)

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.