Skip to main content

View Diary: Secret government panel can put Americans on 'kill list' (381 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In WWII some Americans fought on (7+ / 0-)

    the side of the Nazi's. They were shot and killed in combat just like other German soldiers.

    Americans were killed in the Civil War too.

    •  Sanity! (4+ / 0-)

      Thank you for pointing that out. We are at war with Al Qaeda. The constitution prevents us from using the military to strike domestic terror cells, but this guy wasn't sitting around in Hoboken trying to figure out how to stick C4 on a model plane. This guy was in Yemen, was the enemy, was recruiting the enemy, and got his ass killed for his trouble.

      Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now, if we could only do away with the brick-stupid slippery slope crap in the original post and this thread, we might be able to claim that we are a part of the reality based community again.

      •  "At war with" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q

        Where is the formal declaration?  Who, exactly, are we at war with?  What are the geographical and social extent of the "enemy"?  What are the victory conditions?  As long as it's the "enemy", are we allowed to go and bomb anywhere we want?  If not, what are the limits?  If so, you're a GWOT neo-con.

        Reality has a liberal bias.

        by Hayate Yagami on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 12:17:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A formal declaration is not needed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger
          Where is the formal declaration?

          None is needed. Unless you believe that the Korean war was a police action. And of course there's that other action in Vietnam, the First Gulf War and basically every war we've been involved in since WWII.
          •  I notice you don't even try to address (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, pot

            anything else.

            Reality has a liberal bias.

            by Hayate Yagami on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 12:22:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's ok (0+ / 0-)

              You didn't address me, either. Anyway, here ya go:

              W

              ho, exactly, are we at war with?

              In this instance, AQ.
              What are the geographical and social extent of the "enemy"?

              There aren't any specific ones. There don't have to be. Does your enemy have to be limited to specific place on the map? Even between two nations, there aren't necessarily specific geographic and social extents. (see the Bosnian/Croatia/Serbia, for example.)
              What are the victory conditions?

              There do not have to be specific "victory conditions" to a war. Many wars end without victory for either side (Iraq-Iran). Here, I would argue the "victory conditions" to be the neutralization of AQ as a threat to us. We seem to be well on the way to this goal.
              As long as it's the "enemy", are we allowed to go and bomb anywhere we want?

              No, I woun't agree with that. I think we should take pains to avoid killing innocent civilians, or even hostile forces who are trying to surrender. We should also take pains not to invade sovereign nations if at all possible.
              If not, what are the limits?

              Addressed above
              If so, you're a GWOT neo-con.

              Nope.
              •  Inconsistent responses. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pot

                So, we're "at war" with AQ.  AQ has no set geographical or social constraints, but we're not allowed to attack them wherever they are.  We should also "take pains" to not kill civilians, or invade sovereign nations.

                Al Quaeda is a large, nebulous group, with support and members all over the world.  With no geographic constraints, on where "they" are, then you're arguing for the neo-con "global war on terror".  You then try to get out of it by saying that we should avoid invading sovereign nations, then immediately negate that by adding the weasel words "whenever possible".  You say that we should "take pains" to avoid civilian casualties, but what does that actually mean?  Even setting the hundreds of thousands of casualties from our wars aside, our drones regularly cause civilian "collateral damage" in their use as robotic assassins.  What does "taking pains" to avoid civilian casualties mean in that context?  Not using them if they might happen?  If a strike might cause over a certain number of civilians might become involved?  What about mistaken attacks, like those in the "collateral murder" video?

                You say that the goal is the neutralization of AQ.  How do we do that?  By killing everyone sympathetic to them?  That won't work, since our activities routinely make affected people hate us even more.  By constantly killing whoever the top person is?  After a decade of war, it's clear that's not working.

                Reality has a liberal bias.

                by Hayate Yagami on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:20:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  nothing inconsistent about it (0+ / 0-)
                  So, we're "at war" with AQ.  AQ has no set geographical or social constraints, but we're not allowed to attack them wherever they are.

                  Of course not. Even in a conventional war, you aren't allowed to attack the enemy, "wherever they are." You have to abide by certain stanards.

                   

                  You then try to get out of it by saying that we should avoid invading sovereign nations, then immediately negate that by adding the weasel words "whenever possible".  You say that we should "take pains" to avoid civilian casualties,

                  Not weasel words at all. Just a realistic acknowledgement that natioal sovereignty cannot be used as  shield to commit atrocities and pay no consequences. For example, if Nation A allows an armed group to cross its' border with nation B and commit atrociciets and then scurry back behind the border, Nation B would be well within it's right to self defense to disregard the Nation A's sovereignty  to go after that group. If a nation were harboring AQ and allowing it to be used as a base of attack, then I would not have a problem if we went after  AQ even without that nations' permission.
                  •  And that's exactly what I mean by "weasel words" (0+ / 0-)

                    If the US can claim the right to attack AQ wherever they are, your stipulation that it shouldn't invade "whenever possible" is meaningless.  Every incursion will be met with a shrug and a "well, we had to this time".

                    As for your point in your second response, that's a laughable claim.  Look at how many trillions the US has pissed away trying to go after AQ.  Look at the erosion of civil rights.  Look at how terrified the US still is of the terrorist bogeyman.  Look at how much worse the US is seen in the world.  It's technically true that there has not been another 9-11 style event (not counting the number of soldiers killed), but they've been terrifyingly successful in draining us dry for the past ten years.

                    Reality has a liberal bias.

                    by Hayate Yagami on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  further (0+ / 0-)
                  constantly killing whoever the top person is?  After a decade of war, it's clear that's not working.

                  Actually this does in fact appear to be working. AQ has not been able to mount anything successful against us in over a decade now and  appears to be close to be neutered right now.

          •  you did not answer Hayate's Question (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, Hayate Yagami, pot

            it is not acceptable for all countries to go around killing who ever they want where ever they want.

            •  I don't know of anyone (0+ / 0-)

              arguing this:

              it is not acceptable for all countries to go around killing who ever they want where ever they want.
              •  you think it is ok for the US to assassinate (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q, pot

                that means you must also find it acceptable for other countries to do assassinate people even in the US.

                •  logical fail (0+ / 0-)

                  First, it was not an assasination. It was  killing of someone who joined our armed enemies with whom we are fighting. Nor does it mean you have to accept all countries to kill "anyone they want, wherever they want." It's prefectly consistent to back the killing of someone who is a legitimate military target and opposed , for example, the murder of a political dissident who is no threat to anyone, simply lecturing at a university.

        •  The AUMF was passed on September 19, 2001. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo

          You should look it up, since this seems to be the first you've heard of it.  The language itself will answer some of your questions.

          We are at war with al Qaeda.  They are located in various locations across the globe.  Victory conditions, as per Leon Panetta, are the elimination of al Qaeda's ability to carry out a strategically-significant strike against us.  We can't bomb "anywhere we want," but only in accordance with international law regarding the prosecution of a war.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think Anwar had a gun that could reach us. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BradyB

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site