Al Qaeta Protests Illegal Killing

[Svartalf]

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

On the "go fuck yourself" scale, well....this goes to 11.

You know what also "contradicts American law," dickfaces? Hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings, killing thousands of civilians.

American law has no jurisdiction over foreigners, so there is no contradiction there.

Actually, it has... it's a spcial unwritten chapter known as the laws of war.

It's not that complex. Foreigners visiting or otherwise present in the US are subject to US law.

Yeah, I know, they tried to prevent me from drinking when I came and I was 20.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, I know, they tried to prevent me from drinking when I came and I was 20.

Yes, well, unfortunately, the law here is 21. It's the do-gooder, nannies that want that kind of regulation.

[Svartalf]

But it feels really weird when you're a voting, tax paying, and freely and legally imbibing (though, to be honest, at the time I was imbibing quite moderately, especially compared to the intemperance I would develop a decade or two later) citizen to be sudenly told, "no you can't, too young".

[Coito ergo sum]

But it feels really weird when you're a voting, tax paying, and freely and legally imbibing (though, to be honest, at the time I was imbibing quite moderately, especially compared to the intemperance I would develop a decade or two later) citizen to be sudenly told, "no you can't, too young".

Yep....I feel ya, brutha.

That would be a good reason to march and picket in the streets....OccupyTheBarsandPubs.com!!!!!

[mistermack]

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

On the "go fuck yourself" scale, well....this goes to 11.

You know what also "contradicts American law," dickfaces? Hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings, killing thousands of civilians.

This is one of your silliest threads.
Does the US government claim to be another Al-Qaeda? No. It claims to be a democracy, governed by laws.

You really have dumbed down the subject to "he hit me, so I can hit him back".
You simply give justification to Al-Qaeda. They can now use the same argument. That IS their argument, and always has been.

[Ian]

Except if they are enemy combatants in a war.

according to them, the fact he could be specifically targeted for drone bombing proves it wasn't a war situation and he should have been abducted, or petition should have been made for the locals to arrest and extradite him.
This was assassination pure and simple, and anybody who had anything to do in planning, authorizing, or executing it must hang.

Oh bollocks. The term assassination does not apply at all. That's a term that applies to killing public figures for political purposes. Awlaki was an enemy combatant, actively engaged in violent activities against the nation that ultimately fired back at him; the fact that he was also relatively well-known is irrelevant. Do you think Awlaki was expecting some special citizen's privileges from Uncle Sam? Oh please.

A capture-or-kill order is not only completely legal against hostile combatants, it was the best course of action here. Insisting that the only legal move was to attempt some sort of capture mission ignores that 1) it wasn't at all practical to try and capture him (the overhead imagery track on him could have disappeared by the time some special operations force was in position to intercept him, if there even was one available on short notice, and if it had permission from the Yemeni government to enter their territory, or if the Yemenis were willing to send their own men after him. Plus he could have entered a populated area and increased the risk to civilians in a firefight on the ground. And the idea of letting him escape because of restrictions against firing upon enemy combatants just because they happened to have been born in the US is asinine. Can you imagine the conversation amongst commanders realizing they had this guy in their sights, ready to fire, but legally couldn't do anything about it until after he had gotten away? Would you expect them to shrug and say "Oh well, maybe we'll find him again soon, hopefully before he's involved in another attack." FFS, it's ludicrous), and 2) such an operation probably wouldn't be worth the risk to personnel.

I would have been proud to press the button that fired that drone's missile.

[Svartalf]

Can I quote you?

[Ian]

Can I quote you?

By all means!

I'm sorry for some others who happened to have been near him, but sadly that's still the reality of war. Awlaki was at war, and so are we.

If you can prove that a capture mission could have been easily attempted yet wasn't just because of whatever excuse, then have at it. I say firing that missile was done because attempting a capture wasn't practical, and was therefore completely legal. Good riddance to my fellow "citizen".

[mistermack]

Can I quote you?

By all means!

I'm sorry for some others who happened to have been near him, but sadly that's still the reality of war. Awlaki was at war, and so are we.

If you can prove that a capture mission could have been easily attempted yet wasn't just because of whatever excuse, then have at it. I say firing that missile was done because attempting a capture wasn't practical, and was therefore completely legal. Good riddance to my fellow "citizen".

That bollocks is enabled by the completely false phrase "war on terror".
War is between nations. That IS the only genuine form.
The police might have a "war on organised crime" but it doesn't entitle them to take out the Mafia using drones, and killing bystanders.
This is a fictitious war. It's just a form of words to attempt to legalise what is totally unprecedented as legal behaviour.

The US, bombing Pakistan or Yemen, killing innocents and terrorists alike, is just a major power doing what it likes. It's a terror tactic, just like those that they condemn.

[Coito ergo sum]

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

On the "go fuck yourself" scale, well....this goes to 11.

You know what also "contradicts American law," dickfaces? Hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings, killing thousands of civilians.

This is one of your silliest threads.
Does the US government claim to be another Al-Qaeda? No. It claims to be a democracy, governed by laws.

You really have dumbed down the subject to "he hit me, so I can hit him back".
You simply give justification to Al-Qaeda. They can now use the same argument. That IS their argument, and always has been.

Well, the international law relative to self defense is as "dumbed down" as you suggest. If an enemy hits you, then you have the right to hit back. You don't need another reason.

Moreover, the irony that I was illustrating was that Al Qaeta would be concerned with whether the US obeys US law, when Al Qaeta clearly had no concern with obeying the law themselves on 9/11 and 7/7 and in Madrid, and when attacking the USS Cole, and in 1993 when they bombed the World Trade Center, and when they bombed the US Embassy in Kenya, and when they bombed the US embassy in Tanzania, and when they attacked the US in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and when they attacked innocent Australians in Bali....etc....etc...etc....etc.... To hear Al Qaeta express any concern relative to obedience to law is extremely humorous.

[Coito ergo sum]

Except if they are enemy combatants in a war.

according to them, the fact he could be specifically targeted for drone bombing proves it wasn't a war situation and he should have been abducted, or petition should have been made for the locals to arrest and extradite him.
This was assassination pure and simple, and anybody who had anything to do in planning, authorizing, or executing it must hang.

Oh bollocks. The term assassination does not apply at all. That's a term that applies to killing public figures for political purposes. Awlaki was an enemy combatant,

Yes! And, as such he would also be subject to being captured and held for the duration of hostilities without charge or trial. It's not even necessary that he have committed or be alleged to have committed a crime. Like any enemy combatant in a war, they can be captured even when all they've done is engage in lawful war, and they can be held in a prison camp until the end of the war....just....like ....the Bush Administration....said....

[Coito ergo sum]

Can I quote you?

By all means!

I'm sorry for some others who happened to have been near him, but sadly that's still the reality of war. Awlaki was at war, and so are we.

If you can prove that a capture mission could have been easily attempted yet wasn't just because of whatever excuse, then have at it. I say firing that missile was done because attempting a capture wasn't practical, and was therefore completely legal. Good riddance to my fellow "citizen".

That bollocks is enabled by the completely false phrase "war on terror".
War is between nations. That IS the only genuine form.

You are not correct as a matter of international law.

The police might have a "war on organised crime" but it doesn't entitle them to take out the Mafia using drones, and killing bystanders.

The police aren't an army.

This is a fictitious war. It's just a form of words to attempt to legalise what is totally unprecedented as legal behaviour.

New circumstances require different practices. This is an asymmetric war wherein nongovernmental aggressive organizations rise to the level and power of a State, operate covertly, with the assistance of states, but on the down-low. You would tie the hands of a State to defend itself from such an entity, but the law does not require a nation to stand idly by.

The US, bombing Pakistan or Yemen, killing innocents and terrorists alike, is just a major power doing what it likes. It's a terror tactic, just like those that they condemn.

The Yemeni government gave the US permission, and although there are muted protestations from Pakistan about different things for political purposes, it appears that Pakistan was working in concert with the US on the war on terrorism and was ostensibly working with the US to capture or kill terrorists on their soil. They can't invite us in, and then complain that we're there.

[Ian]

The US, bombing Pakistan or Yemen, killing innocents and terrorists alike, is just a major power doing what it likes. It's a terror tactic, just like those that they condemn.

Doing what it likes, eh? I don't think even you believe that.

What I'd like is that all the expenses and difficulties of the last ten years had not come up at all. I'd like the Al Qaeda leadership to suddenly decide against a policy of slaughtering civilians from countries which they see as standing in the way of a new Caliphate. I'd like it if Awlaki had not been involved in attacks that killed and attempted to kill people in the name of religious jihad. But we and the rest of civilization did not get what it likes. It got a new set of responsibilities along with the occasional unpleasantness that comes with them. And some of us take those responsibilities seriously, while others decadently sit back and whine about the details of how we try to deal with them as if we don't worry enough about such things ourselves.

Also, "the US bombing Yemen" is not at all accurate. The Awlaki raid was as surgical a strike as it could be, and it had the blessings of Yemen's government. How many air raids occurred during WWII that took place on Axis forces operating outside of their home territory? Countless. Nobody would seriously call them a terror tactic. Like this strike, they were military attacks against unambiguous threats - what difference does it make if they were wearing a state's uniform or not? And given the nature of the enemy, going after them wherever they happened to be (as opposed to what, by the way? Wishful thinking? Passing the buck and hoping the locals will or even can take care of the common threat for you?) was the right thing to do.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US, bombing Pakistan or Yemen, killing innocents and terrorists alike, is just a major power doing what it likes. It's a terror tactic, just like those that they condemn.

Doing what it likes, eh? I don't think even you believe that.

What I'd like is that all the expenses and difficulties of the last ten years had not come up at all. I'd like the Al Qaeda leadership to suddenly decide against a policy of slaughtering civilians from countries which they see as standing in the way of a new Caliphate. I'd like it if Awlaki had not been involved in attacks that killed and attempted to kill people in the name of religious jihad. But we and the rest of civilization did not get what it likes. It got a new set of responsibilities along with the occasional unpleasantness that comes with them. And some of us take those responsibilities seriously, while others decadently sit back and whine about the details of how we try to deal with them as if we don't worry enough about such things ourselves.

Also, "the US bombing Yemen" is not at all accurate. The Awlaki raid was as surgical a strike as it could be, and it had the blessings of Yemen's government. How many air raids occurred during WWII that took place on Axis forces operating outside of their home territory? Countless. Nobody would seriously call them a terror tactic. Like this strike, they were military attacks against unambiguous threats - what difference does it make if they were wearing a state's uniform or not? And given the nature of the enemy, going after them wherever they happened to be (as opposed to what, by the way? Wishful thinking? Passing the buck and hoping the locals will or even can take care of the common threat for you?) was the right thing to do.

+1000

[mistermack]

You both got me wrong. I don't give a toss who kills who, between Al Qaeda and the US.

But it's perfectly clear that the US is in no way morally superior to Al Qaeda. They are at best, as bad as each other. At worst, the US has least moral justification.
They both use the argument that they have been attacked, and are defending themselves.
The US is the biggest liar, because it's perfectly obvious that if they had stayed at home, and didn't interfere in Arab countries, nobody would have attacked them.
The US started it.
In a situation where both are claiming to be defending themselves, the US is the biggest liar.

They start a war, and then claim self defence.