Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Murder? No.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No? Then what DO you call sending teams of people out to kill other people that the State deems to be "terrorists"?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

properly done, I call it self-defense.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Properly done"? Tell, me, BooMan, how do you "properly" send secret squads of killers into foreign countries to gun people down on the street without the benefit of any due process whatsoever simply because the State has decided they have a connection to terrorism?

And if extrajudicial killing can be done "properly" in "self defense" by the State, then why is it not justifiable "self-defense" to "properly" send squads to kidnap citizens of other countries whom the State has identified as maybe having a connection to terrorism off the streets and torture them and/or hold them in indefinite detention - you know, like Khaled Al Masry? Or are you saying it IS acceptable to do that on the basis of "self-defense"?

And if it is acceptable in your world for the United States to undertake such lawless actions, then how can you criticize any other country for doing the same things to Americans whom they believe might be threatening their security?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You wouldn't call it that if this were being done in the US against US citizens. It doesn't come anywhere near the legal concept of self-defense, as well you know.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't that depend on the facts?

There have been repeated terrorist attacks against our country over the years. Preventing any one of those attacks would be considered self-defense.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you have a shred of evidence that any of these killings prevented a single attack? Or even a good reason to believe that sending these hit squads out to kill designated victims even COULD theoretically prevent terrorist attacks in the real world? Or are you just depending on the truthfulness and competence of Bush and the CIA?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 07:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, murdering people for the crime of being suspected of something prevents terrorist attacks? In what fantasy world are you operating?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with Booman. But literally all is fair in love and war. And Were not exactly going to take a passive position against those who wish to do harm.

by americanforliberty on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, you are just fine with your country sending hit squads to foreign countries to murder Muslims there. Please remember that next time you complain about lawlessness and brutality on the part of some Muslim country. And especially please do remember that next time you rise up in righteous outrage over the treatment of Americans who break the laws of some third world country you look down on - like, for example, North Korea?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you might take a breath to consider the sole example I gave.
It was a semi-real example, since the only hypothetical was the timing of when the NSA identified the locations in Baku and in Yemen.

Let me spell it out in more detail.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that in 1998 the NSA had the Yemeni safehouse under constant surveillance and they learned of the plot to bomb the embassies in Africa (those bombings killed approximately 225 people, mostly Muslims).

I think it would have been completely reasonable to take out the safehouse there preemptively, as one among several means of disrupting the plot.

The reason? Primarily our inability to trust the Yemeni authorities to arrest them and not to tip them off.

I do not share your belief that we are not within our rights to act extrajudicially against people are plotting to kill hundreds of people.

In most circumstances, it is preferable to ask the host country to intervene on our behalf. But that wouldn't have been advisable in this hypothetical.

You may also remember that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was a wanted man, was located in the U.A.E. in the late nineties and we asked the Emirate (forget which one) to arrest him. Instead, they tipped him off and he disappeared. We had much cause to regret that we hadn't taken him out when we had the chance.

So, I am not advocating going around killing people for no reason in countries all over the world. I am saying that I don't object to having the capability of doing it, provided Congress is informed and approves funding for it, and that it would only be approved in very limited circumstances.

Considering that the mastermind of 9/11 slipped out of our grasp when we trusted a fairly friendly government to apprehend him for us, I can definitely understand how after he killed 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of property damage that we wanted the capability to avoid a repeat.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, my memory failed me. He was in Qatar, not the UAE.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The idea that "taking out" Khaled Sheikh Mohammad without due process would have prevented 9/11 is fantasy.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really?

How about the 19 hijackers? Would taking them out have prevented 9/11?

Or was 9/11 unpreventable by killing the people that actually planned, paid for, trained for, and carried it out?

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, you are making the error of assuming that criminally "taking them out" would be the only way to prevent them from committing their crimes on 9/11 when it is not just the only way, it is also pretty close to the worst possible way on many levels. If you have the means and the access to know who they are, where they are, and what they are planning to do, then you have the means and the access to prevent them from committing crimes without becoming a criminal yourself. In addition, you can do so without "collaterally" murdering or maiming other people who are in no way connected with their putative crimes, and thereby bringing about even more completely justifiable hatred toward yourself.

It is always shocking and appalling to find that even among American "progressives" killing and destroying is so often viewed as the first option for their side, and the law be damned. By your logic, the Iraqis would have been perfectly justified in "taking out" the Bush administration as soon as they intentions became clear, but American exceptionalism would never allow for that option.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have made a similar argument many times as it relates to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's basically a cycle of violence argument, which states that in the long-run you cannot make yourself safer by perpetuating or escalating the level of violence.

But, officials who are entrusted with national defense have as a first duty the tactical challenge of warding off attacks. The goal should be to fulfill that tactical responsibility without damaging the strategic goal of lessoning the threat of attack in the first place.

Minimizing collateral damage is one important strategic goal among many.

Certainly, if you invade a country's sovereignty, that's going to arouse a lot of resentment. For that reason, it should be avoided whenever possible. However, the people who plotted and carried out mass casualty attacks against the U.S. were living in Sudan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, none of which would cooperate adequately with our law enforcement agencies.

After 9/11, it was time to ask those governments to begin cooperating or risk violations of their sovereignty. I'm actually comforted to know that the CIA never put this program into practice because they couldn't meet the high standards that would be required (presumably, a true ticking-time bomb like the African Embassy example).

Yet, they did perform extraordinary renditions, and they did some of them in countries that would have cooperated if there was a legitimate level of evidence. The problem there is both strategic (it damaged foreign relations) and moral (they mistreated or caused to have mistreated people they had captured and subdued).

At issue here is only the wisdom and morality of having a capability. Whether that capability is used is best judged on a case by case basis. I don't mind the capability. I do mind many of the actions Bush and Cheney took with extraordinary renditions.

The capability isn't illegal, it's illegal to spend money on intelligence matters or to conduct covert operations without notifying the proper members of Congress.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PS Do you really believe that if you had managed to "take out" (SUCH a nice euphemism, and for some reason it sounds so macho, too) the 19 hijackers there would not very quickly have been at least 190 new ones standing in line to take their jobs? And do you seriously believe that the types of people who would undertake such a project would be deterred by the fact that their predecessors had been murdered before they could complete the task?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

...and, if BooMan or others shrug about the "collateral damage" incurred when "taking out" 15 of the 19 in far-away Muslim countries, he should think about the consequences of "taking out" the 3 pilots who resided in Germany -- and the one who resided in the USA...

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:04:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point.

Of course, there is no earthly way an American progressive - or "progressive" - would advocate violating German sovereignty by bombing a safe house or anything else there, and it is beyond unthinkable that they would consider endangering so much as a single hair on the head of a single German. By contrast it is not even clear that they view Muslim countries, even friendly ones, as sovereign states, so bombing them is not such a big deal, after all. And the fact that for every "suspected bad guy" the U.S. "takes out" they end up slaughtering tens of non-"suspected bad guys", including tens of women and children, is, of course "regrettable", but American lives are worth more than those of mostly desperately poor and uneducated brown people on the other side of Earth who dress funny and have a world view and a way of life "we" can never understand.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:47:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed. And, to further evaluate the differential worth of life, Germany is one thing (after all, who can forget in Europe the Hague Invasion Act); but what about bombing a "safe house" in Oakland or Phoenix... where the fourth 9/11 pilot resided.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:55:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are assuming that the US government has been presented with evidence that people on their soil at a specific address are planning to bomb a foreign country's embassies and that their response to that evidence is either to do nothing about it or to tip off the plotters and allow them to relocate. In that situation, a foreign government might feel impelled to violate U.S. sovereignty to protect themselves. Of course, that would be a poor way of protecting themselves. But that kind of calculus is up to each country to make in their own self-defense.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I don't believe that there were hundreds of people ready to take their place. I was worried that there were right after 9/11 but I've seen no evidence of it since then. In fact, it looks to me like the same people (a relatively small group) took the initiative to plan the African bombings, the Cole bombing, 9/11, the WTC bombings, and several other high profile attacks.

And stopping the planners and financiers was the key, because there was/is a large group willing to be muscle.

As for your complaints about the collateral damage of drone attacks or missile attacks, that was one of the main motivations for coming up with this controversial plan in the first place. They wanted something more surgical that wouldn't be prone to a lot of collateral damage.

As for Germany, the point is that we trust the Germans to arrest people without tipping them off and letting them escape. Insofar as Cheney wanted to kill people in friendly countries without their permission, his plan would have been unnecessary and counterproductive (see Milan). The only reason to have these teams is to get at al-Qaeda members that are being harbored and protected by the host country (see Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan).

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a fundamental principle of law and morality that it is not permissible to kill someone in order to prevent them from doing something you believe they might do in the future. It does not qualify as preemptive to "take out" a suspected "safe house" occupied by suspected "terrorists". "Preventive" killing is murder, and is not considered self defense under the law.

And of course you are making the error of assuming that committing the crime of "taking out" the suspected safe house, and forever ending an unknown number of human lives with no due process whatsoever would be the absolutely only way of preventing them from possibly committing a crime. Of course, it is not. If you have the means and the access to have the house under constant surveillance, and to know the specifics of a plot, then you have the means, the access, and the knowledge to prevent the crime without committing what amounts to an act of war against the country in which the safe house sits.

And of course, aside from being brutish, uncivilized, and criminal, the belief that blowing up houses and killing people in foreign countries is a way to prevent terrorism runs counter to everything experience should have taught you so far. On the contrary, these kinds of actions, and the use of violence in general, have tended to induce violent reactions in people who might not have considered them before, and only partly because the majority of people harmed by U.S. bombings of houses in foreign countries are men, women, children, infants, and elderly people who have never before been involved in terrorism.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but the people in that Yemeni safehouse killed 225 people in Africa and one of them was on the plane that hit the Pentagon (one part of an attack that killed 3000 more people). They also killed more on the USS Cole. We certainly would have been justified in killing them preemptively and it is tremendous shame that we did not have the opportunity.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, you fail to consider that if you had the means and the access to know who those people were, where they were, and what their plans were, then you would have the means to prevent their crimes without committing crimes of your own, including an act of war against a sovereign state and fellow UN member.

How can Americans call themselves civilized when they so consistently see violence and killing as the first, and only, option.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So, BooMan, again, what about doing it any other, legal way, like arresting them or cordonning them off? What about innocent bystanders? And what about such glorious acts of "preventive" action as the bombing of that supposed chemical weapons factory in Sudan (which actually made medicine)? Or the glorious bombings of "safe houses" in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and multriple times in both) that turned out to be wedding parties?

You really sound like a freeper now.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to mention the tens of Iraqis, including entire families, mother, father and every one of their children, whom the Americans murdered in their various failed attempts to "take out" Saddam. One of of those attempts, in which the Americans used two one ton bombs, took place in a neighborhood in Baghdad in which I had family members and friends living. An estimated 25-30 human beings, including at least one (Christian) entire family, were entombed in the rubble of their homes by those bombs, and others were wounded and maimed. They had heard that Saddam might have been in a nearby building earlier that day, and of course Saddam was nowhere in the vicinity.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PS I don't know about you, but it is deeply creepy and downright scary to think that the government of an allegedly civilized country has people on its payroll whose job is to covert murder on behalf of the State (and by the way, assassination IS a perfectly accurate term - assassination does not necessarily refer only to "prominent political figures").

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In short, BooMan...

NOT IN MY NAME.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So if the NSA/FBI had heard about a plot to bomb a federal building in 1995, you'd have been fine with just sending hitmen out to Take Out McVeigh, his two brothers, his father, his sister, Nichols, Fortier and all the others he might have been plotting with? And everybody else who might have been in their "cell"? Do we at least also then get to Take Out Norquist and the Club for Growth for plotting to drown the government in a bathtub? Or does your prescription only work on foreigners?

Are you, perchance, just coming off a 12-hour "24" marathon? Because you sure seem to be buying into that propaganda vehicle's core assumptions. Your belief that "it would only be approved in very limited circumstances", or that there's a way to make that happen, is pure wingnut fantasy. Your whole argument depends on a childish faith in the honesty and competency of the "security" establishment, the wisdom of Congress, and the trustworthyness of whatever administration happens to be in power -- "believing what you know ain't so" racheted up to its absurdist max.

You can argue that this is no different in principle from what we and all nations have always done. To cheerlead to make murder for hire an official policy is a whole other thing.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PS Why do I suddenly feel as if I am on some right wing wacko blog instead of a supposedly "progressive" one?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The mastermind of 9/11? Based on what? The people who lied us into this war?

There is nothing here to believe.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, thanks Bob. And after waterboarding someone nearly 200 times you could probably get him to say anything you wanted him to say.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So at what point is US Gov't allowed to defend itself and its people? I believe there are people in this world who's death will save the lives of many innocent people.

by americanforliberty on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does sending death squads to foreign countries to commit murder constitute defending oneself?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you not answering the question..but providing me a question to my question.

by americanforliberty on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was not a question, it was a rhetorical device. In order to answer the question, I would have to accept the premise on which the question was clearly based, that murder by the State constitutes defense of the country and its people. I do not accept the premise of your question, therefore rather than answer it, I challenged you to justify it.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then all your argument is flawed unless you can answer that question. Otherwise, I believe your position is the USA can never defend itself. Thus, making all your arguments hyperbole.

by americanforliberty on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummmmm, no. The fact that I will not answer a question that forces me to accept a premise I do not accept does not by any means mean that my argument is flawed. What it means is that I can recognize a rhetorical trap when I see one, and I refuse to step into it.

Violating international law by sending murder squads into foreign countries to "take out" people the United States suspects of being terrorists, at least sometimes in a manner that destroys property, results in "collateral" deaths and injuries, and constitutes an act of war is not defense of the country and its people. On the contrary, it is likely to endanger the country and its people. Therefore, refusing to support this kind of criminal activity on the part of the State has nothing to do with whether or not one recognizes the right to defend the country and its people.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's not the question, when do you think the US has the right to defend itself. What situation or do you believe never. It is really a simple question.

by americanforliberty on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I believe there are people in this world who's death will save the lives of many innocent people."

And one of those people was George W. Bush. Today one of those people is Barack Obama, who has already caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent Pakistanis and Afghans, and an unknown number of Iraqis (since no one seems interested in reporting how many Iraqis the U.S. Occupation Forces are still killing).

You see where this kind of reasoning leads you?

As for your original question, that was a rhetorical device intended to make a point, not an honest question. But if you want to know when a country is entitled to self defense, check out international law. It's all there.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 02:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but even if you are right, you're argument is flawed because you aren't addressing the concern that would lead a nation to take such an action.

Had we become aware of the Hamburg cell while they were still in Germany, we could have presented the Germany government with evidence of a plot and either had them arrested if the evidence was developed enough, or have them put under constant surveillance. That is because Germany and the United States have a good working relationship.

However, we received completely inadequate and unreliable cooperation from several nations before 9/11 and a few less after it. The question posed to you is, how to deal with a person known to you to be working on a plan of mass casualty terrorism (or guilty of already carrying such an act out) when the host government is providing them protection?

After 9/11, our bipartisan, congressionally approved, policy was to hunt down those affiliated with the hijackers and to neutralize them through any and all means. If that meant the Germans or Saudis make an arrest, then fine. But if those terrorists are being hosted in Afghanistan or Yemen, then not fine. A failure to cooperate was articulated as an act threatening to the United States.

So far, Bush's policies were justified and rational. The fact that he went far beyond that in countless ways (not even including the invasion of Iraq) does not implicate this particular program.

As far as we know this program was not implemented, but its purpose appears to have been to train small squads to go kill wanted terrorists in countries that would not arrest them or extradite them. If it contemplated going into friendly countries, then it is good that it wasn't used, but that is not your objection. Your objection is its use anywhere, for any purpose.

That is a legitimate argument, but only if you have an alternative in the situations I spelled out. Because leaving a wanted terrorist free to plot and finance terrorist acts against the United States just because their host government doesn't disapprove of their activities, is not an acceptable practice. Harboring dangerous criminals in the face of evidence and warnings is what causes intrusions of sovereignty.

So, again, developing the capability is not the problem. But the use of that capability must be severely restricted and can only be judged on a case by case basis.

Regardless, the Congress must be briefed on programs like this, precisely because they are a vital check on abuse.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 07:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how to deal with a person known to you to be working on a plan of mass casualty terrorism (or guilty of already carrying such an act out) when the host government is providing them protection?

Well at some point they have to leave to travel to somewhere were they can do you damage. You arrest them then. If they stay in another country, then they're no threat.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at or about) gmail (point) com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 07:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's a pretty simplistic and inaccurate take on matters.

it is completely unnecessary for someone who is training others and financing a plot to leave their sanctuary.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"you're argument is flawed because you aren't addressing the concern that would lead a nation to take such an action."

It is hardly a flaw to refuse to give weight to the the "concern" that leads a criminal to commit a crime.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 07:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that right?

So, if my family's life is being credibly threatened and I go to the police and present them with evidence of this fact, and the police refuse to take any action whatsoever and even go so far as to warn the person making the threats that I have complained, then my concern has no weight? I can take no further action in my family's self-defense without being a criminal?

I don't think more than 1% of the population would agree with you.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you "take out" your neighbor based on your belief, realistic or not, that he is planning to harm you and/or your family, you will, in short order, be known as prisoner 100567458.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not if I have proof and the courts are not corrupt, I won't.

by BooMan on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah.

Well, good luck with that.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 02:41:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a whole body of Anglo-American law that goes against this very simplistic, childish, and brutish thinking you put forward.

You cannot go to your neighbors house and kill him dead because you claim he was coming to kill you some day.

International law is based on similar common law principles of self defense.

The only people in the World that believe the United States was acting in self defense in Iraq, say, are the neocons and apparantly you.

by SFHawkguy on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 01:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right in terms of what we pretend language means, but there has been no adherence to "laws of war" for more than half a century. By your standard, ie, the standard we pretend to value, every killing in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Granada, Iraq, and many other locations, by the US and everyone else involved, have been murder. The reality is that the word no longer applies to governments or those who act in their name.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, what are you saying, Dave? Are you saying that murder and kidnapping or any other normally unlawful act is OK as long as it is done by the State? Or are you saying something else? Please clarify.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CIA Program of Illegal Targeted Killings Creates Uproar

Nevermind, Dave, after reading the rest of your comments, It looks like we are on the same page on this one.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 09:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not A License to Murder (4.00 / 3)

.
From the comments by so-called professionals, the only conclusion drawn is the program remains classified and the guessing game does not lead to any logical analysis of its content. From your link, Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, comes close to a well founded argument.

Murder in the name of a "global war on terror"
As the U.S. military has long recognized, fighting a war is not a license to murder. The Bush administration's claim that a "global war on terror" justified kidnappings and assassination of "suspected terrorists" anywhere in the world because they are "combatants" was lawless. The Obama administration is right to end the assassination program. Properly confining the extraordinary authorities to kill and capture individuals to theaters where U.S. forces are engaged in combat restores the rule of law, thereby strengthening the United States and making the entire world more secure.

The program advocated by the Bush/Cheney team was most likely extrajudicial executions, not in a war theater.

UK: Investigation into MI5 torture allegations could jeopardise national security

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

by Oui on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:06:50 PM EST

Re: Stupid Debate (4.00 / 4)

I dunno, BooMan, what are you saying here? One person's definition of a terrorist can be someone else's idea of a freedom fighter. Outside of direct combat situations, killing people who oppose you is a slippery slope that leads to innocent victims, revered martyrs and other unintended consequences. This is why the police try to arrest murderers instead of simply executing them as soon as they're caught, ya know? Even Timothy McVeigh got a trial...

Also, "prominent" and "political reasons" are relative terms.

by sjct on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:22:16 PM EST

Mandela Would Not Have Lived (4.00 / 2)

To Become President of South Africa
He called Mr Cheney a "dinosaur" and an "arch-conservative" who does not want Mr Bush "to belong to the modern age."

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

by Oui on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandela Would Not Have Lived (none / 0)

I agree with Mandela, but I think comparing Mandela to al-Qaeda is not very nice.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mandela on US Terror Watch List (none / 1)

U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list

April 30, 2008 - The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

In 1990, Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison for crimes committed during the struggle against Apartheid, a repressive regime that subjugated black South Africans. In 1994, he was elected South Africa's first black president.

Members of other groups deemed a terrorist threat, such as Hamas, also are on the watch lists.

1988 Pentagon report: ANC "a major terrorist organization".

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

by Oui on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandela Would Not Have Lived (none / 1)

I think your entire line of reasoning here is not even remotely progressive.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandela Would Not Have Lived (none / 1)

Agree. In fact, if Cheney is the one who does the defining any number of us could be sliding the wrong way on the slippery slope.

That makes it personal.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stupid Debate (4.00 / 3)

Or maybe people need to stop pretending that there's no problem, nothing to see here, about sending hired guns to other countries to kill people outside any cover of law -- which sure sounds a lot like murder to me. Whether it's assassination or just murder or homocide is irrelevant.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 05:39:43 PM EST

Of course you are right, Dave. It is by definition first degree murder since it is premeditated, planned, and in at least some cases at least includes the "special circumstance" of lying in wait. I am beyond stunned that the only problem a self-proclaimed "progressive" sees with it is that Congress was not informed of it.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am beyond stunned that the only problem a self-proclaimed "progressive" sees with it is that Congress was not informed of it.

That's a No True Scotsman but otherwise I echo the sentiment.

They say the best way to learn something is to teach it. No allowance is made for the damage done to students.

by Migeru on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree that I have committed a logical fallacy in believing that advocating the use of death squads by the State (as long as the Congress knows about it, that is) is antithetical to being a progressive. In my world by definition such a thing violates core progressive values.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 09:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depending on what is the greater good, or the greater threat, anyone could be fair game. That's why we have laws. That's why we have due process. And that's why we shouldn't have any death penalty.

But, of course, I'm just a liberal.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I, too am categorically opposed to the death penalty for anyone under any circumstances, which of course makes preventive execution even more odious than it might otherwise be.

However, even if one is not opposed to the death penalty, one should oppose the kind of thing our supposedly progressive host is advocating. Due process is a fundamental human right that cannot be denied to any human of any kind at any time for any reason because, as you pointed out, if you can justify denying it to even the worst of the worst, then you can find a reason to deny it to anyone. The only requirement for being entitled to human rights is to be a member of the human species.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm, you're denying BooMan his self-description.

"But you cannot call yourself a progressive, a true progressive blah blah blah!"

But, like I said, I echo your sentiment.

They say the best way to learn something is to teach it. No allowance is made for the damage done to students.

by Migeru on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I did not deny his self-description, and I did not say he could not call himself anything he likes. I expressed my own reaction to his holding a position that is very clearly antithetical to progressive principles.

Glad we agree on the principle, though.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tempers Cool In Qatar Assassination Row

It's not that there is nothing to see.

The whole project is fraught with problems, which is why it appears that it was never used. However, trying to develop that capability is certainly a rational reaction to 9/11.

Look at a different plot: the African Embassy bombings. The NSA cracked that nut in a day or two, but what if they had cracked it a week or two before hand. The attacks took place in Tanzania and Kenya, but they were coordinated in Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. We couldn't expect any help from the governments in Afghanistan or Yemen, so how could we protect ourselves?

At that time we didn't have the drone capability, but the drone is not an ideal tool.

In the long run, me must put as much effort into solving conflicts as we put into counterterrorism, but for now we must do both.

A key here is that I said 'properly done.' Meeting that standard is difficult which, again, probably explains why this tool was never used. But I don't have a problem with building the tool, I have a problem with violating the National Security Act of 1947.

by BooMan on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 06:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Follow the Great Satan (4.00 / 2)

.
Not hypothetical BooMan, it's fictional. The level and quality of intelligence has and never will reach the level of certainty about a possible deadly plot with all its effects.

Which nations use extrajudicial execution as a policy? I could name Russia, China, France, Israel and some South American dictatorships. It's about internal threats with foreign elements and evolves quickly into enemies of the state as under Nixon and "communist" elements inside the USA. Under dictatorship, you will see the use of unbridled force by the state. The license to kill in Afghanistan has been falsely used by clans to mislead the allied forces and make bombing runs on personal enemies, not our so called "terrorists". Extrajudicial execution is a logical extension of enhanced interrogation, aka torture, under Geneva rules.

The Lennon Files: The FBI and the Beatle

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

by Oui on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Follow the Great Satan (none / 1)

Kind of fascinating how the very same person who will unqualifiedly condemn the use of torture is fine with the state committing murder - as long as the Congress is in on it, that is.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again, BooMan, what is the proper way for the State to kill people without benefit of any due process whatsoever?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You throw them into Guantanamo without due process until they die of natural causes or kill themselves or something.

They say the best way to learn something is to teach it. No allowance is made for the damage done to students.

by Migeru on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That seems to be the essence of Obama's plan. And if they are completely innocent of any real connection to terrorism, as the majority of those detained have been, and their lives are destroyed - oh well, that's how it goes sometimes.

Interesting to note that I have asked BooMan this question twice, and twice he has been unable to answer it.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stupid Debate (4.00 / 5)

Jezus! so If you allow death squads for this, where do you put the boundary, how much does someone have to act against US interests for assasination to be a rational response?do they have to be suspected of carrying a bomb? or could they be suspected of funding a bomb? or maybe just of organising a political party, with similar aims to the bombers? or maybe being a union organiser attatched to that political party, or just being a union organiser, or a socialist, or feminist, or huuman rights activist? and if its legitimate in other countries, then why isn't it legitimate in the US?

This should be something that you should be standing up against, whatever the cost, it cheapens and degrades your society that its even being discussed.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at or about) gmail (point) com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 09:07:15 PM EST

Re: Stupid Debate (4.00 / 3)

The stupid debate is the one taking place here. There should be no debating the fact that sending death squads to countries with which one is not at war to kill people without giving them any benefit of due process is unlawful, immoral, unethical, and downright criminal. In is by definition murder by the State. Such extrajudicial killings are, in fact, arguably war crimes even when committed in the context of war. There is not a single good argument in their favour, and there certainly is no good progressive argument that supports such a thing.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 09:56:17 PM EST

If it did not suggest Limbaugh, I would say "Ditto!"

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry to say death squads are PRECISELY the kind of thing the Limbaughs, Coulters, and other uncivilized right wing wack jobs of the world would and DO advocate.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 11:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Define "terrorist". And explain why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them but applies to those denied their rights in Guantanámo or Abu Ghraib or Baghram Air Base.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:13:18 AM EST

Remind me of your take... (none / 1)

...on Dershowitz's "Torture Warrants", please BooMan.

They say the best way to learn something is to teach it. No allowance is made for the damage done to students.

by Migeru on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 08:54:35 PM EST