Yemen questions

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

We wouldn't bomb a car in Saudi Arabia, but the reason is not that they have extradition laws - it's because we don't want to piss them off.

Uuuhh...Bill....Yeah we would. Some years ago there was a team of Special Ops type guys running around Kuwait and Saudi Arabia searching for a rental truck. They were carrying live ammo including AT-4's (Anti tank weapons) They also had A-10's and a AC-130 gunship on standby. The orders were to destroy the truck. PERIOD. Of course this is slightly differen't in that this truck was "suspected" to contain a large amount of explosives and on the way to a target. A little more imminent danger but I certainly don't think any LESS dangerous than the situation in Yemen. Nobody called the Saudi cops, military, or diplomats. They just turned loose the dogs of war. As it should be.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Which is why, during wartime (even this undeclared war we're in) that constitutional protections on free speech, unlawful imprisonment, and privacy are more important than ever. Listening to some people you would think that such trivialities should be suspended during a war.

Listening to some people, you would think we were talking about trivialites. No we are not talking about free speech. The guy that got whacked was the architect of the Cole attack. He didn't say he disagreed with anyone or carried a sign around, he helps people figure out ways to kill Americans. We are discussing this right? Free speech?

There is no "right" to attack the US and blow stuff up. If I am incorrect, feel free to quote that part of the Constitution to me.

Unlawful imprisonment? Nope. Carbomb them. Do it to all of them today. They can stay in their own country and carry signs all day. They do it all the time. It is like a hobby. "We're bored today, let's go protest the Great Satan". That's cool.

Want to blow something up? Do it somewhere else to someone else. We didn't violate anyones "rights". He is a soldier in a war. He knews it. We knew it.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

An execution is the killing of one specific (or several specific) people. War is action against an entire 'state' whether that state is a country, a loose conglomeration (like the south in the civil war) or an organization (like Al Quaeda.) In a war you kill everyone and destroy everything until the war ends. Then you stop killing people.

Cool idea. I support it. Now if you could get them all into a football stadium in Afghanistan, we will bomb the crap out of them all at once. I think they understand that concept. Most soldiers do. That is why camoflage is so popular. Hiding so the other side doesn't find you.

If we could whack them all and break all their stuff, that would be it. They are running away and hiding because they understand it was a bad idea now. Most terrorist organizations are use a technique of dividing their numbers into "cells" of 5-10 people for this reason.

Until they choose to hide in one spot and we find that spot, we should continue to find and kill each one individually. Call it execution if you want. Why put a negative spin on a good concept?

[jraf 0]

I think if SpecOps were conducted in Canada htey would probably be under Canadian supervision.

I also imagine that the Canadian government would preffer that it be done by American hands than Canadian, even though on Canadian soil. There are political reasons for that. Canada is also a different story as it is a NATO member, once again the political implications make it easier.

The car was bombed is a desert, a secluded area. Should the issue happen in a Canadian urban area I am sure more subtle and already mentined means like a .22 or kidnaping and strangulation would be taken into consideration.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Should the issue happen in a Canadian urban area I am sure more subtle and already mentined means

The search for that truck in Kuwait and Saudi was mostly in urban areas. Of course we didn't want collateral damage but considering the situation it was almost inevitable. Luckily....we never found the truck. I think they got wind of it and called it off.

[JDBoston 0]

Besides, in Canada you'd need local help and expertise in order to deal with the vast amounts of snow, funny talkers, hockey, and how to transport things with sled dogs. Correct?



Joe

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Far enough is in a country where a regular capture, extradition, and trial are not prohibitively complicated.

France has always been quite uncooperative when it comes to extradition (e.g. Ira Einhorn). Guess we should employ these tactics there?

[jdhill 0]

Quote

An execution is the killing of one specific (or several specific) people. War is action against an entire 'state' whether that state is a country, a loose conglomeration (like the south in the civil war) or an organization (like Al Quaeda.) In a war you kill everyone and destroy everything until the war ends. Then you stop killing people.

In war you do not kill everyone or blow everything up, you identify, prioritize, engage, and destroy targets, sometimes those targets are identified by name. This guy was part of the command and control capacity of the enemy, and therfore a legitimate high value and high priority target that was engaged and neutralized by the means deamed most appropriate to the current tactical situation.

If there were a MH-60 full of black ops guys on the other side of the sand dune, maybe snatching him would have been better, but the the target was deemed important enough by the command authority to eliminate it if the opportunity presented itself.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

in Canada you'd need local help and expertise in order to deal with the vast amounts of snow, funny talkers, hockey, and how to transport things with sled dogs. Correct?

Nahh...we would just need a supply of decent cigarettes and a French Dictionary so we could read the signs.

[billvon 3,110]

>No we are not talking about free speech. The guy that got whacked
> was the architect of the Cole attack.

I agree; I'm not talking about him. As I've said before, as long as Yemen approved our action, and as long as we can guarantee we're getting the right people, I don't object to the bombing.

I am talking about the Homeland Security Act, about indefinite detention of US citizens who are merely _suspected_ of helping terrorists. I'm talking about the TIPS program, in which people with priviledged access to personal areas (mail carriers, meter readers, flower delivery people) are encouraged to spy on the people they deliver to, and report their activities to a law organization. I'm talking about the Office of Strategic Information, an instrument of the US government intended to spread false information about the war. (That one, thank goodness, has been shut down.)

During a war, ability to disagree with the government (and to not fear reprisal or being placed under surveillance) is more critical than ever. And, of course, one can't even intelligently disagree if one doesn't know what's going on.

>They can stay in their own country and carry signs all day.

That's great; I hope we can continue to do so, too.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Far enough is in a country where a regular capture, extradition, and trial are not prohibitively complicated.

France has always been quite uncooperative when it comes to extradition (e.g. Ira Einhorn). Guess we should employ these tactics there?

Finally, an idea we can all agree on. Especially France.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

am talking about the Homeland Security Act, about indefinite detention of US citizens who are merely _suspected_ of helping terrorists. I'm talking about the TIPS program, in which people with priviledged access to personal areas (mail carriers, meter readers, flower delivery people) are encouraged to spy on the people they deliver to, and report their activities to a law organization. I'm talking about the Office of Strategic Information, an instrument of the US government intended to spread false information about the war. (That one, thank goodness, has been shut down.)

Ditto....

I wrote my representatives about my concerns regarding the degradation of civil liberties that could result from the actions being considered and implemented. As I sent those letters I have a moment of paranoia about whose list I would go on for voicing such opinions and wondered if sending them would cause me problems later in life. Should someone in a free country have to feel that way ever? I don't think so.

[Michele 1]

Bill, I have an honest question for you. I am not going to answer the questions you asked because I haven't really thought about them that much, but I do have a sincere and honest question for you about your position in general...and I am not poking at you, o.k.? I am a little confused.

Haven't you promulgated the thought that "collateral damage" should be ameliorated in all situations, that specificity in targeting and careful selection of the target and manner of attack should be considered very very carefully?

And yet, I get the impression with this Yemeni question and what discussion I have read that you believe that no collateral damage is acceptable. This situation was very very carefully targeted and carried out, according to what I've seen. The attack could have taken place in a myriad places with far more "collateral" damage, and yet, great care was taken in dealing with this man and the threat he poses. In this specific instance, only one known death was "collateral", and I am not even certain that it is "collateral", inasmuch as collateral and innocent seem to have become interchangeable terms.

So my question is simply this: in war, there are people killed who are not part of the fighting group. What is your acceptable limit of those killed who are not "combatants"? One? Two? None?

Yes, idealistically, there would be none. And there may have been none in the Yemeni bombing.

Just really curious and again, this is with all sincerity and respect.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JDBoston 0]

On those subjects, we are in violent agreement. Where due process is possible (in the US), only VERY extreme circumstances should ever get in its way.

And freedom of political speech, debate, and dissent is practically the main founding tenet of our country. Without it, we might as well move to China, or Iraq. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people in the US who don't really understand that. Like Ari Fleischer, for example.

Joe

[billvon 3,110]

>Haven't you promulgated the thought that "collateral damage"
> should be ameliorated in all situations, that specificity in targeting
> and careful selection of the target and manner of attack should be
> considered very very carefully?

I think that is an important thing to do, and were we at war with Yemen, I would think this was a great strike. We're not. However, as I've said before, I have no objection to the strike provided Yemen agreed with it and we got the right people.

This was not war; it was an assassination of several people. (by dictionary definitions.) Were the same thing to happen in our country we would feel the same way, that a carful of people had been assassinated. This is not on a surface level bad - if we can do this to every Al Quaeda member, and we can minimize collateral damage, then we will have rid the world of a dangerous threat and helped prevent their future actions against us.

Here's what worries me about this new method of dealing with threats:

1. We specifically do not kill people in the US, especially US citizens, until we are certain they are guilty. It sets a dangerous precedent that we are willing to do so in foreign countries, via carefully targeted attacks that kill one (or a few) specific people, some of whom are US citizens. It is certainly a new way to execute people, one that guarantees they do _not_ get the right to a trial. I'd be willing to bet that, if the CIA tries hard, they could get the right people 9 out of 10 times. That 10th person is someone who we have tried very, very hard to protect in our system of justice until now.

2. I believe it is wrong to adopt the tactics of the people we claim to despise; I think instead that we should treat other countries as we wish to be treated. I think it sets another dangerous precedent that people we consider criminals can be assassinated by our government, because as the strongest force on the planet we set a lot of standards. By our new standards, Salman Rushdie should die whether he lives in New Jersey or Saudi Arabia.

If the ends always justify the means, then we're on a good course with pinpoint assassinations of Al Quaeda people (and their supporters, and the people who are close to them) throughout the globe. I hope they always do.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

As I sent those letters I have a moment of paranoia about whose list I would go on for voicing such opinions and wondered if sending them would cause me problems later in life.

I think you are giving "them" far too much credit. I have found "them" to be suprisingly unsophisticated. I wrote my Senator in May or June of 2001 complaining about the Taliban and Al Qaeda raising money in the US. I had stumbled across a bank account taking "donations" right here in the US. Nothing happened. A couple days after 9/11 I sent the same info to the FBI tip web site. Amazingly, the link dissappeared and the web site changed significantly. After a Muslim leader was arrested in Oregon on charges that he had been raising money for Al Qaeda I really wondered if it was my tip that lead to it. Who knows...I hope so. I even told the jackasses that I did it. Well after the fact of course. It was fun...and Al Qaeda really doesn't scare me. Moral of the story is....unless you have some real and QUITE OBVIOUS ties to terrorism I wouldn't worry too much. I think "They" have their hands full.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

This was not war; it was an assassination of several people

It is war Bill. It's just not war in the classic sense of the US Vs. Some Nation State. Al Qaeda is a religious/idealogical organization. It does not own land, have territory, a nationality, or any strategic assets really. I guess you could call money strategic assets but it's still not classic like factories or other war making implements. This is a war just like any other in history. It's just a bit harder to pick out the enemy because they don't all stay in the same place. There is nothing to shoot EXCEPT the people.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

>No we are not talking about free speech. The guy that got whacked
> was the architect of the Cole attack.

"I agree; I'm not talking about him... "

In post 30. The discussion of "normally execute".

Quote

Well, nor do we normally execute people in a third country we're not at war with. This was not an act of war; this was an execution with no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people.

You were referring to an "execution". I was saying it was an act of war. I thought "execution" was a poor definition of what occurred because it applied some kind of poor connotation to the act. It was an act of war and it happened to the proper person. Sorry more of his buddies weren't there to participate.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Moral of the story is....unless you have some real and QUITE OBVIOUS ties to terrorism I wouldn't worry too much. I think "They" have their hands full.

I agree. I don't think anyone's going to target me, etc. I said it was a momentary thought. But, I asked myself why did I even have that thought. It's because of history and current trends. In the 60's pictures were taken of every single person at every single anti-war rally and put in their FBI file. The aftermath of that turbulent time in our history resulted in a crack down on the FBI and other agencies who were going beyond their stated role and doing things borderline, if not completely, illegal and unconstitutional. I'm just afraid that we're getting ready to head down that road again.

[billvon 3,110]

>It is war Bill.

I've been getting annoyed with all the things war is used for lately. We have a war on terror, a war on drugs, a war on illiteracy. Do all those really refer to the same thing that happened during 1942-1945, where 61 million people died violent deaths throughout the world? Where we killed 350,000 civilians with nuclear weapons, and felt justified in doing so? Kids not reading is really something like that?

According to Merriam-Webster:

War: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

Assassination: to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

So - we haven't officially declared war on Al-Quaeda (per our constitutionally-approved method of declaring war) we are fighting them covertly (i.e. the Predator attack was unannounced and unexpected, which is why it was effective) and we aren't fighting a state or nation. To really claim it's a war you're going to have to change the definition of war. I'll stick with the dictionary.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

pictures were taken of every single person at every single anti-war rally and put in their FBI file.

yep...I know someone that was asked MANY questions about his activities in the 60's when he applied to work for an agency in the 90's. They even showed him some of those pics from his college days.

Quote

I'm just afraid that we're getting ready to head down that road again.

We never left that road. Today it's "terrorist." A few years ago it was "Gun enthusiast" or "White supremacist" or "Militia member" or "Hacker." Don't fool yourself. The labels change but the game does not. If someone thinks you are a threat they WILL come after you. There really hasn't been any significant change that I can see. If anything it's just a little more public now.

[freeflir29 0]

www.m-w.com/netdict.htm

Quote

I'll stick with the dictionary

OK...type in "war" there and read down to 2a.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There really hasn't been any significant change that I can see. If anything it's just a little more public now.

Right, and what happens when the powers that be find that even with this kind of activity going public there isn't much public backlash. If noone is complaining, what's to stop them from expanding their activities? To use a cliche, Who's watching the watchers? It seems most of us are so blind with rage against terrorism that we are willing to let anything slide as long as its labeled with anti-terrorism. I just don't want the public to become sheep (no, not the sexy kind) and blindly except any degredation of civil liberties just because it'll bag some bad guys and make us feel all warm and fuzzy.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

OK...type in "war" there and read down to 2a

Damn, hate to say it Bill, 'cause we seem to be on the same side, but......BURN!!

[jdhill 0]

Quote

OK...type in "war" there and read down to 2a.....

Yup, there it is...

2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c : VARIANCE, ODDS

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke