Yemen questions

[billvon 3,111]

From the other thread, it's clear that most people support the bombing in Yemen that killed six suspected Al-Quaeda members. I was curious if people would support the following:

After investigating the Yemen bombing, the CIA determines that there are links to a terror cell in Buffalo, NY. The CIA then uses a car bomb in a Niagra Falls, Canada parking lot to kill 4 Buffalo men who are suspected Al-Quaeda members. A fifth person who was in the car is also killed, and there is no direct evidence that she was an Al-Quaeda member, but administration officials suggest she is. "Absence of evidence is not proof of innocence," maintains Ashcroft. The Canadian government neither condones nor condemns the incident.

Further investigation shows an ironclad link between this cell and a US gun store that has been selling guns to Al Quaeda terrorist cells for years. The CIA destroys the store with incendiary weapons, killing the owner, two clerks and a customer. The CIA claims that the clerks were certainly involved, and have good evidence that the customer was involved as well.

In New York City, the CIA uses another car bomb to kill a drug dealer, two runners and a customer. When the administration is criticized, Bush responds "We are as dedicated to the war on drugs as we are to the war on terror. Drug dealers kill five times the number of Americans every year that terrorists did on 9/11, and this administration will protect the American people against both these threats with determination and resolve."

[freeflir29 0]

Don't think that's really a valid scenario Bill. If these things were occuring in the US I think we have the Law Enforcement and intel resources to deal with it. We can investigate and if warranted arrest these people. Yemen is a bit of a diffren't story. Much of Yemen is "lawless" territory. I think that the Yemeni gov't probably didn't have the resources (Or maybe the will) to capture these guys so killing them was the next best thing. From my limited experience the CIA treads pretty lightly while working on American soil. If they need muscle they coordinate that with other law enforcement agencies. It's hard for me to see the CIA making that leap to "car bombing" suspects on US soil.

[billvon 3,111]

>If these things were occuring in the US I think we have the Law
> Enforcement and intel resources to deal with it.

First incident was set in Niagra Falls, Canada - so would that one be OK? Or do we trust the Canadians enough that we'd just have them arrested?

>I think that the Yemeni gov't probably didn't have the resources (Or
> maybe the will) to capture these guys so killing them was the next
> best thing.

Perhaps, but I worry that we are taking the easy way out, that we are swinging more towards a "better to kill ten innocent men than let one terrorist escape" sort of thinking. To use a commonly-expressed sentiment here, such thinking is perfectly justified if someome thinks that one terrorist might kill 100 later.

[wmw999 2,587]

I disagree. It is a valid scenario, because it would be an action based on well-grounded suspicion, but just suspicion nonetheless. I'm not at all against those people having died in this case; apparently the evidence is quite convincing. I think this was probably the only way for them to die.

Would I have been in favor of our government coldly assassinating Eichmann and Bormann (along with a carful of aides) before WW2 started? In favor of them dying very possibly. But examining whether our government should be involved is a much tougher question.

If we were to try to gain custody of a suspected terrorist cell, it'd probably have to be with one of our new "rights-optional" statutes for fighting terrorism. Those are also icky (that's a technical term).

However, these people are, in fact, probably plotting to do more damage, and trying to make it as painful as possible. My heart of hearts wants the world to be such a place that we can request other countries' cooperation in securing and trying people like this. Reality is that even if they can secure them, their political situation may prevent their being tried, and almost certainly prevents their receiving what we consider to be a fair trial.

And changing the venue to the US from Yemen removes the extradition issue. But that's not reality. We're working on a group right now apparently (although they're lower-level).

Wendy W.
(who hasn't answered any questions, but what the hey)

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sangiro 26]

Quote

intel resources to deal with it

I don't think Bill is discussing intel and resources, I think he's discussing principle. Is my life as a non-american worth less than yours that it should be governed by a different set of principles?

Safe swoops
Sangiro

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Is my life as a non-american worth less than yours that it should be governed by a different set of principles?

Actually, it goes beyond that. Is the life of an American citizen worth less than others because he is on foreign soil?

[JDBoston 0]

I would most emphatically not support anything like this. But I also don't think it's analogous to (or a logical extension of) what happened in Yemen, which seems to be what you're suggesting. Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions.

In the US we have a friendly populace, and an extensive (and usually trustworthy) domestic security apparatus (police, SWAT, FBI, etc.). We have neither of these in Yemen. Canada is a friendly nation. I don't know how apprehensions of US fugitives are typically handled by Canada, but I would imagine they're fairly cooperative. Evidence and witnesses gathered in either Canada or the US would tend to be appropriate and admissible for US courts, thus ensuring that due process could be provided to people we detained.

However, in a place like Yemen, I would think it's not as practical for us to physically detain and remove people without risking many of our own personnel's lives in the process. Witnesses and physical evidence are likewise difficult to obtain and would be difficult to integrate into our judicial system.

And what's the other option? Yemen's court system? I've only read a little bit on it, but what I've read suggests that it wouldn't exactly be the best place to try important criminal cases.

Thus, on the basis of these assumptions, I support actions in Yemen that I would not support closer to home.

Joe

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

so would that one be OK? Or do we trust the Canadians enough that we'd just have them arrested?

Of course....it's Canada. Just kidding....I think if we had good evidence Canadian authorities would be more than happy to cooperate. In fact in that part of the country there is a lot of cross border cooperation already between LE agencies. Let's also remember that it's in the CIA's (et al) best interests to capture people for their intel value rather than just kill them.

Quote

"better to kill ten innocent men than let one terrorist escape" sort of thinking

I haven't yet seen anything remotely close to "reckless" use of force so far. Barring the "wedding party" and Canadian bombings in Afghanistan but those are a differen't set of circumstances. I guess you could argue that we didn't KNOW 100% for sure that the US citizen was guilty of anything but I think it's a safe bet. I just hope that he wasn't a sacrifice. Like an intel operative for some other agency. Ya know...in fact maybe the guy didn't die at all. Maybe he WAS working for the CIA or some other agency and they are using this story to cover up that fact. I'm sure someone was there on the ground that told the CIA where these guys were. You can't figure out that sort of thing from Sattelite photos. So....there's a lot about this story that we don't know. Probably never will. I think justice was done.

[JDBoston 0]

Personally I tend to separate principle from reality when it comes to forming my opinion of what a government should and shouldn't do.

The way I see it, our government needs to preserve the APPEARANCE of acting according to principle, so it can preserve its legitimacy with the people, but in practical terms, if it doesn't allow itself to bend the rules once in a while it won't be able to govern effectively. That's not to say it should be completely lawless and take a "by-any-means-necessary" attitude, but there is a middle ground.

I think what happened in Yemen is a good example of this.

Means: Undoubtedly questionable, if you're operating on an entirely philosophical plane.

Ends: Beneficial.

Joe

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Is my life as a non-american worth less than yours that it should be governed by a different set of principles?

It's not a question of citizenship really. That kind of gets to be a sticking point with people because they feel that an American citizen should get the protection of the Constitution and due process of American law. Well...what most people don't seem to understand is when you take up arms against the US you forfeit all those rights by becoming a "combatant." This is a new thing because it's been a rare thing EVER in history. Sure...we have had spies and defectors during the cold war but almost never has a US citizen fought with a foreign army against US troops. Then you have people involved in training or abeiting terrorist groups. This all gets really wishy washy of where the line is. I don't think anyone's life is more or lessimportant based on nationality. Unless they are French Canadian.....

[sangiro 26]

Quote

Personally I tend to separate principle from reality when it comes to forming my opinion of what a government should and shouldn't do.

That's a convenient luxury that I don't afford myself, and definately not any goverment.

Quote

The way I see it, our government needs to preserve the APPEARANCE of acting according to principle, so it can preserve its legitimacy with the people, but in practical terms, if it doesn't allow itself to bend the rules once in a while it won't be able to govern effectively. That's not to say it should be completely lawless and take a "by-any-means-necessary" attitude, but there is a middle ground.

And where do we draw that line of what's acceptable and what not? More importantly, who draws the line? Who are the "people"? And how is this different (in principle and practice) from the South African government during apartheid?

Safe swoops
Sangiro

[JDBoston 0]

I think every situation's unique, and that's why you need loud, open, public debate from people on both sides of any issue to keep governments honest.

I think an organized campaign of repression and violence against a specific group of people, whether they're your own citizens or not, is pretty obviously an amoral and repugnant thing. I'm not familiar enough with South African history to know whether the government tried to rationalize it any kind of logical way or if they just refused to debate it.

I think you're right that apartheid is one point on the "expediency" spectrum, but I do think it's possible to come up with a pretty universal definition of what's NEVER acceptable and what MAY be acceptable from a human rights standpoint.

For example: hostile or repressive actions against groups whose membership is determined by birth, not choice, are clearly wrong. Hostile actions against groups who have not declared hostile intent towards you or your government (which is only even possible to the extent that they are guided by one leader or one set of principles) are wrong. Hostile actions INCLUDE enacting laws or condoning practices that forbid people from pursuing the relationships, jobs, and leisure activities that they want, among other things.

What's distasteful from a human rights standpoint but a venal, not a cardinal sin, as it were: things like what happened in Yemen. Whose interests would have been served by handling it differently? The interest of any innocent parties in that car (and it's unlikely that any of them were innocent). Whose would have been harmed? The interests of millions of people trying to live in peace despite the best efforts of scumbags like the one we blew up. He wasn't a drug dealer on a corner or a store owner. He was an influential member of an organization that's publicly declared and demonstrated its intent to kill thousands of completely innocent people. A rather unique case.

As to the who: a difficult question. "People" in my usage meant the citizens of a country on whose behalf the government claims to be acting. But as to who draws the line: it's self selecting. Anyone who gives a shit and lives in a country where they can speak up is part of the committee on that one.

Not a perfectly complete answer, but hopefully clears up my position a little bit?

Joe

[jfields 0]

Quote

And where do we draw that line of what's acceptable and what not? More importantly, who draws the line? Who are the "people"? And how is this different (in principle and practice) from the South African government during apartheid?

Actually, we don't have to leave the US in looking for examples. We could look at the handling of native americans, the internment of Japanese americans during WWII, or the McCarthyism of the 1950s.

Our laws allow for the changing of rules in a gradual process. The Constitution specifically notes that. But as was discussed in the recent gun thread, the change needs to be very gradual. There are checks and balances in how the laws evolve, to make sure it happens slowly. The laws are able to adapt according to established guidelines, so as to remove the option for breaking them because they are inapplicable. We (as a citizen-elected government) have the power to change laws, but the government does not have the authority to break them once made.

[JDBoston 0]

Also, to step back outside and reframe this thing for a minute, we're sort of mixing apples and oranges in this thread.

We started off talking about what we thought of the incident in Yemen, which was basically a military operation and not a reflection of government "policy" towards its citizens or towards human rights in general. OK, so one of the guys was a US citizen. He was also hanging with a very bad guy in an area of the world where court justice doesn't work very well. It's a shame, but it's not cause for the rest of us to worry much.

When we get into sustained and deliberate government actions within the country, it's actually an entirely different subject matter IMHO.

In my own posts, I was thinking mainly in terms of external, military-type actions like the car bombing, and not in terms of "let's say we know some guy in the US is a big drug dealer, should we just shoot him instead of arresting him?"

I really do think they're separate debates because the logistics and decision-making processes in each case are so different.

Just to be clear... hopefully...

Joe

[goose491 0]

Quote

First incident was set in Niagra Falls, Canada - so would that one be OK? Or do we trust the Canadians enough that we'd just have them arrested?

Yup

Quote

, that we are swinging more towards a "better to kill ten innocent men than let one terrorist escape" sort of thinking. To use a commonly-expressed sentiment here, such thinking is perfectly justified if someome thinks that one terrorist might kill 100 later.

Bill, this is more like a "better to kill one innocent man than let 6 terrorists escape" sorta thinking. And it would be justified in thinking that each of those 6 terrorsts might kill 100 later. That's 600/1 (deaths prevented/innocents killed) as opposed to 100/10 in your example... Plus, for all the jumping, huming and ha-ing that went on when it was released that one of the men killed in Yemen was an American, we later found that this man was not born in the U.S. but had only resided there temporarily and obtained dual citizenship. When considering an attack like the one in Yemen, you cannot really transpose the scenario to say, Canada. The missle was fired by an unmanned drone because were dealing with lawless wastelands. If the culprits were in a local Gun store in the states, they'd be apprehendable... Driving around in Yemen, terrorists are a little harder to 'bring to justice'. Of course, If there was a small terrorist cell holding up in the middle of the Arizona Desert, planning an attack, than the use of a missle could be justified as opposed to a simple arrest. Just my 2 cents CND.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[jfields 0]

Joe,

You are right that we are suffering from some "Thread Creep". Not thread hijacking really, but the natural meanderings of related issues.

When we get into dealing with other countries it gets tricky. Their laws are not the same as ours. It is disrespectful of their sovereignty to try to impose our values and laws on them. Of course, being the United States, we do that all the time. I'm not saying it is right, just that we do it.

If we look beyond the variations in both international and domestic laws to the more philosophical level, is it right for us to take on the role of the world's police force without first having our own house in order? How would we feel if others did the same to us? That gets to a simpler "Do unto others as you'd have done to you" discussion, rather than a legal or military one.

[happythoughts 0]

I totally agree with you. This is a "combatant against the US got killed" scenario. Wartime action. Sucks if you haven' t got the technology. Maybe they should stick to shooting each other off of camels if they don't like the result.

People who post theoretical questions should watch more Clint Eastwood movies. In Magnum Force, Clint asks "First we kill the crime bosses and the drug dealers. So where do we stop? Do we shoot someone when their dog craps on my lawn?"

People don't learn from the good art films anymore. A desparate lack of culture. I'll bet after the drug dealers, it's jay walkers. You get outside the lines and POW, the CIA will smart bomb ya. Of course, the next illogical step (since this is all in that direction) is library books. Everyone has gone to the library and you couldn't find that book because some 10 year old product of the crumbling American society structure has not returned it. They must be stopped. Smart bomb them too.

Seems inappropriate, huh? Right. Appropriate response for each action. Be a terrorist, get bombed. Good guideline.

Ya see. You don't "accidently" get into a car full of architects of modern terrorism. They don't just meet people at the beach and take them for drinks like I do. They are VERY careful about who they associated with because they know we all want to kill them. A great motivator in social contacts. If you are in the car, you are one of them. They are in a war, you are on their side. Start wearing track shoes and looking up a lot.

I love hypothetical situations. Try to imagine a world without them.

[kmcguffee 0]

I would disagree with either one of those scenarios because there are other viable options to prosecuting these people. We have an extradition treaty with Canada, we do not with Yemen. We work closely with the Canadian police and share a tremendous amount of information with them. We do not with Yemen. Yemeni will not even allow our Federal law enforcement officers to carry weapons while conducting investigations in their country. There is a very large difference.

Another major difference is that we intentionally targeted an American in your scenario. That was not the case in Yemen. In Yemen we were targeting a group of people that we are at war with. The death of the American citizen was not intentional. We don't normally offer trials for the enemy before we kill them in war. I'm just citing historical examples like WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War to name a few.

Also, the CIA is prohibited from conducting operations against US citizens on US soil. They cannot even collect information on American citizens because it is against the law. Whenever a certain federal agency that I work closely with sends information to the CIA, they have to rewrite all of the reports to remove any information about US citizens. It is taken very seriously and a lot of extra work goes into making it legal.

In theory your scenario might sound close but in practice it is very different from what happened in Yemen.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[PhreeZone 20]

Swap Canada for Mexico and what would change?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Swap Canada for Mexico and what would change?

Nothing that I know of. We work very closely with the Mexican government too.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Swap Canada for Mexico and what would change?

The Mexicans would get smaller hats and the Canadians would learn to dance. "Uh, that's not funny, eh?"

[PhreeZone 20]

And yet Cartel leaders seem to avoid extradition for years... Besides carbombs are more of a solution in Isreal where they could hid the purpose more if thats what they were doing. Car bombs in the US tend to make the news.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

And yet Cartel leaders seem to avoid extradition for years...

That can be contributed mostly to corruption in the Mexican government. Most of the heads of the drug cartels have large amounts of local Mexican police officers on their payroll. President Fox has made public corruption a priority. Maybe he'll be successful in fighting it. Recently he deactivated an entire Army Brigade because of corruption. That was the first serious move by the Mexican government in a long time.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

That can be contributed mostly to corruption in the Mexican government. Most of the heads of the drug cartels have large amounts of local Mexican police officers on their payroll. President Fox has made public corruption a priority. Maybe he'll be successful in fighting it. Recently he deactivated an entire Army Brigade because of corruption. That was the first serious move by the Mexican government in a long time.

"large amounts of local Mexican police officers on their payroll" Those darn Mexicans. Where do they think they are, Chicago?

"the first serious move " Maybe the wrong one. Corruption is the only industry where people are making money. Maybe we ought to encourage it, then more of them would stay south of the border.
If we wanted more Mexicans, we'd call a state New Mexico or something and keep them there.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Where do they think they are, Chicago?

LOL, well I'm talking about serious differences in magnitude than anything in the US.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin