[AK_Stick]

Why? Is thier a problem with the Strike authority chain as it functions now?

How would adding additional links, to that chain improve its performance? And where is the failing?

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Why? Is thier a problem with the Strike authority chain as it functions now?

How would adding additional links, to that chain improve its performance? And where is the failing?

Why would you wait until there is a problem or failure?

"Why do we do it this way?"

"Because we've always done it like that."

The problem with what they are doing now is a lack of accountability IMO, which also seems to be the SOP of the entire administration.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[RussP]

The new al Qaeda defense system: Recruit American citizens; promote them to puppet leadership positions; have them publicly denounce the US; position them next to the real leadership knowing no harm can come to the American. See, an impenetrable defense system.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Why would you wait until there is a problem or failure?


I.
The problem with what they are doing now is a lack of accountability IMO, which also seems to be the SOP of the entire administration.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

Until there is an abuse, or attempted abuse of the capability of the powers, arguing against it because it could be abused, is exactly the same argument that is being used against guns.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Until there is an abuse, or attempted abuse of the capability of the powers, arguing against it because it could be abused, is exactly the same argument that is being used against guns.

It is also the same argument that was made against having a king.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by RussP

The new al Qaeda defense system: Recruit American citizens; promote them to puppet leadership positions; have them publicly denounce the US; position them next to the real leadership knowing no harm can come to the American. See, an impenetrable defense system.

Good point, Russ. American citizen goes to foreign country to join terrorist group and take up arms against America. Sorry. You are fair game.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by RussP

The new al Qaeda defense system: Recruit American citizens; promote them to puppet leadership positions; have them publicly denounce the US; position them next to the real leadership knowing no harm can come to the American. See, an impenetrable defense system.

Where did you see it announced that Americans citizens involved in terrorism can't be arrested and put on trial? If the location of this person is known well enough to drone bomb or shoot them on sight, why can't they just be arrested? Your argument fails because it implies that an American engaged in terrorism is untouchable when we both know that's not true.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Until there is an abuse, or attempted abuse of the capability of the powers, arguing against it because it could be abused, is exactly the same argument that is being used against guns.

It's also the same argument that convinced the founders to give us three branches of government.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Where did you see it announced that Americans citizens involved in terrorism can't be arrested and put on trial? If the location of this person is known well enough to drone bomb or shoot them on sight, why can't they just be arrested? Your argument fails because it implies that an American engaged in terrorism is untouchable when we both know that's not true.

Are you referring to terrorist on U.S. or foreign soil?

[WarCry]

I'm quite amused by the outrage over this, because the memo wasn't about drones over US soil. It's about Americans that run to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or wherever to assist the Taliban, al-Qaeda or other recognized terrorist groups. The moment the government starts doing something like this on American soil, it becomes a wholly different issue, but I'm not in support of stopping and checking passports on terrorists in the Pech Valley before we kill them.

And just to be clear that I'm not just "drinking the kool-aid" or whatever, the very first line in the memo says:
"This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the circumstances in which the US Government could use lethal force in a foreign country..."

They are not going to start slinging Hellfires into downtown Dallas or Detroit or Los Angeles any time soon....



.....although some areas of Chicago might not be..........eh, never mind.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by dan1488

when did Yemen become the battlefield?

I believe that would be around Oct 12, 2000.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Where did you see it announced that Americans citizens involved in terrorism can't be arrested and put on trial? If the location of this person is known well enough to drone bomb or shoot them on sight, why can't they just be arrested? Your argument fails because it implies that an American engaged in terrorism is untouchable when we both know that's not true.

This has been an established tactic for a very, very long time, ever since enemies found that we have ROEs that we follow. Enemy forces embed themselves in civilian populations because we avoid civilian casualties at most any cost.

Our enemies have no qualms about killing their own to get at American forces.

If we make a rule that Americans who give comfort and aid to the enemy are to be treated as citizens within the United States instead of enemy combatants, they will sprinkle American recruits among their leaders as human shields.

Why can't they be arrested. Sure, get an arrest warrant for them and we'll let you go serve it.

Who would do the arresting? Remember, they are sitting right next to the terrorist leaders. They are living in the same house. Walk right in there and get them...

Sorry, don't work that way.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by RussP

This has been an established tactic for a very, very long time, ever since enemies found that we have ROEs that we follow. Enemy forces embed themselves in civilian populations because we avoid civilian casualties at most any cost.

Our enemies have no qualms about killing their own to get at American forces.

If we make a rule that Americans who give comfort and aid to the enemy are to be treated as citizens within the United States instead of enemy combatants, they will sprinkle American recruits among their leaders as human shields.

Why can't they be arrested. Sure, get an arrest warrant for them and we'll let you go serve it.

Who would do the arresting? Remember, they are sitting right next to the terrorist leaders. They are living in the same house. Walk right in there and get them...

Sorry, don't work that way.

Of course it does work that way and it has worked that way for a long time. Heard of Guantanamo Bay? I guess it's just easier to drone strike than get bogged down in all that messy Constitutional Due Process stuff, right? Btw, if they're sitting right next to the terrorist leaders, in your pretend scenario, then I'd think the American would be a minor afterthought. I think I'd rather capture the terrorist leaders and try to gain intel instead of just killing them.

Originally Posted by dpadams6

Are you referring to terrorist on U.S. or foreign soil?

Does it matter? We've arrested a crapload of AQ and other terrorist orgs in other countries and brought them to trial, convicted and sentenced. We've even killed them without the advanced knowledge of the host country (referring to OBL of course) when we could have just arrested. My point is that RussP posted like it's either kill them or they get a free pass. That's disingenuous.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Of course it does work that way and it has worked that way for a long time. Heard of Guantanamo Bay? I guess it's just easier to drone strike than get bogged down in all that messy Constitutional Due Process stuff, right? Btw, if they're sitting right next to the terrorist leaders, in your pretend scenario, then I'd think the American would be a minor afterthought. I think I'd rather capture the terrorist leaders and try to gain intel instead of just killing them.

I'm just curious, in your infinite wisdom on the topic, are you just making stuff up, or did you actually READ the white paper?

Because if you haven't, you can read it right here, but I'll point out the salient point to your argument, which appears on the first page, in the first paragraph.

The second of three conditions that would need to be met in order for the lethal strike to be authorized is:

(2)capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible

This is not a "shoot first and ask questions never" policy. But I suppose you'll rebut that somehow because it doesn't fit your view of what you THINK is going on.

[jeager]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Why? Is thier a problem with the Strike authority chain as it functions now?

How would adding additional links, to that chain improve its performance? And where is the failing?

"The Failing" was identified at Nuernberg about 65 years ago and in TheHague in about 4-5 years from this posting.

[jeager]

"I was merley facilitating the objective of
the purposefully vague mission of the administration"

Ironic that "vague" and "hague" rhyme, isn't it?
Officers get some country club detain-meant while enlisted get hard-labour.
Military/Industrial complex gets Foreign Aide.

[railfancwb]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Being that they did not have a right to succession, they were never actually a legitimate seperate state or nation. They were traitors, much like the one who got hit by a hellfire to spark this thread.

Secondly, a good number of people left the north to fight on the side if the south (enemy military) so the scenario was almost exactly identical.

The individual states lost the right of secession when the CSA lost the War of Northern Aggression...but after West Virginia seceded from Virginia with Lincoln's blessing and encouragement. Various other states had considered secession prior to 1860...New England during the war of 1812 comes to mind.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by RussP

This has been an established tactic for a very, very long time, ever since enemies found that we have ROEs that we follow. Enemy forces embed themselves in civilian populations because we avoid civilian casualties at most any cost.

Our enemies have no qualms about killing their own to get at American forces.

If we make a rule that Americans who give comfort and aid to the enemy are to be treated as citizens within the United States instead of enemy combatants, they will sprinkle American recruits among their leaders as human shields.

Why can't they be arrested. Sure, get an arrest warrant for them and we'll let you go serve it.

Who would do the arresting? Remember, they are sitting right next to the terrorist leaders. They are living in the same house. Walk right in there and get them...

Sorry, don't work that way.

Yep. Dealing with terrorist IS NOT a law enforcement issue. Especially on foreign soil.

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Of course it does work that way and it has worked that way for a long time. Heard of Guantanamo Bay? I guess it's just easier to drone strike than get bogged down in all that messy Constitutional Due Process stuff, right? Btw, if they're sitting right next to the terrorist leaders, in your pretend scenario, then I'd think the American would be a minor afterthought. I think I'd rather capture the terrorist leaders and try to gain intel instead of just killing them.




Does it matter? We've arrested a crapload of AQ and other terrorist orgs in other countries and brought them to trial, convicted and sentenced. We've even killed them without the advanced knowledge of the host country (referring to OBL of course) when we could have just arrested. My point is that RussP posted like it's either kill them or they get a free pass. That's disingenuous.

I think it matters quite a bit. Would you advocate trying to "arrest" a terrorist in another country that is not to friendly to the U.S.? Sorry, that is more of a job for the military, not law enforcement.

[happyguy]

All I can say is God help us if you guys trust Obama to make these decisions on his own with a little help from the people he has installed in his Administration.

He plays fast and loose with the Constitution at every turn, but you trust him and him alone to decide who lives and who dies with nary a thought to any checks or balances.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

This has been an established tactic for a very, very long time, ever since enemies found that we have ROEs that we follow. Enemy forces embed themselves in civilian populations because we avoid civilian casualties at most any cost.

Our enemies have no qualms about killing their own to get at American forces.

If we make a rule that Americans who give comfort and aid to the enemy are to be treated as citizens within the United States instead of enemy combatants, they will sprinkle American recruits among their leaders as human shields.

Why can't they be arrested. Sure, get an arrest warrant for them and we'll let you go serve it.

Who would do the arresting? Remember, they are sitting right next to the terrorist leaders. They are living in the same house. Walk right in there and get them...

Sorry, don't work that way.

You are very naive, sir.

No, I did not post that "it's either kill them or they get a free pass." Which of my words said that?

Read my post again. Here is what I said. If you make the rule that no American giving comfort and aid to an enemy in a foreign country, a traitor, having become an enemy combatant, will be targeted, the enemy will take advantage of that immunity.

Have you ever heard that our enemies use non-combatants as human shields against attack? Have you?

Our rules of engagement say we must avoid non-combatant casualties. Have you heard that? Do you agree with that rule?

My scenario is not pretend. The scenario is real. It happens every day somewhere. Bad guys use non-combatants as protection against attack. Non-combatants only work if there are a great number of them, theoretically.

Now, if the same protection can be gained with just one or two individuals, that is more convenient, more mobile. Make an American a high profile "leader" in your movement.

Lets say you, G19G20, get to say the US has a new rule that no American can be killed without due process. It doesn't matter how egregious their behavior. They can directly order an attack on US citizens. Even if the attack is carried out and many Americans are killed, they cannot be harmed without due process in an American court in the United States.

Is that what your rule would say?

G19G20, do you believe that if that rule of yours is in effect, that it is one of the Rules of Engagement for the US military, that the real leaders of terrorist organizations would not protect themselves with American sympathizers, converts to their cause?

You said, "We've arrested a crapload of AQ and other terrorist orgs in other countries and brought them to trial, convicted and sentenced. We've even killed them without the advanced knowledge of the host country (referring to OBL of course) when we could have just arrested."

Name the crapload of AQ and other terrorist organizations we have captured in other countries and brought them into the US and tried them.

The "them" that we've killed when we could have "just arrested", who were they?

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by happyguy

All I can say is God help us if you guys trust Obama to make these decisions on his own with a little help from the people he has installed in his Administration.

He plays fast and loose with the Constitution at every turn, but you trust him and him alone to decide who lives and who dies with nary a thought to any checks or balances.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was never Obama killing any of those guys.

But you probably wouldn't understand that strikes on military targets during wartime don't normally go through the POTUS.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was never Obama killing any of those guys.

But you probably wouldn't understand that strikes on military targets during wartime don't normally go through the POTUS.

Obama approved and directed the strikes against the American citizens that we have been discussing. Hell, he has a damned kill list. Where have you been?

Look, if you trust Obama's judgement, just say so. I don't.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Obama approved and directed the strikes against the American citizens that we have been discussing. Hell, he has a damned kill list. Where have you been?

Look, if you trust Obama's judgement, just say so. I don't.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

So, then, you admit that the answer to the question is that no, you don't understand how military orders are issued? Because the President does not sign off every time someone pulls the trigger. If so, he would never have time to do anything else, EVER.

Carter didn't do it at Desert One. Reagan didn't do it in Grenada. Bush didn't do it in Kuwait. Clinton didn't do it in the Balkans. Bush didn't do it in Iraq. And Obama doesn't do it in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

What you're confusing is approving a Rule of Engagement, not approving specific orders. Those are not the same thing.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by WarCry

So, then, you admit that the answer to the question is that no, you don't understand how military orders are issued? Because the President does not sign off every time someone pulls the trigger. If so, he would never have time to do anything else, EVER.

Carter didn't do it at Desert One. Reagan didn't do it in Grenada. Bush didn't do it in Kuwait. Clinton didn't do it in the Balkans. Bush didn't do it in Iraq. And Obama doesn't do it in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

What you're confusing is approving a Rule of Engagement, not approving specific orders. Those are not the same thing.

Whatever

If you want to parse language to make a point, knock yourself out. It just shows you have nothing else to argue.

I know you aren't saying that Obama didn't personally sign off on killing Anwar al-Aulaqi and of killing his son as well? Seriously? Are you? Because if you are, you are seriously misinformed.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy