A Decision Matrix For Killing Terrorist That Are US Citizens!!!

[JayHawk]

A lot of you have described varying degrees of outrage over the killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi.

I understand some of the outrage is a vessel to attack Obama and some of it is justified outrage based on personal belief. I have argued that by our definition of the enemy in this conflict he was very much a justified target. I read a lot about our foreign policy from a variety of sources. A lot of the best things I read come from Foreign Policy Magazine which has a daily push of interesting FP articles. One of which was this Atlantic Piece that is fairly well written and adequately describes the decision process.

How Obama Decides Your Fate If He Thinks You're a Terrorist


And while the article is a good read the main point is the decision matrix. << That is an interactive and provides information required for each step when you click on each box. So I didn't put a picture of it in this thread.

So that is one facet or tidbit of info for this discussion. Additionally:

Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed Jeh Johnson the out going Pentagon Chief Legal Counsel who was responsible for the legalities of the roll out of repealing DADT. That and doing it so as to not affect our military mission or efficacy. I would like to point out that under his guide they built the denial of benefits entirely around DOMA so when it fails to prevent couple from acquiring benefits then it should be an easy jump to domestic partner benefits for service members. SO while that last part is not germane, I want you to understand why I trust this guys opinion.

Her lead in was about POW camps in World War Two and how they weren't actually emptied until MONTHS after the war ended. So with the war on terror being this open ended commitment that apparently has no end, will we have prisoners forever? Well, Jeh Johnson used one of his last few addresses to offer something that has yet to be embraced by anyone who has assumed power in this nation -- that the war on terror will eventually reach a point where we know it is over and we can stop the open ended war commitment and spending.... you can find the clip HERE if you click on the first Jeh Johnson clip... That idea is made ever more complex by an intransigent congress (Read House Republicans) that refuse to allow anything be done with the prisoners while at the same time offering no solution.


So big lead in I know but knowledge is power and all of that. SO my question is this: Being that Obama is against the war efforts but knows we must responsibly end our efforts and must do so in a manner that protects America. Do you think his unpublished work on a decision matrix where it relies primarily on legal avenues is the next obvious step? Where we employ both military might sparingly and legal avenues to continue to defeat terrorist? Finally, will congress ever get a fucking clue and stop hamstringing the normal process of trial or release for prisoners of war?

I personally think this will be the Obama Doctrine once all is said and done. I additionally think if we had a congress intent on something other than simply hamstringing Obama we could then work through these prisoners and remove this apparently never ending blight of holding people indefinitely.

Now I know there will be plenty of we are a police state and Obama is a hatey hater hatey hate and such... but if you would please keep it confined to the questions at hand... and even more so offer discourse on that and possible constructive solutions....

Cheers

 

[Kulindahr]

The flow chart seems sensible, but it doesn't actually give anything to suggest that the process of answering each question is not subjective. Some of them, such as whether the individual is in a country that would extradite him, are plainly objective, but others aren't, with the result that it isn't clear just how much objectivity is involved in the end.

Good read, though.

 

[palbert]

Benedict Arnold. Guilty by flow chart?

 

[JayHawk]

It is rather subjective Kuli but so is the process with which we decide military targets. Don't get me wrong I have no delusions that terrorist deserve legal protections. I think they are enemies and deserve none. That and this is pieced together by the folks at Atlantic not a set in stone policy... simply what they can divine.

I just wonder if something like this will be the foreign policy legacy of BHO. I don't think we will cease drone strike type warfare in a multitude of countries that allow our presence. If for no other reason than the countries let us and it allows us to keep terrorist organizations off balance.

 

[TX-Beau]

Enemies of the US deserve "legal protections" more than anyone else - it's why we aren't THEM.

I personally don't want to be a culture that ignores our principals because we hate. That would mean we have no principals at all.

 

[JayHawk]

Enemies in war time are authorized to be eliminated. It has been the nature of our nation since it's inception. It is the nature of the political act of war. That is entirely legal. That is of course not the question. If we made some legal process for pulling the trigger we could never fight another war. For a country built upon projection of strength it would not work. So that isn't going to happen. Or rather it isn't going to be the only method.

 

[chance1]

Can we get members of congress on this matrix ?

Mercy killing?

 

[JayHawk]

Damn and I am the heartless one.... you advocate the killing of our elected leadership... whether in jest or not it certainly doesn't contribute to the conversation.

 

[chance1]

Damn and I am the heartless one.... you advocate the killing of our elected leadership... whether in jest or not it certainly doesn't contribute to the conversation.

the difference obviously is tone and intent

and you as the standard maker is obscene and absurd - pick one or both

sorry to interrupt your deep thread

i'm cool with BO picking off bad guys

better ?

 

[palbert]

Why is this under discussion? The police and other authorities kill people all the time for activity far less heinous. I just see no reason to "cry a river." Call him collateral damage.

 

[chance1]

Why is this under discussion? The police and other authorities kill people all the time for activity far less heinous. I just see no reason to "cry a river." Call him collateral damage.

a very good question indeed

 

[palbert]

I just don't understand this discussion. We blew Osama Bin Ladin away, but on what public evidence? True, he wasn't US. Anyone who thinks that black ops don't exist is deluded. You can be US or Martian and if they want you dead, well, devil take the hindmost.

If you're on US soil you might have some technical protection. So one would think.

 

[JayHawk]

Not really attempting to discuss whether or not we do it or whether or not we will continue. I assumed that was obvious based on our history as war first questions later.

What I wonder is by this point (end of first four years) we had a defined and discussed Bush Doctrine. What will be defined as Obama"s Doctrine?

The secondary question was whether or not congress will ever cease obstructing the normal process for prisoners of war. because no matter how you view the process that is how we as a nation are treating the detainees here and in Afghanistan. There are hundreds of prisoners in detention in Afghanistan that congress has just formalized the obstruction for any action releasing or bring them to a normal justice process. I mean in the end if you believe we are leaving combat operations in 2014 then they should have to make a choice. But we do intend to leave 6 to 20 thousand troops in the country so do they become a fortress of prison operators overseas?

 

[levenshulme31]

The problem with the war on terror is it is a war against an amorphous concept, not a nation or specifically definable group.
The US has not declared war on Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia. I cannot see how the use of weapons of war against targets in countries you are not actually at war with can be justified, particularly when you have now taken to defining anyone killed by a drone strike being a 'militant'. President Obama wept for the 20 children murdered in Connecticut yet seems unconcerned about the 249 (and counting) children who have been killed by drone strikes.

Would it have been acceptable to use a drone strike against Timothy Mcveigh, or if there was an Al Qaeda cell living in your apartment block would it be OK to take out the whole block with a missile if it had been deemed too difficult to arrest them ? I suspect not.

You can't have it both ways because your perceived enemy is inconveniently not aligned to a definable country. If it is acceptable as part of your war on terror to kill civilians and destroy civilian targets (because alleged terrorist suspects are believed to be in the area), then logically, it is equally acceptable for those on the other side of the conflict to kill civilians in countries they perceive as their enemies, if, by their chosen definition of warfare, doing so would help them to win.

We cannot claim moral superiority when we choose to abandon morals which are inconvenient.

 

[JayHawk]

Point very well taken.

Couple of additional points. We act in those countries at the request and with the permission of the governments of those countries. Not contrary to their wishes.

Yes children have been killed and it is a horrible collateral damage cost. However the apartment complex you refer to would be filled end to end with terrorist and their families. I don't minimize your point at all but when countries declare war it is acceptable internationally for collateral damage of that nature when it is determined to be unavoidable. It can be something you disagree with entirely but it does not violate some moral high ground. Study the Law of Armed Conflict for a much more realistic definition than I can type.

Finally, If you think the rule of law exist the same way in any of those nations you offer as it does in a town in the US then you are massively deceiving yourself. Hence the matrix where every other outcome is worked through including our justice system and the host country justice system.

 

[chance1]

This is one topic where progressives live in a fantasy world

As if treating terrorists with reason as if that would help ............ would be not only the right thing to do but effective

Obama as Bush as Clinton as ........ knows that fantasy land is a great spot in Disneyworld but not in the real world

Tough decisions need to be made that might be at odds with a moral code

but the alternative to making those decisions is dead americans and potential destruction of our way of life

easy choice really

 

[palbert]

I think we have the right to "off" US'ers that have turned. I doubt we have the right to kill non-US'ers, but what the hell. That's collateral damage -- in much the same way Sandy Hook was collateral damage for our mental health system and gun control policy. See, you can have collateral damage from a policy.

I quite frankly think the entire discussion is strained.

 

[JayHawk]

Actually Chance I could argue that both Clinton and then Bush failed to recognize we were being attacked by an enemy without a home. I don't know that anyone would have saw it before such a tragic event as 9/11. That aside any number of failed states could produce a harbor for people with no home that blame it upon the United States and the western world instead of the oppressive leadership of their own nations.

Take a look at the Failed States map and not that any of the countries in red could harbor terrorist.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failed_states_index_2012_interactive

that map gives a good idea of how we respond differently to different nations. Some nations want the threat neutralized and lack the resources so they ask us to perform the job. Some nations are vocally against anything american so we limit their resources via embargoes to prevent their terrorist from having the resources to reach out internationally. Some of these states we use their neighbors to control what leaves their nation. We are only acting with drone strikes in a handful of these failed states.

 

[JayHawk]

I think we have the right to "off" US'ers that have turned. I doubt we have the right to kill non-US'ers, but what the hell. That's collateral damage -- in much the same way Sandy Hook was collateral damage for our mental health system and gun control policy. See, you can have collateral damage from a policy.

I quite frankly think the entire discussion is strained.

Strained or not this is the logic to which we are acting on the world stage so it cant simply be disregarded. Equally we are not going to fold into our own borders and simply pray no one comes knocking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Enemies in war time are authorized to be eliminated. It has been the nature of our nation since it's inception. It is the nature of the political act of war. That is entirely legal. That is of course not the question. If we made some legal process for pulling the trigger we could never fight another war. For a country built upon projection of strength it would not work. So that isn't going to happen. Or rather it isn't going to be the only method.

Back at the beginning the country wasn't built on "projection of strength", it was built on "leave us alone". If we'd returned to that policy after every instance where we felt it necessary to be involved in war overseas, we'd probably be better off.