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

[JayHawk]

Ah but that is an argument that failed. Notably in WWI and WWII so we started a league of nations later called the UN. Throughout the years for a variety of reason we have signed treaties with other sovereign nations. We would no more give up that position as we would willingly adopt the Won as the worlds currency. It is simply not in our interest.

Republicans like to compare us to Greece to scare voters but the reality is if the dollar weren't the world currency we would be Greece already.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

There's a major difference: opportunities to kill terrorist targets have been passed on because estimated collateral casualties were deemed to have been too high; OTOH the terrorists deliberately choose targets to kill as many as possible. So while we may be fracturing some morals, the other side is deliberately spitting on them.

 

[chance1]

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.

i've seen some talking heads - some on MJ I believe and CNN where the case was made that Clinton/Bush ignored warnings about non country enemies - and the focus was on same old same old country/leader based enemies - part dumb, part hard to understand - but i hear u - post 911 it's impossible to ignore and the more u dig, the worse it gets

i give obama full kudos for the execution (no pun intended) of this strategy btw - and this is not news

holy shit - that's some map

i wanna go to australia gorgeous boys AND safe - what a combo

i need to digest that one but it's ...... i don't know what it is but it's interesting - thanks for sharing

it's daunting - we're damned if we involved ourselves and damned if we don't

not sure i can truly wrap my hands around the complexity - actually i'm quite sure i can't

 

[JayHawk]

There's a major difference: opportunities to kill terrorist targets have been passed on because estimated collateral casualties were deemed to have been too high; OTOH the terrorists deliberately choose targets to kill as many as possible. So while we may be fracturing some morals, the other side is deliberately spitting on them.

That is a very valid point. We strike terrorist and try to avoid collateral damage. they attempt to get the most civilian casualty count as possible to make their effort have the greatest impact.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Who here has advocated trying to reason with terrorists?

 

[JayHawk]

i've seen some talking heads - some on MJ I believe and CNN where the case was made that Clinton/Bush ignored warnings about non country enemies - and the focus was on same old same old country/leader based enemies - part dumb, part hard to understand - but i hear u - post 911 it's impossible to ignore and the more u dig, the worse it gets

i give obama full kudos for the execution (no pun intended) of this strategy btw - and this is not news

holy shit - that's some map

i wanna go to australia gorgeous boys AND safe - what a combo

i need to digest that one but it's ...... i don't know what it is but it's interesting - thanks for sharing

it's daunting - we're damned if we involved ourselves and damned if we don't

not sure i can truly wrap my hands around the complexity - actually i'm quite sure i can't

I think while plenty of people for political gain like to say Bush failed or Clinton failed -- I would wager they had the facts in front of them... not that 9/11 would happen but that something was on the radar but were helpless to act. Can you imagine the world and the argument now if Clinton had unilaterally taken out Bin Laden and then started fighting his lieutenants?

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Yes, it's a bit late for that.

 

[Kulindahr]

it's daunting - we're damned if we involved ourselves and damned if we don't

not sure i can truly wrap my hands around the complexity - actually i'm quite sure i can't

The conundrum of the Long Walls.

It's a situation that has been faced by peoples down through history: give up freedom and morals to better fight a foe, or hold to freedom and morals and arguably enable the foe. The "Long Walls" situation in Athens' war against Sparta and it allies is the classical instance; writers at the time wailed that in order to beat Sparta -- and survive -- Athens had to become Sparta.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think while plenty of people for political gain like to say Bush failed or Clinton failed -- I would wager they had the facts in front of them... not that 9/11 would happen but that something was on the radar but were helpless to act. Can you imagine the world and the argument now if Clinton had unilaterally taken out Bin Laden and then started fighting his lieutenants?

Democrats especially would never have stood for a president striking when there was no actual harm to the US.

 

[JayHawk]

Democrats especially would never have stood for a president striking when there was no actual harm to the US.

Many republicans as well. Like the next Secy of Defense. At a minimum it would have fractured their resolve in a time when that party was one hundred percent in lockstep.

 

[chance1]

Who here has advocated trying to reason with terrorists?

i took post 14 to be saying just that here

and I know that many of the far left are quite upset with obama for his proactive terrorist execution approach

 

[chance1]

I think while plenty of people for political gain like to say Bush failed or Clinton failed -- I would wager they had the facts in front of them... not that 9/11 would happen but that something was on the radar but were helpless to act. Can you imagine the world and the argument now if Clinton had unilaterally taken out Bin Laden and then started fighting his lieutenants?

interesting - you have a more benign take than i for once

i'm imagining it's just like in business

u have some leaders who see the future or a semblance of it before it happens - some act, take perceived but not real risks to move their co. forward - i'm sorta ok with that but would rather have a leader - in biz or govt. that can see or looks to see into the future BEFORE it happens - those that do have the best chance to benefit - monetarily or in this security wise - but need to convince others that their vision is ON

some don't see it because they're so convinced that the current way is the way - the only way - i imagine clinton/bush teams being this type of group - it's harder to see/understand cuz it's new and it's scary to see it - and better to say it's an aberration

some are lazy and if things are OK why rock the boat

i'm droning here but

IMO, it's why it's great NOT to have groupthink - to have different types of people/thinkers in an organization - private or govt. - so that things are not only seen but understood

thanks for listening i'm here all week ...... try the veal

 

[Jack Springer]

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.

We already have done it in the US --- in Waco, TX. The Davidians were all killed including children. It's still not known if it was an accident or intentional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

With drones so easy to use it's only a matter of time for the strategic use of armed drones to be used in the USA on a regular basis.

It's not a good thing.

 

[rareboy]

^ Well, if you keep posting the kind of stuff you do...the big scary US government will probably Google your house and mark it for certain.

 

[palbert]

.... and I know that many of the far left are quite upset with obama for his proactive terrorist execution approach

Let them upset be.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Who here has advocated trying to reason with terrorists?

i took post 14 to be saying just that here

and I know that many of the far left are quite upset with obama for his proactive terrorist execution approach

I quoted it above for reference. I don't see where it says anything about reasoning with terrorists, though it engages in a good deal of reasoning about our moral position vis a vis actions against terrorists -- and does a fairly good job at it.

 

[chance1]

I quoted it above for reference. I don't see where it says anything about reasoning with terrorists, though it engages in a good deal of reasoning about our moral position vis a vis actions against terrorists -- and does a fairly good job at it.

i think you're over thinking it Kuli

the simple stupid is that levens doesn't think we should take this tact with "countries" we are not at war with

because it is not the moral thing to do

but it is the most effective thing to do

and the alternative to effectiveness is americans dead and possibly worse

IMO "reasoning with terrorists" is akin to not looking to search and destroy with all means available

but i do understand your WTF on this

hope that helps

 

[Kulindahr]

i think you're over thinking it Kuli

the simple stupid is that levens doesn't think we should take this tact with "countries" we are not at war with

because it is not the moral thing to do

but it is the most effective thing to do

and the alternative to effectiveness is americans dead and possibly worse

IMO "reasoning with terrorists" is akin to not looking to search and destroy with all means available

but i do understand your WTF on this

hope that helps

In the long run, that which is most moral is most effective. The proof of that is that our "effective" but immoral behavior as a country created Al Qaeda.

Again, no one but you has brought up the idea of reasoning with terrorists.

 

[frankfrank]

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

Not really on topic, but it's interesting that Newfoundland isn't shown as part of Canada.

I kind of used this to test some of my geography and guess/find places like Moldova and Zambia without looking at the names...

 

[levenshulme31]

i think you're over thinking it Kuli

the simple stupid is that levens doesn't think we should take this tact with "countries" we are not at war with

because it is not the moral thing to do

but it is the most effective thing to do

and the alternative to effectiveness is americans dead and possibly worse

IMO "reasoning with terrorists" is akin to not looking to search and destroy with all means available

but i do understand your WTF on this

hope that helps

Let's try another scenario. Mexico is blighted by murderous drug gangs who source many of their guns from the black or grey market in weapons in the US. The US government seems unable or unwilling to stop the flow of guns. I'm sure many in Mexico consider the drug cartels to be terrorists (or a very close equivalent) yet they are not of any distinct nation or recognisable group. Would you accept Mexico sending drones to fire hellfire missiles at Texan gun shows if they knew (or had received information from someone they had tortured) there were drug cartel associates shopping for guns there? Would America accept it as collateral damage for Mexico to blow up a bunch of American gun show attendees in the name of preventing future atrocities in Mexico? If, as I suspect your answer is 'no', then why not? You are OK with America killing anyone they choose to in other countries to, hopefully, safeguard the US. Is it not rank hypocrisy to object if Mexico chose the same tactic for their war?