Ron Paul Calls Anwar al-Awlaki Strike 'Asassination'

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer.

As it stands, all of this has been left up to the President, including identifying the enemy. I don't like it either, but a viable alternative does not spring immediately to mind.

[Cail]

We are at war

An then

The simple answer is that we are not at war.

Exactly. We are/were at war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, sort of. Not exactly war, since it was never declared, but there was a Congressional authorization of force for both theaters. By definition, we can't be at war with terror.

And yes, there really is a simple answer. Use the criminal justice system.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The criminal justice system cannot cope with terrorist networks operating out of safe havens or ungoverned / ungovernable regions... such as portions of Yemen and Afghanistan / Pakistan. This was supposed to be the lesson learned on 9-11.

[Cail]

The criminal justice system cannot cope with terrorist networks operating out of safe havens or ungoverned / ungovernable regions... such as portions of Yemen and Afghanistan / Pakistan. This was supposed to be the lesson learned on 9-11.

Really? Can you explain why we have several suspected terrorists in custody and why their cases are working themselves through the courts? The system most certainly can and does cope with these sorts of things. In fact, that's why the system exists.

The alternative is a poor choice...Spending billions of dollars and killing thousands of people in order to ferret out a handful of people.

[Fist and Faith]

I thought the point of this assassination, and this thread, was that he was in a place that will not cooperate with us in this way? There must surely be nations that will not hand over, or let us enter and take, known terrorists. Maybe some nations will even actively protect them? Isn't this the type of situation we're talking about? What do we do? Is there no way to fight this kind of war? No, it's not an officially declared "war". But if people are killing thousands by flying 747's into buildings, it's hard to see the dividing line between terrorism and war. The enemy is simply smart enough to not all be in one place, working as an officially recognized government that we can declare war on and attack.

[Avatar]

By definition, we can't be at war with terror.

Agreed. I've said it from the start. Like the war on drugs, it's a stupid bloody idea. Hyperbolic rhetoric.

Like the man said...there's no simple answer. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

--A

[Cail]

I thought the point of this assassination, and this thread, was that he was in a place that will not cooperate with us in this way? There must surely be nations that will not hand over, or let us enter and take, known terrorists. Maybe some nations will even actively protect them? Isn't this the type of situation we're talking about? What do we do? Is there no way to fight this kind of war? No, it's not an officially declared "war". But if people are killing thousands by flying 747's into buildings, it's hard to see the dividing line between terrorism and war. The enemy is simply smart enough to not all be in one place, working as an officially recognized government that we can declare war on and attack.

So would you be OK with France sending drones into New York City to blow up someone they'd decided was their enemy?

[wayfriend]

Isn't the question supposed to be, so if the US was harboring terrorists who routinely attacked French civilians and military, and who the French were fighting a war against, would the French have justification for sending drones into New York City to blow up someone?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I thought the point of this assassination, and this thread, was that he was in a place that will not cooperate with us in this way? There must surely be nations that will not hand over, or let us enter and take, known terrorists. Maybe some nations will even actively protect them? Isn't this the type of situation we're talking about? What do we do? Is there no way to fight this kind of war? No, it's not an officially declared "war". But if people are killing thousands by flying 747's into buildings, it's hard to see the dividing line between terrorism and war. The enemy is simply smart enough to not all be in one place, working as an officially recognized government that we can declare war on and attack.

So would you be OK with France sending drones into New York City to blow up someone they'd decided was their enemy?

Now Cail, you should have realized by now that we only do it where we can get away with it.

[Cail]

I thought the point of this assassination, and this thread, was that he was in a place that will not cooperate with us in this way? There must surely be nations that will not hand over, or let us enter and take, known terrorists. Maybe some nations will even actively protect them? Isn't this the type of situation we're talking about? What do we do? Is there no way to fight this kind of war? No, it's not an officially declared "war". But if people are killing thousands by flying 747's into buildings, it's hard to see the dividing line between terrorism and war. The enemy is simply smart enough to not all be in one place, working as an officially recognized government that we can declare war on and attack.

So would you be OK with France sending drones into New York City to blow up someone they'd decided was their enemy?

Now Cail, you should have realized by now that we only do it where we can get away with it.

Exactly, and I think that's piss-poor foreign policy.

[Fist and Faith]

No, I wouldn't be okay with it.

Yes, it is piss-poor foreign policy.

I wouldn't be surprised if France cooperated with us. I doubt North Korea would.

What can be done? How should this have been handled?

[Cail]

No, I wouldn't be okay with it.

Yes, it is piss-poor foreign policy.

I wouldn't be surprised if France cooperated with us. I doubt North Korea would.

What can be done? How should this have been handled?

If the government of the country he was hiding in wouldn't help hand him over, then I would be somewhat OK with a covert team going in and snatching him (assuming that there was some sort of Congressional oversight). But regardless, this (and the OBL affair) should have been handled in the courts.

Try him, convict him, then kill him.

[Fist and Faith]

You'd be "somewhat OK" with it? Is a covert team considered an invasion? Maybe not, since it's not working to take down the government. Still, seems like an invasion. A small armed force doing what they want in another country.

And can they absolutely guarantee there will be absolutely no harm done to any person other than the target? Because I'll be royally pissed if my neighbor is actually an anti-North Korean terrorist, and a stray bullet from their covert team happens to hit me when they snatch him.

Mind you, I'm not trying to make your position seem wrong. I agree with it. Probably moreso. No "somewhat" about it. But things will go wrong in these scenarios. Innocents will get hurt.

[wayfriend]

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

So Congress authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda. It seems hard to argue that it we aren't at war, or that Al-Awlaki wasn't an enemy we are at war with in every sense to be found.

And it's certainly hard to argue against the notion that it was self-defense, either. The man continuously planned and executed attacks against the US. Even cops get to shoot in self-defense.

[Lord Mhoram]

...an administration official said in a statement Friday.

I dunno, wayfriend. When I hear administration officials justifying their own legal policies, I can't help but think that their word is, well, worthless. I'm sure there's a legal argument to be made for the stuff they're doing (yesterday's New York Times had a good article on that issue, "Secret US Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen"), but it's all necessarily self-serving, just like the Bush administration's DOJ was doing.

[Cail]

You'd be "somewhat OK" with it? Is a covert team considered an invasion? Maybe not, since it's not working to take down the government. Still, seems like an invasion. A small armed force doing what they want in another country.

It's still bad, no doubt. It's better than sending in military hardware and blowing stuff up though.

And can they absolutely guarantee there will be absolutely no harm done to any person other than the target? Because I'll be royally pissed if my neighbor is actually an anti-North Korean terrorist, and a stray bullet from their covert team happens to hit me when they snatch him.

Therein lies the problem. Collateral damage in a case like this is completely unacceptable.

Mind you, I'm not trying to make your position seem wrong. I agree with it. Probably moreso. No "somewhat" about it. But things will go wrong in these scenarios. Innocents will get hurt.

The difference is, there's less chance of something going wrong with trying to apprehend a guy than there is sending a drone armed with explosives after him.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys.

--A

[wayfriend]

...an administration official said in a statement Friday.

I dunno, wayfriend. When I hear administration officials justifying their own legal policies, I can't help but think that their word is, well, worthless.

And maybe you would be correct in another instance. But in this case I think you're dismissing valid points. Congress did authorize war on Al Qaeda. Taking out Al-Awlaki was self-defense. These points are independently verifiable, you don't have to take the administrations word for it. And, hence, dismissing it as self-service in this case is dis-service.

[Cail]

...an administration official said in a statement Friday.

I dunno, wayfriend. When I hear administration officials justifying their own legal policies, I can't help but think that their word is, well, worthless.

And maybe you would be correct in another instance. But in this case I think you're dismissing valid points. Congress did authorize war on Al Qaeda. Taking out Al-Awlaki was self-defense. These points are independently verifiable, you don't have to take the administrations word for it. And, hence, dismissing it as self-service in this case is dis-service.

Except that you can't have a nation declare war on a group of people spread out across different nations, and there was no self defense involved. It was both a retaliatory strike and a preemptive strike. Anwar al-Awlaki was not in the process of attacking anyone when he was killed. There was no pressing justification to kill him rather than apprehend him.

[wayfriend]

Any other president, and refusing to go after a known terrorist until "they were in the process of killing someone" would be held irredeemably irresponsible. George Bush declared, We're going to hunt you down, I don't think he meant, "... and then try to arrest you."

And, as Congress did declare war against Al Qaeda, complete with an authorization for use of military force *and* covert operations, I don't think this aspect is an open question.