Fast & Furious

[Hashi Lebwohl]

WRT sovereignty, we've gone from invading and occupying countries to sending drones. If anyone doesn't see an improvement then they don't want to.

The only improvement here is that now fewer military personnel are in the line of fire. However, drones are still killing people and some of those people are innocent civilians. When troops are on the ground and innocent civilians are killed there is accountability--we can usually figure out who was shooting at the wrong people and do something about it. With drones, there is no accountability--the President signs off on each drone attack, we are told, and only the citizens can hold him accountable once every 4 years while no one in the military or Administration is able to question on countermand his decisions.

Typically, when Congress authorizes military action--or the President unconstitutionally orders military action, which seems to be how we do things over the last 20 years--the President follows the advice of the Joint Chiefs about how to position and deploy troops and in the course of these events people die. In these normal circumstances, though, there are layers of insulation between the President and those deaths--although ultimately responsible, he is responsible only at a great distance. When a President personally signs an order to launch an UAV and people die then there is no insulation--he becomes personally responaible for those deaths, just like when Truman signed the authorization to drop atomic bombs, an act for which he admitted personal responsibility.

On the other hand, UAVs launched into a foreign country can still be considered an act of war. If some other nation were launching armed UAVs into the United States, we would have people in the streets demanding that we go to war with whomever was launching them at us.

Ananda, those are the reasons that I advocate withdrawing all our troops deployed overseas, even if that breaks treaties, and restructuring the CIA to intelligence-gathering only and never direct manipulation. We thought we could--or should--micromanage the world after WWII but that thinking is short-sighted and, quite honestly, arrogant.

[wayfriend]

WRT sovereignty, we've gone from invading and occupying countries to sending drones. If anyone doesn't see an improvement then they don't want to.

The only improvement here is that now fewer military personnel are in the line of fire.

Really. How about we aren't occupying someone's country? We aren't overthrowing their government? We aren't destroying their infrastructure? We aren't "acquiring" their natural resources? We aren't policing their citizens? We aren't fostering an insurgency? And, importantly, we aren't fabricating excuses to do it? Not important?

However, drones are still killing people and some of those people are innocent civilians.

Less, on both counts. Furthermore, there is no retaliatory insurgency that kills orders of magnitude more civilians. Another discounted difference.

When troops are on the ground and innocent civilians are killed there is accountability--we can usually figure out who was shooting at the wrong people and do something about it. With drones, there is no accountability--

Troops are held accountable for civilian casualties only when they go crazy. Such as we have seen. With drones, this possibility is removed. Another discounted difference.

When a President personally signs an order to launch an UAV and people die then there is no insulation--he becomes personally responaible for those deaths

The President is the CIC in all cases. He isn't on the ground shooting the guns, and he isn't in the command center flying the drone. I see a wash here.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We aren't fostering an insurgency?

I suspect the UAVs are fostering an insurgency. Al Queda will be recruting new members by pointing to the people, especially civilians, killed in these attacks.

I concur--we are simply splitting hairs on all the rest.

I am still curious to see how Pena Nieto's new administration is going to tackle the cartel problem from their side...or if they are going to try and tackle it at all, aside from rounding up the usual mid-level soldiers.

If Mexico could get the cartels to quit killing so many people so openly then it could really start to take off economically. We know Mexico is good for business because many large corporations have operations there and currently the world's wealthiest person lives in Mexico. *sigh* It is always a shame to see such potential wasted.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

No, I don't see drone strikes as better than invasion. They are both invasions of soveriegn nations territory and killing the nations citizens. One is simply done in person the other by remote. Both result with dead people.

[Ananda]

None of that matters. The Neocon-in-Chief has shown a consistent disregard for international laws and borders when it's convenient or expedient for him. That is an extremely dangerous precedent, not only to set, but to so consistently reinforce.

What about the other decades of americans getting involved in other countrys business? Your cia? Your wars? Your puppet states? Your manipulations? I think my question is where do you personally draw the line and why? Obama is not setting any precedent- you just do not like him so you say things like that. You have been up in other countrys business all your life. I mean, it took RAF to shock europe into not being complete american puppet states in the 70s. Obama has done nothing new. So, where are the lines the us should not cross and why and how will you convince them to stop doing it after half a century? Because, I agree that the us should leave other people alone, stop starting wars, stop bombing the shit out of the world and all that.

What about them? Why do you keep defending the man who continually makes George Bush and Ronald Reagan look like isolationist pacifists?

Defending... What? You just said he set precedents. That was untrue, obviously. So, what should the american policy be in this regard and how will you change the last half century of not caring about sovereignty of other countries?

[Ananda]

Ananda, those are the reasons that I advocate withdrawing all our troops deployed overseas, even if that breaks treaties, and restructuring the CIA to intelligence-gathering only and never direct manipulation. We thought we could--or should--micromanage the world after WWII but that thinking is short-sighted and, quite honestly, arrogant.[/color]

Do you think that is possible now? The military industrial complex certainly wont willingly submit to being dismantled. How do you think it can be accomplished?

[wayfriend]

SerScot, are you dropping your argument that there was something suspicious about not informing Mexico about the operation, or are you going to tell us why in light of US/Mexico joint agreements? You seem very eager to chase a different rabbit now.

I suspect the UAVs are fostering an insurgency.

If we aren't occupying their nation, then it's not an insurgency, as there is no rebellion against it.

If your really trying to say that the terrorists are using it to foment anti-US sentiment, well, okay. But I dare say it's less anti-US sentiment that would be incurred by invading another middle-eastern country. Which was a previous criticism that we have disarmed by making it no longer true. Drones wins here, I think.

I concur--we are simply splitting hairs on all the rest.

Is this a dry jest? Or do you really consider whether or not we invade, overthrow, and occupy a country a quibble?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If we aren't occupying their nation, then it's not an insurgency, as there is no rebellion against it.

If your really trying to say that the terrorists are using it to foment anti-US sentiment, well, okay. But I dare say it's less anti-US sentiment that would be incurred by invading another middle-eastern country. Which was a previous criticism that we have disarmed by making it no longer true. Drones wins here, I think.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say--drones will cause a new wave of recruitment into organizations like Al Qeuda. I agree, though, that UAVs might cause less anger than troops on the ground because there is no occupying force to use as a rallying point.

Do you think that is possible now? The military industrial complex certainly wont willingly submit to being dismantled. How do you think it can be accomplished?

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

The only way it could be accomplished would be to have a President with a forceful personality who can motivate the politicians in Congress to amend or repeal legislation that is outdated or unconstitutional (such as the War Powers Act and the Patriot Act). The real key, though, would be to have a President whose number one priority is not to be reelected, either because it is the second term or the President really wasn't concerned about being reelected. Based on what we have already seen over the last 40 years, most Presidents will be rather timid during their first term so that they can be reelected then try to spend their second term building their legacy.

Why don't we take the 22nd Amendment one step further and give Presidents only one term? This will keep us from having an overbalance of authority in only one major party for too long--could you imagine either an all-Democrat Congress and Democrat President for 8 years or an all-Republican Congress and Republican President for 8 years?They would go overboard against what the other side wants, regardless of the consequences.

The only other way would be to get rid of all the politicians who have benefitted from the status quo. Sadly, I don't think either scenario will ever happen.

[Ananda]

Hashi, does one president have that much power and do you think such a person could live long enough to accomplish such things? Your president s not king, right? Is it naive to think a single person could dismantle the machine or, even if they could, that they would be allowed to? I agree american military war = profit machine is out of control, but I just do not think any single person can change it. Right now, it seems your government is controlled by corporations to a large extent.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

Ummm... I still think it is odd that we didn't tell Mexican authorities about attempting to sell weapons to track cross border arms sales into Mexican territory. If there is an agreement with Mexico to allow these types of stings without their express approval I'm unaware of it. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to such an agreement?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, does one president have that much power and do you think such a person could live long enough to accomplish such things? Your president s not king, right? Is it naive to think a single person could dismantle the machine or, even if they could, that they would be allowed to? I agree american military war = profit machine is out of control, but I just do not think any single person can change it. Right now, it seems your government is controlled by corporations to a large extent.

No, our President is not a king and no, only one person couldn't dismantle the entire system. However, the right person could get the ball rolling and begin the process of dismantling the system. It really would have to start from the citizens and work its way up into the politicians in power.

Yes, corporations wield vast power in Washington, D. C. Democracy Now had a constitutional lawyer and blogger for salon.com (meaning that he is no conservative by any stretch of the imagination) on this morning and he was noting that Wall Street firms account for the majority of money donated to Obama's reelection campaign, much to the dismay of many of Obama's other followers. The Wall Street firms have benefitted greatly from his administration's policies and they would like to see that continue. Many people may think that Obama is some sort of old-fashioned Democrat, a politician who stands for "the working-class people" and who opposes big corporations, but the reality is that Obama has been just as much of a large-corporate-crony-capitalist as Bush ever was, if not more. The Spanish Attorney General today is brining to trial the former leader of Bankia (the Spanish version of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America put together) for his organization's role in their economic breakdown. To date, not a single Wall Street executive from any organization deemed "too big to fail" has even been charged with a crime, despite the fact that the goings-on that helped bring about the Great Recession are felonies.

One other thing to note: this lawyer had pointed out that Timothy Geinter spent some years during the Bush administration as President of the Fed of New York, which put him on the Federal Open Market Committee, which meant that he helped foster the environment that brought about the Great Recession. In January of 2009, he was appointed as Treasury Secretary and his job was, for the most part, cleaning up some of the mess he helped create. Curiously, John McCain had already noted during his 2008 campaign that he was going to name Geitner as Treasury Secretary if elected. Geitner was going to end up in charge no matter who won! At best, this is simply fortuitous for Mr. Geitner; at worst, it is a conspiracy--the real people in power wanted him in that office regardless of who won the election.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend,

Ummm... I still think it is odd that we didn't tell Mexican authorities about attempting to sell weapons to track cross border arms sales into Mexican territory. If there is an agreement with Mexico to allow these types of stings without their express approval I'm unaware of it. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to such an agreement?

Oh, so now we're doing the turnaround ploy.

You claimed we violated Mexico's sovereignty. I asked you to back up your assertion and demonstrate where and how, and pointed out that the explanation could not be complete without discussing any outstanding agreements between US and Mexico. All I get back is "I think it's odd" ???

And then an attempt to ask me to prove your (and Cail's to be fair) apparently-baseless and so-far-unsubstantiated assertion is wrong?!?!

Not biting. If you won't defend your assertion, that's fine with me.

[ussusimiel]

The US and Mexico have broad agreements in place in order to fight the cartels. In this light, I think you would need to explain to me how FnF violated this agreement before I gave this sovereignty issue any credibility. Also, it would help if you could show that Mexico actually took issue.

The Mexican govt. is not too happy about F&F and Wide Receiver. However, from what I can see their unhappiness stems from misunderstanding the workings of these operations.

So, what should the american policy be in this regard and how will you change the last half century of not caring about sovereignty of other countries?

In an earlier thread the Cail Doctrine was laid out. To the best of my knowledge the main thrust of it is:

US foreign policy should be absolutely, 100% hands-off. Under no circumstances should we engage in hostilities with another nation unless that nation has attacked us.

Unless the governments of the countries in which drone attacks are carried out give their consent, these operations can all be deemed acts of war. As Cail says, this sets a dangerous precedent. And it can be said to be a precedent because it is being used much more frequently than by the previous administration. The precedent is the frequency of the attacks not the attacks themselves.

That said, it is very likely that Obama is using these attacks to build up political capital. Like the killing of Bin Laden, the drone attacks show that he is tough on terror and decisive in the defense of the US. This is politically astute (if disappointing (and hypocritical) from a liberal perspective). As I often say, the Republicans have been very effective in teaching the Democrats how to (politically) fight dirty.

u.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

We sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in Mexico without the permission of the Mexican Government. That's a violation of Mexican soveriegnty because Agents of the American government were engaging in a sting operation that extended beyond their Jurisdiction and inside the territory of the Mexican Government. Thus, unless you contend American Law Enforcement has the jurisdiction to operate inside Mexico without the express permission of the Mexican Government, F&F has to be a violation of Mexican Soveriegnty.

If you disagree with my analysis or contend there is an agreement with Mexico that allowed for F&F please explain why or link to the agreement.

[ussusimiel]

Wayfriend,

We sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in Mexico without the permission of the Mexican Government. That's a violation of Mexican soveriegnty because Agents of the American government were engaging in a sting operation that extended beyond their Jurisdiction and inside the territory of the Mexican Government. Thus, unless you contend American Law Enforcement has the jurisdiction to operate inside Mexico without the express permission of the Mexican Government, F&F has to be a violation of Mexican Soveriegnty.

If you disagree with my analysis or contend there is an agreement with Mexico that allowed for F&F please explain why or link to the agreement.

I know this is addressed to wayfriend, but I'll try to deal with it one more time.

We sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in Mexico...

This is not literally true of F&F (except in one incident which I mentioned in a post earlier). All the guns recorded by agents (that weren't interdicted) were deemed to be purchased legally and so could not be interfered with by agents.

In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests... link

As far as I know, there was no obligation on the ATF to inform the Mexican government about these legal purchases.

When these legally purchased guns were smuggled over the border the ATF agents were no longer legally responsible for them. In such a case there is no sovereignty issue. The guns were legally bought and only become illegal once they leave US jurisdiction, at which point the ATF agents can, legally, do nothing about them without infringing on Mexican sovereignty (which they didn't do).

Whatever about the (seemingly stupid) practice of not telling the Mexican police about the guns, there is no more of a sovereignty issue here than there is with any weapon bought legally in the US and then smuggled into Mexico.

u.

[Ananda]

In an earlier thread the Cail Doctrine was laid out. To the best of my knowledge the main thrust of it is:

US foreign policy should be absolutely, 100% hands-off. Under no circumstances should we engage in hostilities with another nation unless that nation has attacked us.

Unless the governments of the countries in which drone attacks are carried out give their consent, these operations can all be deemed acts of war. As Cail says, this sets a dangerous precedent. And it can be said to be a precedent because it is being used much more frequently than by the previous administration. The precedent is the frequency of the attacks not the attacks themselves.

That said, it is very likely that Obama is using these attacks to build up political capital. Like the killing of Bin Laden, the drone attacks show that he is tough on terror and decisive in the defense of the US. This is politically astute (if disappointing (and hypocritical) from a liberal perspective). As I often say, the Republicans have been very effective in teaching the Democrats how to (politically) fight dirty.

u.

That is okay to say, but how will it happen, these changes? I disagree about there being some precedent with Obama somehow being worse than other presidents. They have all been pretty aggressive in trampling other countries (and their own people). But we agree we do not like it. Now what?

[SerScot]

Ananda,

I, for one, haven't said Pres. Obama is worse at least in the sense of violence offered. However, I do think he is more hypocritical given his campaign promises.

[Ananda]

Ananda,

I, for one, haven't said Pres. Obama is worse at least in the sense of violence offered. However, I do think he is more hypocritical given his campaign promises.

Maybe so.

[Vraith]

Actually, I'm a bit torn on this...I don't have the information needed, and don't think anyone really CAN...though educated guesses are possible, or course.
It's POSSIBLE he said it all just so it was heard [in a generalized way...like when men [for example] stop sipping the Bud while watching a game and toss off over their shoulders "of COURSE I love you honey!]] and he could then do whatever cool things presidents could do.

It's also POSSIBLE [this one has a split path] that he meant it all, then found out there wasn't a chance in hell most of it would happen, and none would happen as he wanted. So...the split:
1] I'll do whatever is necessary, as long as I can get 1 or 2 things really done.
2] I'll stick by my guns and be insulted forever by all the morons and their cohorts/descendants who think Jimmy Carter was an abject failure.
3] HOLY SHIT!! Presidents find out a lot of shit that no one else knows, and most of that shit is really SHITTY SHIT to deal with no matter what side you're on, so you decide and fucking pray on the things you can do something about, and just pray, pray, pray on the things you can't do fuck-all about. [like dorkweeds who think it's unconstitutional to stop businesses pouring poison into the air and water, but acceptable [for some ESSENTIAL] that the "authorities" can frisk random folk on the street for looking "suspicious" and break into your house and send you to jail for enjoying fellatio or cunnilingus with your partner.

BACK on topic: there still is no evidence at all that Holder and those at his level did anything except try to STOP crap like this from happening. [and there is evidence that that is exactly what they were doing]

[ussusimiel]

That is okay to say, but how will it happen, these changes? I disagree about there being some precedent with Obama somehow being worse than other presidents. They have all been pretty aggressive in trampling other countries (and their own people). But we agree we do not like it. Now what?

Ananda, I've posted a reponse to this in the thread referenced above as we seemed to be drifting a bit from F&F

u.