Sorry, but that's a little disingenuous. The "enemy force" is not a nation, it's this nebulous non-organization with little or no hierarchy and there's little or no standard for proof of membership.
That's simply not the case. We're not talking about something so nebulous as membership, we're talking about people who are taking up arms against US forces. If you're firing your ubiquitous AK as US troops, it doesn't matter if you're yelling "ALLAH ACKBAR!" or "GLORY TO STALIN!", you're still an enemy combatant. It's not about membership, it's about what you're doing - and when you're clearly fighting with a force that's an enemy of the US, then that's that, we don't need to check your membership card and complimentary golf towel to confirm your affiliation.
You think it's bad for them, you should check out precisely how much protection mercenaries are afforded, US citizenship or not. Makes "Enemy combatant" look like "VIP Guest" by comparison.
Unilateral, covert assassinations via drones in sovereign territory without a declaration of war is a little more complicated than you're making it out to be.
They sure are! Good thing that's not even close to what's actually happening or what we're talking about.
There's no sane way to justify the way we're conducting ourselves, and when drones start taking out American targets, we won't have any moral high ground to stand on while we yell about it.
Name one. Give me a potential US target, and justify why it would be a target for a drone strike, and why they wouldn't take any one of a hundred more reasonable, simple, and easy and more legal options?
Guess what, if your target is on US soil, then that's a big nope, the government isn't allowed to do so. If it's outside an active warzone, then once again, it's out. If it's not legally definable as a combatant or an inanimate object, again, it's a no-go. So, where are these mysterious US targets that are not on US soil, Not in an active war-zone, and are not combatants, but are somehow next on the list of drone strike targets?
That may be the aspect most are focused on right now, but there are lots more questions than that.
Perhaps, but it's the only aspect that currently matters. So again, is it okay to take out Cobra Commander (the closest obviously evil fictional analogue to this situation that I can think of) with a drone strike?
You must read different news than I do. I'm not sure where to go with this conversation from here. Are we at war with Pakistan? Is the blessing of their non-government sufficient for our activities? It seems like we're talking about semantics more than reality.
That may be the aspect most are focused on right now, but there are lots more questions than that.
Perhaps, but it's the only aspect that currently matters. So again, is it okay to take out Cobra Commander (the closest obviously evil fictional analogue to this situation that I can think of) with a drone strike?
I disagree entirely. It's a loaded question and can't be isolated from the context.
You must read different news than I do. I'm not sure where to go with this conversation from here. Are we at war with Pakistan? Is the blessing of their non-government sufficient for our activities? It seems like we're talking about semantics more than reality.
Are we striking elements we're not at war with in Pakistan without the approval and co-operation of the Pakistani government?
Guess what, if your target is on US soil, then that's a big nope, the government isn't allowed to do so. If it's outside an active warzone, then once again, it's out. If it's not legally definable as a combatant or an inanimate object, again, it's a no-go. So, where are these mysterious US targets that are not on US soil, Not in an active war-zone, and are not combatants, but are somehow next on the list of drone strike targets?
My only source is what I heard on NPR last night, but they were saying the specific point in question was targeting US citiziens on US soil, which seems like a pretty bad idea to me, so I'm all in favor of Rand Paul trying to make a point.
Edited to include a boo-yah: 48 hours until I cook a 4-course meal of medieval recipes while hosting a 6-player Game of Thrones board game session. Going to be fun AND delicious.
It concerns me that we have a list of state enemies who we're assassinating by telepresence robot with little or no oversight. There is no opportunity for surrender by these forces (what you consider to be the likelihood of their surrender isn't really relevant to the ethical problems with this). There is no due process and as far as we know, will never be any accounting of this program at any time (we've got prior history to go on, here. "It's time to move forward as a nation." and all.) There are scads of great reasons that American citizens, and the world, should be very very worried about what's going on with these drones right now. If you look at the performance and behavior of the American Congress over the last 12 years and say "Yes, I trust these men and women, and people like them who work with them, to responsibly, professionally, and with great attention to ethics conduct a worldwide assassination campaign targeting those deemed to be enemies of the United States by a small committee," then I think you're cracked.
Perhaps, but it's the only aspect that currently matters. So again, is it okay to take out Cobra Commander (the closest obviously evil fictional analogue to this situation that I can think of) with a drone strike?
I disagree entirely. It's a loaded question and can't be isolated from the context.
How is it a loaded question? I'm asking if it's okay to launch a drone strike against a leader of a self-admitted ruthless, terrorist organization determined to rule the world if he also happened to be a US citizen and the strike was performed in a war zone off of US soil.
Well part if the point was that no one from Obama's camp would come out and just SAY "no we can't target Americans on US soil." Now they finally did in the middle of the filibuster but why did it take a filibuster for Eric Holder to just say that?
Well, yes. If they're co-operating, then for a start, it's hardly unilateral. Second, they're approving actions against a mutual enemy on their Sovereign territory, so it's not like the US is just barging in unannounced, blowing shit up and assassinating people.
There is no due process
You're mixing up War with US Law. There isn't due process to the standard of the US legal system, because this isn't Jimmy Rotten shooting his wife with a shotgun in the middle of buttfuck Alabama. The due process is essentially "This person is both a combatant, and fighting for the opposing force." Tick both those boxes, and that's due process complete. I don't know why, but you don't seem to be taking on-board that a war does not proceed according to US law as you know it.
And you've still failed to provide me that target.
My only source is what I heard on NPR last night, but they were saying the specific point in question was targeting US citiziens on US soil, which seems like a pretty bad idea to me, so I'm all in favor of Rand Paul trying to make a point.
Nope. The Obama Administration maintains that they hold the right to kill a US citizen with a drone strike without due process under certain circumstances, but those circumstances do not include any military action on US soil, which is unequivocally a no-go for the current circumstances.
Rand's Monolog might have veered in that direction(though it was mostly just about US citizens, not where they are located), but nobody from either side tried to justify it or suggest it was even acceptable, let alone planned or legal, and his original question didn't (that I recall) include if the citizen was on US soil.
Hasbro made heavy dividends, but only recently turned from a small unrealized loss to a moderate gain.
Take Two Interactive has been all over the place.
I'm considering hedging Google with Apple. I'm also considering pulling entirely out of the market and awaiting the next dip to buy back in.
What are you using to manage your portfolio? I have some money coming to me after graduation, and I'm planning on investing half to see where I can take it.
Oh, and we are allowed to use the full force of our military, including nukes, in war as well... Oh, and we should also reinstate the draft... and...
Really, the whole reason why we never did a full declaration of war was all the baggage that comes with it. A full blown declaration of war means "the gloves are off, we're using every last thing at our disposal to fuck your shit up." The partial declarations of a sort that we've used give us an excuse to hold back.
There is good reason we don't declare war, things like drafts and rationing go into effect and while I philosophically would love them to have to pass that threshold every-time... It's a big mess.
Well, the answer has been delivered. No, the president cannot launch a drone strike against a non-combatant on US soil. So that's a boo-yah I suppose.
I think the funniest part is that after Rand's epic eleven hour crazy-person rant, The reply was two sentences, and one of those was merely quoting the asked question.
Well, the answer has been delivered. No, the president cannot launch a drone strike against a non-combatant on US soil. So that's a boo-yah I suppose.
Eeyup. Though there was the exception for combat situations on US soil, or as I like to call it the "Civil War Exception." Although, I do think the odds of there being another civil war are extremely slim right now.
Comments
You think it's bad for them, you should check out precisely how much protection mercenaries are afforded, US citizenship or not. Makes "Enemy combatant" look like "VIP Guest" by comparison. They sure are! Good thing that's not even close to what's actually happening or what we're talking about. Name one. Give me a potential US target, and justify why it would be a target for a drone strike, and why they wouldn't take any one of a hundred more reasonable, simple, and easy and more legal options?
Guess what, if your target is on US soil, then that's a big nope, the government isn't allowed to do so. If it's outside an active warzone, then once again, it's out. If it's not legally definable as a combatant or an inanimate object, again, it's a no-go. So, where are these mysterious US targets that are not on US soil, Not in an active war-zone, and are not combatants, but are somehow next on the list of drone strike targets?
Edited to include a boo-yah: 48 hours until I cook a 4-course meal of medieval recipes while hosting a 6-player Game of Thrones board game session. Going to be fun AND delicious.
It concerns me that we have a list of state enemies who we're assassinating by telepresence robot with little or no oversight. There is no opportunity for surrender by these forces (what you consider to be the likelihood of their surrender isn't really relevant to the ethical problems with this). There is no due process and as far as we know, will never be any accounting of this program at any time (we've got prior history to go on, here. "It's time to move forward as a nation." and all.) There are scads of great reasons that American citizens, and the world, should be very very worried about what's going on with these drones right now. If you look at the performance and behavior of the American Congress over the last 12 years and say "Yes, I trust these men and women, and people like them who work with them, to responsibly, professionally, and with great attention to ethics conduct a worldwide assassination campaign targeting those deemed to be enemies of the United States by a small committee," then I think you're cracked.
And you've still failed to provide me that target. Nope. The Obama Administration maintains that they hold the right to kill a US citizen with a drone strike without due process under certain circumstances, but those circumstances do not include any military action on US soil, which is unequivocally a no-go for the current circumstances.
Rand's Monolog might have veered in that direction(though it was mostly just about US citizens, not where they are located), but nobody from either side tried to justify it or suggest it was even acceptable, let alone planned or legal, and his original question didn't (that I recall) include if the citizen was on US soil.
Also, in boo-yah news, we got sprites with normal maps working in Unity, and they look sweet.
If that's the line, then every war we've engaged in since WWII was illegal, and we shouldn't have killed any of those people. ;^)
Really, the whole reason why we never did a full declaration of war was all the baggage that comes with it. A full blown declaration of war means "the gloves are off, we're using every last thing at our disposal to fuck your shit up." The partial declarations of a sort that we've used give us an excuse to hold back.