The key word with Anwar al-Aulaqi is if. We don't know if he was an operator. All we know for sure is that he was a propagandist and an American citizen. Osama Bin Laden himself was unsure about al-Aulaqi's qualifications as a member of Al-Qaeda, as we discovered through documents from his hideout.
Therefore, the military and the CIA need to be smarter with their information. They need to get better information, period.
edited 10th Feb '13 7:23:06 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.We gave the Nazi's due process because they surrendered. If Al Qaeda cells surrendered, they would get a trial as well. We didn't expend tons of extra resources in an effort to capture Nazi's who wanted to fight to the death and refused to surrender, we killed them.
That's a problem with using Hellfires more than accuracy of the drone software and the operator pulling the trigger. Now if we could just mount a miniaturized version of the Navy railgun on Predators and use it to snipe individuals with it, then we would be in business.
There's a tiny flaw in your proposal. Even if we use railguns to snipe people, who's to say the operators won't kill children anyway?
Prime example: "No, that was a dog." Their boss says. "A dog with two legs?" replies the pilot.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:11:39 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.I love how the idea of trying in absentia seems ridiculous but no trial at all is not. Yes, there is an amendment for it, but one could easily (through whatever fashion it has to be done) make the laws and amendments that make an exception for those who there is evidence against (and I'm sure there was enough for Awlaki), but cannot find.
Giving the Nazis trials merely because they surrendered is no reason not to give trials to terrorists who haven't. Rule of law is so important, until its not? No. I don't mind drone use, but a proper process, one that isn't hidden away in some backroom, must MUST be required.
Having this technology is not itself bad. Having this technology without any sort of accountability, on the other hand, is. What argument is there to simply shoot all suspected terrorists? Surely there is evidence to prove it. Why should it not be scrutinized unless
To those arguing against it, you all are saying We think they're terrorists because we have evidence, we won't show you the evidence because, they should be killed, we're perfect, and there shouldn't be any kind of accountability because its a nuissance and its hard. Bullshit. I'm not arguing against drones for collateral damage or for some mad need for the pilots to be endangered or any other sort of clearly insane reason. I'm arguing against abuse, and for that abuse to be prevented, simply placing faith in the military to always maintain good judgment just because they have so far is insufficient simply because, over time, that discretion becomes presumed, a "right", and it only takes one bad egg to abuse such a "right". There has to be a process, it must be transparent, and if that means changing or adding a new law, so be it.
But ridiculing EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE complaint against the current way of things out of some idea that its already the best possible circumstance without question is idiocy at its finest.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Hold the opposition in this war to the same standards and I would probably agree with you.
Where were the fair trials for the people in Glasgow Airport that these tried to kill in a suicide car bomb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack
An airport that is less than six miles away from me as the crow flies. One of the terrorists is in jail, the other died of his self-inflicted wounds.
Where was the fair trial and due process for the hundreds of people that would have been killed but for the incompetence and stupidity of their attempted executioners?
In my home town. They call it Glasgow Airport so as not to confuse the tourists but it is in the Abbotsinch Industrial Estate in Paisley.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:38:10 PM by TamH70
I believe it is incredibly, almost fatally, naive to assume you can always do everything in a moralistic manner and in line with old rules.
The Drones are a necessary evil, as long as there are people out there like Osama and Al Awlaki organizing people to kill hundreds or thousands in any country. While we could do with better accuracy and fact checking, I do not object to the idea of slaying terrorist leaders without having to drag out a court trial, and any number of possible defenses to stall for time.
I am just somewhat sad we didn't drone strike HSBC leadership for their compliance in treasonous activities.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:41:10 PM by NickTheSwing
Then there's just no pleasing you then. Lets just never use air assets at all then I suppose?
Not sure what you would prefer, either way we have to go get these guys. Ground troops are out of the question, and manned flights prove to be far too much of a risk because of the political situation that would arise from a CSAR operation should one of them be shot down.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:45:36 PM by Barkey
Where were the fair trials for the people in Glasgow Airport that these tried to kill in a suicide car bomb?
Our enemies doing something immoral doesn't imply we should go ahead and do the same. If there's a compelling reason, like we're actively threatened, then we can take dire measures. Just having "other side did it too" is not a compelling reason.
![]()
![]()
That's just it. We are not playing by the old rules. At all. Any brief glance at British and American military history in the 20th Century would prove that point rather well.
The words "saturation" and "carpet" mean something altogether brutal when you combine them with "bombing". Ask the citizens of Kobe and Cologne if they would have preferred Predator drone strikes to B-17, B-29 and Lancaster bombers. Or those of Hamburg who suffered under "Operation Gomorrah", and gave the world the term "fire storm".
We in the west have killed altogether too many civilians in this so-called war on terror. So have our enemies. But Hamburg was worse. Coventry was worse. Clydebank was worse.
And that has what to do with my argument? Again, you are making a presumption, even after I already accepted the necessity of drones themsleves. I am stating there should be accountability and transparency. I also said if it can't be done via trial that another way should be reached. Neither has anything to do with you stating the fact that once war was more brutal and now it is less so and that we should all shut up (though I disagree with you there as well, since it doesn't matter how well we are doing now, there is always room to improve.).
Accountability sounds good, it's the transparancy bit which concerns me, as well as the need to gather a minimum level of evidence. Too much transparancy and you're giving away secrets that can aid the enemy - just revealing an innocuous fact may get the agent on the ground who provided it grabbed and killed. And you'll probably never secure all that much evidence against a suspect before he's done his bit for the militants, and every day you prevaricate is a day in which he may finance them or further their plans.
I think it's very safe to say trials would never work out for the above reasons as well as lack of representation. So what alternatives are there, and are those alternativs already in effect but you don't get to find out about it?
I'll add another thing: That part of the world has always been Lawless — not even The Raj could ever calm the Region.
Don't you think The British Empire sent in people to do the same? Don't you think we didn't send in strikes with Armoured cars? With aircraft? That there have been numerous frontier wars against tribesman in the Region? Like the Battle of Saragarhi
?
Not towards you in particular, it's just a general point. That Region has always been almost impossible to control. It's why AQ are there...
edited 11th Feb '13 1:57:32 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWhat's the point of accountability if people don't know about it? Then officials can just SAY they're being accountable and then there is nothing you can really say otherwise. Of course I understand you can't reveal too much and you can't create a stupidly high level of evidence required either, I don't deny that. But you can't also just have "We have the evidence, trust us." There has to be transparancy. Doesn't have to show everything, but it should show enough to prove the target is a terrorist. And if they can't, no go.
If that's directed toward me, I don't know why, since I'm not arguing against the idea itself. My statement on law is in reference only to the likes of citizens of the US or some other first-world nation who are being targetted.... If that's a general statement or directed toward someone else, excuse my confusion.
edited 11th Feb '13 1:51:30 AM by FFShinra
Transparency is one of those buzz words that sound good but are utterly meaningless in the face of folks who send out young men and women with suicide vests, and you should know this by now. Or are deliberately ignoring it.
Transparency would have saved Bin Laden from being justifiably shot. It would have dictated that the Americans told the ISI that they were on their way to get him and you know as well as I do that, since the ISI is hopelessly corrupted in so many different ways that even Machiavelli would blush, the information would have been sent to Bin Laden in seconds and by the time the SEALS touched down in Abbotabad the compound would have been long empty.
Accountability is fine and dandy for truth and reconciliation commissions when the fighting is over. Since it isn't, that can get chucked under the bus as well until that day comes. I am not saying that if someone in our military organizations commits deliberate murder and that can be proven that they should not face immediate punishment, so don't you dare put those words in my mouth.
I think a lot of the handwringing is not wanting any war for any reason, and drones are just a convenient excuse, but that's not this thread.
I do disagree with the use of drones as assassination tools, but not for the reasons cited by most of the anti-drone crowd.
My reason for disagreeing with it? Dead men tell no tales. A significant contributor to the information that lead to going directly after bin Laden was gained from interrogating prisoners captured during the previous administration's term (as much as Obama tried to make it sound like he went in with the SEALs himself and personally popped OBL
). You blow away someone with a Hellfire, it does nothing to support the intel "grunt work", so to speak, that ultimately breaks terrorist cells.
I wonder if it does anything for the "Hearts & Minds" approach? Although, looking at the history of the North West Frontier, that does not seem possible. Outside there, it might work, at least for placing targets*.
I think that's the Truth behind this bit. In other words, they are examples of an Actual Pacifist.
Keep Rolling On

Yeah we gave them due process after they had surrendered and we'd won. Notice that German troops that were captured didn't get put on trial, they were kept as prisoners of war until the end. As for specific examples, if you want to talk about how the US military should have better information on who is and is not an enemy combatant then I'm all ears, but that doesn’t appear to be what you've been going on about. Khan doesn’t look like a combatant to me, but Anwar al-Aulaqi certainly does. If he was involved in the planning of attacks then he comes what I belie is called a "walking command and control centre", and command and control centres are legitimate military targets.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran