Empty Wheel & Greenwald: tag team duo

    By Desider on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:25am |

    In my typical morning browsing, I glanced at EmptyWheel's "Obama was apparently hoping for a trifecta", in which she mentions air attack on Qaddafi on Saturday, SEAL helicopter attack on bin Laden on Sunday, drone attack on Al Awlaki on Thursday. 

    We've already complacently accepted that a "no fly zone" for civilians in Libya means regime change by cruise missile, so file that in the memory tube. But Al Awlaki - something perked up my ears  (or eyes?): uh, he was never charged with anything, just making mean nasty threatening speech, which kinda seems to fit the GOP's raison d'être, or at least a major party and media strategy.

    So I flipped over to Glenn Greenwald, the left's other "what the law says is not just what you want it to say" legalist, and sure enough: US tries to assasinate US Citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki. 

    While I'm still waiting for a list of ways Greenwald goes over the top, here's how the successful Wall Street Journal describes the case against Awlaki:

    "He has been linked to at least three major incidents: the Ft. Hood shootings, the Christmas 2009 plot to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger plane and a plan to blow up cargo planes." 

    That's a curious word there, "link". I knew someone who was linked to 9/11 - they lived in Manhattan at the time. More seriously, was Al-Awlaki ever charged much less convicted for those "links" or is this just one of those countless government links that goes nowhere?

    Turns out it doesn't matter. While Obama claims we don't need to "Spike the Ball", he was out doing exactly that, trying for his next extra-judicial triumph. 

    So while death has only been accomplished in one case, Obama has indeed hit the trifecta:

    1. Acceptance of pre-emptive assassination regime change in the name of no-fly/save the civilians (and further humiliation of the now laughable idea of Congress' supposed role of the sole power to declare war)
    2. Acceptance of extra-judicial on-site killing of captured Bin Laden with bullets to back of head and dumping body in ocean with no pictures as necessary, acceptable, required in war against terror and only option possible (as Rambo cover-story fell apart first day)
    3. Acceptance of targeted assassinations of US citizens identified as being verbally supportive of terrorist causes, aside from Constitutional rights to a) freedom of speech and b) due process

    Congrats, Mr. President - only a Constitutional scholar would have the insight, dedication and execution skills to definitively lop off 3 basic Constitutional principles in as many weeks.

    Re-election seems assured - at this rate by 98%.

     

    Comments


    Twice now I've seen references to bin Laden having been shot in the back of the head.  I haven't seen any proof of this.  Have you?  The Right Wing is pushing it, and apparently the Left Wing is taking it up, but where did this story come from?  It's one of those bits that adds fuel to the anti-government fires and seems to be presented for no other reason than to inflame. 

    You're saying there are no pictures, but that's not exactly accurate, is it?  There are pictures.  You just aren't privy to them.

    Your trifecta list is not so much the truth as it is your interpretation of the truth.  We don't know the truth.  And neither do you.


    by Ramona on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:48am

    Ramona, I don't know what your skepticism is based on, other than "we can't ever know anything, so just defer to authority and shut up".

    I didn't think anyone seriously disputed that

    - NATO targetted Qadaffi for assassination. And missed this time.

    - The US targetted a US citizen, Al Awlaki, for assassination. And missed this time.

    - the Bin Laden mission targetted Bin Laden with orders to kill. (unless, as per the Laws of war he made signs of unconditional surrender).Note that every government source asserts that the mission orders were to kill, not capture. Actually - contra Desi - it doesn't matter a whit whether he was shot in the front or the back. No one - as far as I know - is claiming he surrendered, so he was shot as ordered.

    So which of these facts are you disputing? And if you're not disputing the facts, are you just disputing Desi's sentiments?

    Seriously, what gives?


    by Obey on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:45am

    Acceptance of extra-judicial on-site killing of captured Bin Laden with bullets to back of head and dumping body in ocean with no pictures

    This is what I'm disputing.  I do believe the orders were to shoot to kill but I can't prove it any more than anyone outside that circle can.  I'll say, too, that it doesn't bother me one whit. I'm glad there will never be a circus of a trial, and I hope the pictures are never made public.

    I don't consider the president a murderer and I don't believe bin Laden was simply a "spiritual leader".  I believe there are tapes where he takes credit for 9/11, I believe that al Queda was made stronger by his public appearances and he played the role of ruthless leader to the hilt.  And I don't believe this was a White House plot to make Obama look good.

    I think that about covers it.

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:24pm

    Hi Ramona, Thanks for the response.

    Nevertheless, some of this stuff I don't see how you can dispute:

    (i) He was dumped at sea without pictures. (Not that that matters too much)

    (ii) the killing was extra-judicial by definition. The operative definition is "the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur.". And according to the UN, on their military and intelligence operations, the United States "Government has refused to disclose the legal basis for targeted killings conducted through drone attacks on the territory of other States or to identify any safeguards in place to reduce collateral civilian casualties and ensure that the Government has targeted the correct person." (If you read the whole UN report you see that this is a general worry about the US' military operations in the region).

    (iii) I don't think it's disputed that he was killed on-site.

    (iv) I don't think it matters whether you shoot someone in the front or the back of the head.

    So, again, with respect, there are no facts here to dispute as regards the sentence you highlight.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:39am

    You know my position, Obey, that the killings were extra-judicial. They violated Pakistani sovereignty and criminal law. Did that render them illegitimate? Were they necessarily, as your definition states, unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur?

    What if the legal jurisdiction in question is the very one you suspect of giving the accused safe haven, in fact of complicity in his crimes. The ISI, which dominates the civilian govt., planned the 2008 Mumbai attacks and trained its participants; it trains, arms and funds the Taliban (who have actually killed more Pakistani troops than they have Americans); its sympathies for jihad are well-known; and the State Dept. considers it a terrorist organization. Would you trust it to act on a request to arrest and extradite bin Laden? Not me. Bin Laden would be safely holed up in Quetta or across the Afghan border and the Pakistanis would "raid" an empty compound.

    Interesting that the UN report questions the legality of deadly drone attacks, but then says there should be "safeguards in place to reduce collateral civilian casualties and ensure that the Government has targeted the correct person." So don't do it, but at least do it more carefully. I can see circumstances where a drone attack might be appropriate, but the wholesale way they are currently being used (where every wedding party is viewed as an AQ summit) is inexcusable. 

    Drones really are too blunt an instrument to put in the hands of 20-year-olds raised on video games. I'm relieved the U.S. didn't go that route in Abbottabad. There were at least eight children in the compound


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:45am

    Hi Habman (better than "Ack", no?),

    I think everyone - including the relevant UN Special Rapporteurs -  accept more or less that there is a reasonable case for holding that the standards that apply to US actions regarding high level Al Qaida operatives are those of Humanitarian Law, i.e. the Law of Armed Conflict (and transgressions of which - war crimes - are in the 'juridiction' of ... well... every legal authority to prosecute) . The killings are not regarded as extra-judicial because no one went to a Pakistani judge first. They are not regarded as extra-judicial because no one went to a US judge first. Under the LoAC you don't need to do so, and you can target active combattants whether they are armed or not. As long as they are in some sense 'active'.

    But that does not exempt them from having to prove - to some reasonable degree - that their targets are indeed subject to the LoAC rather than more stringent Human Rights law, i.e. that they are active combattants in an armed conflict who have not surrendered unconditionally. That is the legal review that the US is refusing and what makes the killings uncontroversially extra-judicial. They themselves REFUSE ANY LEGAL REVIEW - whether domestic or international, so they themselves hold that the killings are extra-judicial.

    I really don't see what people find debatable here. The US' own position is that the executive branch can unilaterally decide who is and who isn't an enemy combattant with no right of review or response even on the part of mandated rapporteurs of the UN. I don't see how you can get more extra-judicial than that...


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:12am

    Since the Habs got eliminated, you might as well call me Canuckman -- so we're right back to Ack.

    I saw you making the Human Rights vs. Humanitarian Law case earlier but didn't have anything to add, since I'd already conceded the raid's extra-judicial nature. But I see what you're getting at: American exceptionalism creating a legal risk that probably could have been avoided with even a token effort to present an defensible case. That's not how the U.S. rolls, is it?

    It was ever thus. Setting up the League of Nations, then refusing to ratify it. Trying Nazis for breaching the Geneva Conventions, then torturing and waging its own "wars of aggression." Siccing the ICC on Libya's Gaddafi, but refusing to subject itself to the same court. Demanding the release of almost any American arrested anywhere, while subjecting other country's nationals to extraordinary rendition. Bad karma all around.

    I don't see any real-life legal consequences arising over bin Laden, though, do you? The U.S. would just defiantly ignore any charges, or even retaliate against any country that brought them. Americans are too proud of their exceptionalism to sacrifice it to the mere principle of the rule of law.


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:18am

    Sure - of course there'll be no real-life consequences. At least not direct ones. But as part of the GWOT-related extra-judicial targeted killing campaign, it has all sorts of indirect ramifications, doesn't it?

    In all honesty I find the bin Laden operation both a great opportunity to highlight the problem of targeted assassinations in the framework of the GWOT and also ... a horrible case to take a stand on against the targeted killing program as it stands.

    I mean, by the ICRC's authoritative guidelines on targeting non-state combattants (or 'civilians directly participating in hostilities'), this particular action is obviously legal. And, commendably, they took pretty laudable measures to avoid civilian casualties in this instance. So kosher through and through.

    But the problem is that - contra their obligations as signatory to the Geneva conventions - US refuses the ICRC's authority, and their particular guidance, on the question, and instead operates without any principles at all on the targeting of non-state combatants - basically whoever the US executive decides to designate a combatant is a combatant. According to the UN the US has already extended this designation to include drug lords not involved in terrorism, because, hey, it's just too convenient a tool. Not to mention that the next less discerning GOP administration might go even  will go much further.

    So thems my worries...

     


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:44am

    Your second paragraph is spot-on. The killing of bin Laden has shone a wecome light on the issue of targeted killing, but is definitely not the case we want to take to the court of public opinion -- or any court.

    The Predators are the real problem. They are just too (relatively) cheap and risk-free. An operation like Abbottabad, which required perhaps a quarter-billion dollars worth of super-high-tech helicopters, is necessarily going to be well-planned and target the baddest of the bad guys. But it sometimes looks like the drones are being tossed at anything that moves "suspiciously." Certainly that's how it looks to Pakistanis, Afghans and Yemenis. It's worse than unlawful; it's stupid and counterproductive.

    Maybe, given the free hand Obama temporarily has within the U.S., he could cut a deal with the ICRC: formally reject its authority, but agree to "co-operate" with it by explaining fully the U.S. rules of engagement and "seeking out" its guidance on whether those rules are being stringently followed. He could then explain to the American public that he has ensured an exemption that allows drone attacks to continue "within a legal framework." Think something like that might fly?

    The ultimate solution, of course, is to wind down the whole GWOT, and pull the troops out entirely across the Greater Middle East. Maybe first the ISI can be talked into "tracking down" Zawahiri (and extraditing him) in exchange for not being outed as the doublecrossers they are. A few key members of the intelligence hierarchy could be permitted to retire quietly with full pensions. Those are my best-case scenarios; I'm probably wrong.


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:59pm

    Obey, my challenge was to the tone of the piece and I questioned some sentences, such as "dumped at sea with no pictures".  Again, I believe they did film the at-sea burial of bin Laden.  They said they consulted those familiar with Islamic burial practices before they did it, and I have no reason to doubt that.

    It does matter when you say "shot in the back of the head", along with the rest of the disparaging paragraph.  It makes the Navy Seals look like callous murderers and bin Laden an innocent victim.  My problem with the whole piece is that there is no recognition of the fact that, if they had followed what everybody seems to think should have been protocol, there would have been no mission and bin Laden wouldn't now be gone from this earth.

    Some believe he should have been captured alive and brought to trial.  I'm not one of them. Some actually believe he would have provided a wealth of information, which is lost forever now.  There is nothing in bin Laden's background that would suggest he would have cooperated with the Americans and spilled his guts.  He would have been considered a bigger martyr than he is now if our enemies in the Arab world had seen him "courageously standing up to his persecutors".   If, in the end, he had been executed, as he surely would have been, that world would have erupted in flames.  (The difference between the execution of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is that nobody stood behind Saddam, whereas bin Laden is an almost mythical God-like figure among the Muslim radicals.)

    As it is, a weakened al Queda is making threats, as expected, but I don't see the world coming down on us for what we've done.  I'm proud of the Navy Seals who were engaged in that operation and I'm proud of Obama and his team for pulling it off.  When I watched the president on "60 Minutes" last night, it strengthened even more my feeling that this was the way it had to go.

    There is room for argument about the operation to bring bin Laden down, and I'm open to it all.  But discuss it fairly.  Get it right.  That's all I'm saying.


    by Ramona on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:50am

    Fair enough. I just find there is too much commentary both on the style in which the assault was carried out and, on the other hand, on the tone employed by critics of that assault. I would have liked more focus on the substance of the matter - i.e. Desi's three point trifecta.

    What galls me about the operation was that it - and the general GWOT - could be effectively conducted in accordance with legal principles (yes, you can legally condone kill missions on AQ leadership), yet I find even on the left an implicit assumption that the Law cannot accomodate the kinds of things that must necessarily be done to protect society. And so people won't even engage in the debate concerning the legal framework. It's sad because the assumption is straightforwardly wrong.

    That's all I'm trying to get at.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:27am

    Yes, concisely there were 3 major attacks on foreign targets in a bit over a week, and 3 cases of overreach.

    All could have been done in reason and still reached objectives.

    1) there are a number of scenarios where bin Laden could have been shot dead beyond reproach. But since he was caught alive at one point, without someone coming to his rescue or him being a threat, it's hard to see a basic principle that says he had to be killed. [and with Pakistan not finding him - shocked, shocked I tell you - in an obvious location, I don't think many are worried about violation of borders just to pick him up alive]. If there's legal justification for assassination of a wanted terrorist, well, just show us the clause and be done with it, but typically that means a remote kill at-large, not a premeditated kill of a captive.

    2) Qaddafi - overreach again and again on the no-fly zone. So who will sign off on no-fly zones again if they know we'll abuse the mission? And while we like our pants-on-fire reactions, I don't see us removing Kim Jong Il with air attacks, nor the leaders of the Congo, nor Zimbabwe, etc., who are guilty of much worse own-citizen atrocities than Qaddafi's threats against rebels.

    3) Al-Awlaki - he's an American citizen. What's the charge, aside from shooting off his mouth? Associating with Al Qaeda Middle East in what capacity? At what point can we criticize American War on Terror without getting cross-hairs on our own foreheads, or subtler government harassment? (for example, the DOJ-approved GOP effort to disrupt Greenwald's website?)


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:38am

    On point one you'll be reminded that it was a NATO decision (British? I forget) that targeted and killed Gadaffi's kin, and be reminded that the French started the no-fly operation on their own ahead of schedule.  Well, I'm going it was fine with the US as long as there was cover.

    I google 'Bin Laden shot in the back of the head' but only saw 'in the head' on the first two pages, but i did get sidetracked by a BBC narrative of the new news.  It mentioned that bin Laden 'was believed to have ordered the attacks on NY and Washington' which made me pause.  I'd read an Escobar piece a few days ago in which he said that the FBI had never charged him (no evidence?), or not enough, and that the confession videos had all been discredited.  I admit that I never kept up with any of this stuff (didn't for the Oklahoma city bombing either; I must be missing that particular gene, so sorry), but this news surprised me.  I get from reading all the diaries here that I would be called worse names than a Naif if I (as I almost did one day) if it were such a known fact.  Oh, plus the fact that almost-always discredited Chris Hedges who worked the 'ME terrorism' desk' for the Times said bin Laden was never operation, but the spiritual (what an ironic word to use) mentor for the AQ jihadist movement.  Maybe that means there's no daylight between the two; I can see the argument, but...

    Greenwald linked to this Chris Floyd piece, which just about says it all to me: the degree to which the alleged Left has been able to pirouette to accept all this stuff as okey-dokey, and attack others who are outraged.  Does.Not.Compute. to me.

    And listening to Hillary and others from the administration the day after OBL was killed, it seemed they were making a case that Big Blowback wuz a-comin'; we need to do MORE er...killing (Al Alwaki?  Others?) to be safe.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:46am

    I think the 'back of the head' theory comes from the descriptions where bin Laden's brain is supposed to be visible above his left eye - in other words, the size of the hole is supposed to be characteristic of an exit wound, not an entry wound. The Guardian says otherwise - that the low-velocity ammo used in this kind of operation (in order to avoid ricochets) would create that kind of large entry wound.

    But, good God, people, can't we talk about something a bit more meaningful/constructive?


    by Obey on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:53am

    Sure; how about what happened to the black jockeys?   Cool  Oh -- I forgot; you wanted constructive.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:56am

    The back of the head part was also claimed by OBL's daughter who was there.

    But in any case, it was an execution, so whether he went down whispering, "Tell me about the rabbits, George... some day we're gonna live off the fatta da land, and grow alfalfa!" or straight to his face, no, doesn't really matter.

    However, a quick google gives me "A bullet that travels less than 1000 feet/second is classified as low velocity. These bullets generally create small entrance and exit wounds"

    Here's a table of a few speeds for same diameter:

    Diameter of steel sphere (mm)

    Impact Velocity (fps)

    Entrance (mm)

    Exit (mm)

    Length of Wound Track (cm)

    4.8

    3360

    20 x 13

    4

    19

    6.4

    1600

    5

    10 x 2

    21

    6.4

    1610

    6 x 4

    5 x 3

    20

    6.4

    3210

    15 x 7

    7 x 3

    24

    6.4

    3300

    13 x 8

    4 x 1

    19

    9.5

    1720

    11 x 8

    5

    27

    Note slower meant smaller entry holes, faster meant bigger. "Hatcher regards the phenomenon of ricochet as essentially one of low rather than high velocity, because a bullet travelling at high velocity usually breaks on striking a hard target". (The corollary being if it hits a soft wall, it embeds in the wall).

    We don't know anything about the ammo used in these guns, especially on a special planned mission like this, but my guess is they regularly blow smoke up reporters' asses and wait to see if they come back for more.

    (And am likely curious why they didn't pump gas through the compound to increase chance of success, but don't know the drawbacks)

     


    by Desider on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:13pm

    Well bugger me...I'm so disappointed in the Guardian.

    Thanks for the info.


    by Obey on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:43pm

    The back of the head part was also claimed by OBL's daughter who was there.

    Two minor points, Desider: We have not heard from the daughter; we have heard what an ISI official says she said. Supposedly, she said bin Laden was executed in her presence after being captured. I haven't seen her being quoted to the effect that he was shot from behind. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:38pm

    Still going with the exit wound much larger than entry wound theory.

    Girl just said bin Laden captured, then killed.

    Another rumor had bin Laden's guard killing him - at first I thought from complicity, later it seems from "don't let bin Laden get caught alive". What do I know?

     


    by Desider on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:13pm

    We haven't heard from any SEALs either, just what they did or didn't do, from officials in the government, on and off the record.  The next closest thing to an eyewitness account comes from folks in the sit. room, who might have been monitoring the raid in real time except for some 20 - 25 minutes when there was or wasn't a blackout. 

    As for the daughter, her story could very well have driven the walk back by the WH on the key point of whether ObL was or wasn't armed.  I'm reluctant to speculate, but the notion that living eyewitnesses were left behind might have occurred to someone.  To further complicate things for the U.S, according to the ISI, the daughter claims ObL was captured alive and then executed.  And just to be clear here, I'm not suggesting the ISI story ought to be believed on its face.  I am wondering, however, why the narrative out of Washington is more credible.  Because it comes out of Washington?  Please.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:46pm

    The main reason I distrust anything the ISI says is the same reason the U.S. didn't warn Pakistan about the raid: Pakistani intelligence (at least some branches of it) is/are totally in bed with terrorist groups -- including, it now appears, Al-Qa'ida.

    In the wake of the Abbottabad raid, I saw a photo of a pro-bin-Laden demo in Karachi. The participants were described as supporters of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which is the civilian front for Lashkar-e-Taiba. That's the group that killed 164 people in an attack on Mumbai in 2008. Evidence emerged that ISI trained the killers. Nobody in the ISI has ever been held to account.

    So some people in Pakistani intelligence are feeling the heat over what might be on those hard disks, and they are playing a game of chicken with the U.S.: "If you make this public, we'll make something else public." I think the U.S. should take this opportunity to force Pakistan to clean house.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:35pm

    Well, good luck, but agree, not sympathetic to Pakistan's leadership, or at least understand it's rife with subterfuge all the way through. How to turn that towards a democracy?

    Is a Muslim Spring in Pakistan permissible or way too dangerous - a tough one for any peace-loving progressive to contemplate. I.e. how much democracy is permissible when it can as easily swing over to grabbing nukes and espousing jihad as it can to bringing prosperity and justice to the people.


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:35am

    The last thing anyone in the West should be concerned about is turning Pakistan into a democracy -- or into anything. We're talking about a nuclear-armed failed state with a radicalized population -- a condition the United States has largely helped create (read Tariq Ali's The Duel). Ideally, we should back slowly out of the AfPak room, shutting and locking the door behind us.

    Leave the kleptocratic regime to sink or swim. But there's the little problem of an intelligence service that seems keen on provoking another war over Pakistan, using jihadi proxies to do it; a military that seems oblivious to what a nuclear exchange with India would entail; and a civilian regime that is too weak and too shallowly rooted to overrule either of them.

    I would hate to see another nuclear war in my lifetime, but I think one is more likely to erupt in the subcontinent than in the Middle East proper. Perhaps a little American "tough love" could persuade the Pakistani military to join with the civilian govt. in curbing the ISI's power and extremist mindset. But it's more likely that the military and ISI would unite to depose the govt. And things would spiral downward even faster. At that point, backing out of the room and saying a silent prayer becomes the only option.


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:26am

    Yeah, the Chris Floyd piece is something.  Shocking and heart breaking.

    I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on what you mean here:

    I google 'Bin Laden shot in the back of the head' but only saw 'in the head' on the first two pages, but i did get sidetracked by a BBC narrative of the new news.  It mentioned that bin Laden 'was believed to have ordered the attacks on NY and Washington' which made me pause.  I'd read an Escobar piece a few days ago in which he said that the FBI had never charged him (no evidence?), or not enough, and that the confession videos had all been discredited.  I admit that I never kept up with any of this stuff (didn't for the Oklahoma city bombing either; I must be missing that particular gene, so sorry), but this news surprised me.  I get from reading all the diaries here that I would be called worse names than a Naif if I (as I almost did one day) if it were such a known fact.  Oh, plus the fact that almost-always discredited Chris Hedges who worked the 'ME terrorism' desk' for the Times said bin Laden was never operation, but the spiritual (what an ironic word to use) mentor for the AQ jihadist movement.  Maybe that means there's no daylight between the two; I can see the argument, but...

    Particularly this part:  "...but this news surprised me."


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:58pm

    Whoa; the box makes it clear I made about a dozen typos, blush.  Darned Walmart cheaters!  Cool

     I meant that it seemed as though for years there was always some short epigram before his name was mentioned, like "The self-confessed mastermind of 9/11' or someting close, so I thought it was a proven thing.  That he was always operational, tactical, all that.  So to read that the FBI didn't eve charge him made my head knot. 

    These threads are getting way past unruly for my mind, but one one folks are asking, "Well, how could you convict the guy so that this wasn't an extra-judicial killing?  Well, hell; you could at least make sure he was charged with a crime, couldn't you?

    I just posted some contradictory info the Pentagon and Jose Rodriguez (Bush torture program overseer) asserted concerning whether or not he was operational since 2002, when the Bushies allegedly quit looking.  Which doesn't mean they didn't have evidence before that, but if so, how curious. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 5:24pm

    Yeah, that's sorta what I thought you meant.  Anyway, now you've done it.  kgb999 will never be the same.  You be careful, too.  Some things just might not be worth doubting.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 6:45pm

    I take it back!  I take it back!  No more Dusty Questions!  Hear that, microphone in my computer???    Cool


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 6:58pm

    Shucks.  Misery loves company.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:11pm

    Rolling on the floor laughing, kyle flynn.  I went to do a couple chores, and was picturing the Cowardly Lion supplicating the Powers:  "I do believe!  I do believe!  I do, I do, I do believe!"

    But hey; if ya need the company, any ol' time, just put your lips together...and blow....    ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:20pm

    Not speaking for stardust, but I was kind of surprised. It is an accepted truism that Bin Laden was unequivocally responsible for 9/11 and that he admitted and bragged about it on video. I for one accepted it, but can't for certain say I recall actually watching the tape where Bin Laden does this.

    An assertion that the videos we are counting as a definitive confession have all been discredited is news to me. I'm not sure I'd say it's surprising, exactly, but it certainly is not widely known or acknowledged. I'm curious enough to explore further.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 5:32pm

    Well, I found the Chris Hedges piece; ack, I can't find the right Escobar one, but he hints at it in this one.  And in today's piece calls Obama the Psychoanalyst brilliant for effectively ending the WOT and providing a reset.  Asks if Americans are ready for it.  I have my doubts he's right, but we shall see.

    But yeah; I didn't know there was any question about The Evil Mastermind.  Maybe I only read three or four outliers in some odd twist of fate.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 6:08pm

    Down the rabbit hole you go then.  Say "hi" to these folks for me, will ya?


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 6:37pm

    I *love* those guys. They make an awesome set of matching bookends paired with the FEMA death-campers.

    (and for the record, the ones who say there is evidence Bush's administration knew an attack was in the works and just let it happen really have put together a decent case. The other variants  .... eeeeehhhhh).


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:41pm

    Serious issues. You're right to raise them. Thanks.  I'd have found you  more persuasive if the language were  less  , if you will, over the top. But it's your blog , so it's your nickel.

    Sadly, your trifecta seems to me to  combine the uncombinable thus undermining some  of the otherwise more persuasive charges..

    Consider

    Acceptance of extra-judicial on-site killing of captured Bin Laden with bullets to back of head and dumping body in ocean with no pictures as necessary, acceptable, required in war against terror and only option possible (as Rambo cover-story fell apart first day) . 

    .

    o extra judicial ? What legal process should have been employed? What missing legal step was required in the case of  OBL?

    o Captured . I'll give you that one. It's arguable that before he was shot he could have been considered as captured. It's also arguable that the Seals felt he could have been armed and didn't want to be added to the 3000 people we all watched die on 9/11. I'd be interested in hearing the testimony of the Seals on that. And of their families.

    o dumping of the body in the ocean. Dumping ? Not burying ? Sprt of begs the question..Short cutting the need for an explanation of why it was wrong. Which I'd still be  interested to hear..  

    o with no pictures. . Shocking ! What no photos ? That really was outrageious.. How exactly would they have affected the morality or legality of the action?

    So, to summarize , we can put you down as believing  the killing of OBL was wrong because Obama did it. Got it.

    With repect to the bombing of a building which might have housed Quadaffi, but didn't, certainly there should be  justification of  Obama's attempted  regime change,if  it were attempted regime chang and if it were Obama's attempt. 

    .I agree Congress's right to declare war was once again honored in the breach.Let's see, is this the 100th time ? Doesn't make it right. Does make it very old news  which maybe should be taken into account when condemning  Obama's violation of Constitutional principles.

    With respect of AlAwlaki I agree there has been no due process of which we are aware. There should have been and still should be, if there wasn't. In particular as to whiether his alleged offences were restricted to being verbally supportive of terrorists causes .Pity you combined it with two other charges with which I have either no or much less sympathy.


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:46pm

    Sorry, just trying to use my imagination.

    Did the apprehension of Osama bin Laden look like this?



    Even in Brazil, you notice they game him a form 479318 stroke 12 - everything by the book.

    Regarding "because Obama did it" - no. The point is AMERICA did it. You. Me. Even Glenn Greenwald. It's our government, and we're responsible for its behavior. Even as it shreds the Constitution. [and I did complain about Bush doing wiretapping and torture at Abu Ghraib / Gitmo, and extraordinary renditions and rushing off to foolish wars on lying pretenses.... shouldn't I hold Obama to some standards?]

    Regarding "extra-judicial", you ask, "What legal process should have been employed? What missing legal step was required in the case of  OBL?" Uh, gee, I think Kafka called it, "The Trial". Maybe even an Indictment? Now, since we've kinda declared "war" on a non-governmental entity, perhaps dispensing of this little ritual is no big deal. Except we then turn around and do it on an American citizen who didn't bring down the twin towers, but merely opened his trap.

    So while I generally hate the overused term, "slippery slope" (which is often used to show how parking tickets lead to a totalitarian state), in this case we got a fast slippery slope. Stay tuned for it to be used in the drug war and other areas where we're too pressed to rely on judicial solutions.

     


    by Desider on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 3:06pm

    Right. We're responsible. Which is a reason to treat important issues appropriately.

    Which requires distinguishing  OBL's case from the other two.Trial ? Trials aren't/can't be employed to justify apprehension.Surely you agree that if Obama  hadn't pursued OBL  it would have been deriliction of duty.

    Then, I disagree  there was any  reason to impose on the Seals the requirement we'd never impose on the police  to risk their lives to preserve OBL for trial.With respect, that's common sense. Not because we've kind of declared war but because he repeatedly told us he was responsible for 9/11 and was going to kill as many more americans as he could. Law abiding doesn't = willing victim..

    Re "slippery slope" I agree the term is meaningless.We spend most of the day easily dealing with matters of degree . It's called thinking. The police don't hand out tickets for driving 50mph because you might decide to drive at 90.


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:07pm

    But if you choose stepping outside the law as your method to avoid victimhood, regardless what justification you use,  it is no longer possible to claim you are law abiding.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:39pm

    "Then, I disagree  there was any  reason to impose on the Seals the requirement we'd never impose on the police  to risk their lives to preserve OBL for trial."

    Well of course we impose this on the police. We don't condone the police just killing a suspect because they've bragged about a crime? They have to bring the person in. Of course if there's armed resistance, then a shootout is justified. People like Son of Sam were arrested and tried despite being very dangerous. How dangerous is it for cops to break down doors and go in trying to stop gang wars and drug dealers? My guess is frequently much more dangerous than this action, though of course no way to be certain ahead of time.

     


    by Desider on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 6:48pm

    "slippery slope" (which is often used to show how parking tickets lead to a totalitarian state),……. Stay tuned for it to be used in the drug war and other areas where we're too pressed to rely on judicial solutions.

    NO MORE TRIAL BY JURY http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/05/08/20110508sun1-08-new-duit-law.html

    The Right to a trial by jury, costs too much

    The Judiciary is an Equal branch of the government, but UNEQUAL financing neuters its power.

    How convenient for despots; cut off the funding and there’ll be no justice; only a charade.

    Equal Justice for all…are you kidding?  


    by Resistance on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:45pm

    What legal process should have been employed? What missing legal step was required in the case of OBL?

    Well, considering there wasn't an apparent judicial process employed at all this is a pretty good question. Usually it's the party that ends a life which is required to present a legal justification or the act, or killing someone is assumed illegal. What was the legal foundation we were using to justify the operation? I'm not denying it exists - but it certainly can't be said to be the result of judicial due process and a legal finding of guilt. Which, regardless if you agree with the operation, does indeed make it an extra-judicial killing.

    If I had to pull a justification out of my ass, I'd try to go with the AUF maybe. For may part, I agree with the operation. I just see the administration's handling of it to be half-assed at best and crassly misleading political opportunism at worst.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:32pm

    Obey said that Leon Panetta said it was covered under the Military Rules of Engagement.  I Wiki-ed them, read the 5 (I think) categories, but at the end it said it's pretty much up to the Commander.  Ooops.  Dunno how you change the rules, but I'm guessing it ain't.gonna.happen.ever.

    Sorry if I sent you down the Rabbit Hole; I was just that surprised to read those opinions in such opposition to conventional understanding/knowledge/belief.  (And I take it back!!!!)   ;o)

    Wrong: the categories were under Use of Force Continuum. 

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:06pm

    For this question, that's kind of a red herring. He is justifying the tactical conduct of the operation once it was initiated, not providing a legal basis to support the decision to carry out the assassination itself.

    But yeah ... we don't really have standards or enforceable limitations any more. Which makes some sense when you think about it. Those who are in charge of setting them would become accountable were they ever acknowledged. And we couldn't have that.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:31pm

    Seems we now have memos from Hohs and Yoos instead.

    "The Obama administration has acknowledged it’s continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of US citizens abroad. The confirmation came from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in congressional testimony last week. Blair said, "Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans."


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:55pm

    Major Anya Amasova: Commander James Bond, recruited to the British Secret Service from the Royal Navy. License to kill and has done so on numerous occasions. Many lady friends but married only once. Wife killed...
    James Bond: [interrupts her] You've made your point.
    Major Anya Amasova: You're sensitive, Mr. Bond?
    James Bond: About some things.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:51pm

    With respect to Operation Geronimo there's a consensus that Obama acted illeally. But not as to what he should have done to have made it OK

     a Trial as in Kafka.   Des.  

    stepping outside the law   kgb

     They have to bring the person in   Des

     judicial due process and a legal finding of guilt. Which, regardless if you agree with the operation, does indeed make it an extra-judicial killing  kgb

     at the end it said it's pretty much up to the Commander.  Stardust

    He is justifying the tactical conduct of the operation once it was initiated, not providing a legal basis  kgb

    .

    Reminds me of an ingenious paper I wrote in college on which the Instructor scribbled Do you really mean this? Certainly none of you believe that having located OBL Osama should have just left him to enjoy a peaceful life in Abbottabad. And I'm sure  that even tho you're displeased by the authorization  process you agree with the result.How not? The wicked witch is dead.

    There was Congressional action in 2001 which justified Tommy Franks' diffident pursuit of OBL among the Tora Bora caves

    http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

    If that authorization  permitted firing 105  howitzer shells  in the general direction of where we thought OBL was hanging out , which I believe he did, I think that same authorization still applies.

    What Obama's offence seems to have consisted of is acting under an authorization that we've forgotten.


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:36pm

    Elk and Elk - Serious Lawyers for Serious Injuries

    Authorization for Use of Military Force
    September 18, 2001

    Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

    107th CONGRESS

     

     

    JOINT RESOLUTION

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

     

      Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     

      This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

     

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

     

      (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

     

      (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

     

    •  
        (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

     

    •  
        (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 200

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:39pm

    So. By what process is it proved that an individual is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of having "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons?" There is none. "He determines." Note that lack of any judicial review what-so-ever.

    A killing carried on the order of a single man with no legal due process or finding of guilt is the dictionary definition of an extra-judicial killing. Which brings up an interesting point. Is the AUF one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation promulgated in the history of America? It would be political suicide to challenge - but it looks like political Teflon is what's protecting from some very dicy constitutional questions.

    I, for one, didn't forget about it - it simply has no impact on my observation.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:39pm

    And the extension of this overreach to Al-Awlaki, who has no proven claims of involvement other than verbally "inspiring" terrorists - global cheerleader now auto-penalty of death - makes it obviously worse - bin Laden is not an exception, he's the new rule.


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:26am

    Re: judicial review:

    See Federal grand jury: U.S. vs. Usama Bin Laden et. al:

    04-11-1998 - Indictment

    12-03-2001 - Superseding Indictment [part 1] [part 2] [part 3]

    Wikipedia summary of criminal charges here with this on the above:

    On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on charges of Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death[132] for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

    What usually happens when police come upon an indicted murderer and he won't surrender?

    P.S. The trial transcript is a riveting read. (There were subsequent related trials, also a must read to fully understand history of Al Qaeda vs. U.S.) I read it in 2000, I think, certainly before 9/11/01, and because of that I had few doubts about who was responsible on 9/11/01. Neither did Bill Clinton. Which reminds me, remember this 2006 Fox News/Chris Wallace interview?

    CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

    He said that on broadcast TV, so I don't think he was worried about it being illegal or questionable. And he is known to be quite skillful at mincing and parsing words when he feels he needs to.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:42am

    'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

    Yeah. Like I respect the Clinton Administration as law abiding. They are the original pieces of shit that started this whole thing.

     


    by kgb999 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:17am

    Clinton started this whole thing? Life was lovely in times of Iran-Contra and El Salvador/Guatemala hidden wars? No sneaky CIA stuff in say Chile or Pakistan?


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:29am

    Sure. And the Philippines for that matter. You realize it's possible for there to have been demonstratively bad government actions in the past and yet have those actions be unrelated to current programs and policies, right?

    Regan never set up a a formalized system and infrastructure of privately contracted if lear jets, interim holding facilities, snatching "bad guys" off the streets, drugging them, putting them in diapers, and then having our CIA guys ask them questions while an authoritarian's torture squad pulls out their fingernails. That was Clinton's gift to American foreign policy.

    Yeah .... soooooo much more honorable than the GOP's Central American adventures.

    Notice, he didn't get Bin Laden either.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:42am

    Not to pick nits, but, yes. That was, in fact, what Ronnie and co built. Not sure if you were too young KGB, but they had the private airline thing happening, the snatch, not just interim but permanent facilities, secret drug trafficking links, the training of torturers, the up close and personal involvement.

    I think it was the Baltimore papers that ran a great series on some of the Honduran torturers, who had been "resettled" in Southern Ontario. Major interesting difference was.... religion. Though with no Muslim nail to hang our hat on, we just used "Commies."

    Plus ca change and all.

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/055.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COH405A.html


    by quinn esq on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:29pm

    I'll concede the notion that i's were dotted and t's were crossed.   I just can't figure out why language like this doesn't trouble more folks:

    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    This resolution shouldn't have passed.  Only one person in the House voted against it.  Zero in the Senate.  Essentially, One person stood between the Bush administration and this obscene abuse of power.  So, merely one week after the violence of 9/11/2001, this dubious resolution was railroaded through.  ObL and AQ tried and convicted without anything that could possibly pass as a serious investigation.

    Little more than a year later, the Iraq War Resolution passed.  Built on a foundation of lies, it cleared the way for blah, blah, blah.  You know the rest.  I's dotted, t's crossed.  These resolutions are holding their own in the court of public opinion, and they might make it through some official legal body, if it ever came to that, but they aren't good enough for me and they won't fair well by future generations.  And they shouldn't be good enough for you.  No matter who is president.

     


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:35am

    And does the President alone decide what is necessary and appropriate force? Well why not slice and dice any suspected person in a Cuisinart? Forget legal process if you're suspected of "harboring" or "aiding" such organizations. It's just a highway through the Constitution and any international agreement. (We already disowned the Geneva Conventions - wonder when that will come back to haunt us)


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:04am

    What was it Jean-Marie Colombani said on 9/11/01?  We're all neocons now?


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:10am

    I also said I supported the operation. But I'm not trying to pretend it's something it's not. I actually nominally hung my hat on the AUF - which handles a domestic audience. But frankly I can't see how the AUF actually stacks up from an international law standpoint. Most nations, ours included, tend to view borders and sovereignty and stuff as significant. I don't know how basically declaring war on a specious world without borders can possibly be a sustainable construct if it were to move into wider application and be adopted as an international norm.

    Bin Laden is a bogeyman and has been used to subjugate and undermine the very fabric that defines a nation and government of free people. The whole fucking thing has been one illegal action after another. Yeah. It's going to end in an act of questionable legality. But with the death of Bin Laden we should demand the death of the mindset that has permeated and the willingness to accept this bullshit.

    Instead you guys want to wallow in it and smear it from-head-to-toe runing naked through the streets covered in shit screaming; "It's pointless to argue torture didn't help get Bin Laden ... Isn't Obama an unquestionable UBERBADASSS?!?! In your FAAAAACE Bush, you big pussy!!!!!!" While your glowing fucking president doubles down.

    Color me unimpressed.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:18pm

    Two more minor points: I don't recall anyone in this thread (or any others) arguing that torture works. Yoo has, but he's gotten almost no backing. The White House says torture remains off the table.

    As for international law, Pakistan is the one country with legal standing, since its sovereignty was violated and five people were killed on its soil without due process. It could formally complain. It hasn't yet, and my bet is it never will.


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:45am

    I never actually said anyone said torture works.

    So, if a girl gets raped but is pressured into not pressing charges - the rape didn't happen? Interesting formula, but you don't even try to address the fundamental question of the AUF.

    And sooner or later, we probably should - as there are a dozen or so other nations not powerful enough to formally complain at the moment where we're doing this exact same thing on a depressingly frequent basis (although usually we just blow everyone in the whole compound to smithereens) - under the same authorization. But then, I imagine you know that.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:12am

    With graphics that large, if you want them smaller after importing them, you can click on the graphic or photo, the corner and midline tabs apper.  If you hover your mouse over one of the corner ones until an arrow appears, you can move your mouse diagonally until it's the desired size.  Really you can do it as many times as you like, even after the comment's been posted, as long as no one has replied beneath it.  By then, editing is too late.   ;o)

    What you conclude is that the end justifies the means.  I don't subscribe to this point of view.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:18pm

    Oops; just typed about a minute too slowly. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:20pm

    Because I can't get it out of my head.  Composed from thoughts of a different time, different sorts of stakes, but parts ring timelessly, and the plea is so heartfelt.

    "There's no such thing as a winnable war; it's a lie we don't believe any more.  Mr. Reagan says we will protect you; I don't subscribe to this point of view."

     


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:07am

    Flavius, I haven't seen anyone arguing against trying to bring bin Laden in, or that if there was resistance, using lethal force.

    However, 1) where basics of indictment or similar for international law complete?

    2) did OBL resist, or where there circumstances that justified killing him once apprehended?

    This whole "we don't have to tell you what we did, just get out of our way" is annoying, and counter-productive to our task: spreading democratic and justice-focused values around the world to achieve stability.

    Instead we're just another hard-liner pushing our agenda against the other hard-liners. How will that promote change or respect or street democracy? how does that win hearts-and-minds?


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:10am

    Flavius, I haven't seen anyone arguing against trying to bring bin Laden in, or that if there was resistance, using lethal force.

    That's how I took the various claims of illegality.Whatever the emotions in Congress on Sept 18th 2001 I take that act as a law , passed with only one vote in opposition.Maybe it's a law that should be overturned but until that , it's the law and acting as if  permits is not illegal. I'll take a pass on the question of indictment and/of international law

    did OBL resist, or where there circumstances that justified killing him once apprehended?

    I don't think Obama , by which I mean the Nation-all of us, should have delegated that decision to a handful of soldiers in the middle of the night in what they had to consider as being a hostile country. My view is that the instructions they should have been given should have been: Kill him and get out of there unless he makes it unmistakenly clear that he wants to surrender.

     But with respect to the implication at a couple of places  that relying on the Authorization to Use Force implies support of  torture  - I had no difficulty stopping well short of that point on the slippery slope. As an atheist I can't claim that's  based on any religious principle so maybe it's based on the Social Contract.Or just a personal preference.

    Torture by itself requires dealing with a matter of degree. Whenever I hear a defender claim that , say, waterboarding , is justified by the "ticking time bomb"  I email the station and ask whether it would be justified to torture  the subject's children in front of him one at a time to obtain the information.If as I hope , the answer is "no"  then we are discussing matters of degree and waterboarding is a degree too far. 

    Gone on long enough so I'll stop here. I repeat my opening comment  that you have raised serious questions that needed to be raised.

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:11am

    My view is that the instructions they should have been given should have been: Kill him and get out of there unless he makes it unmistakenly clear that he wants to surrender.

    Well, that moots Arti's warrant-based argument construing a law-enforcement based justification for the action. Those are not orders that would ever be given to law enforcement officers in association with the execution of a warrant. Ever.

    And you realize that we DID pick up people's children and torture them in front of their parents, right? That's not a hypothetical. Mock executions - the whole nine. That was a Stanley McChrystal tactic. Obama's pick.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:59am

    Hi Stardust - what I meant was that the US' position is that Human Rights law does not apply. More precisely, this is their position as communicated to the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions:

    those positions [viz. of the Obama administration] are that: (a) the Government’s actions against al-Qaeda constitute a world-wide armed conflict to which international humanitarian law applies; (b) international humanitarian law operates to the exclusion of human rights law; (c) international humanitarian law falls outside the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and of the Human Rights Council; and (d) States may determine for themselves whether an individual incident is governed by humanitarian law or human rights law.

    (see here, p 31 ff)

    There is also the Bush Administration's similar stance as reported to the UNSR in 2007, here (p. 344):

    The United States respectfully submits that inquiries related to allegations stemming from military operations conducted during the course of an armed conflict with Al Qaida do not fall within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The conduct of a government in legitimate military operations, whether against Al Qaida operatives or any other legitimate military target, would be governed by the law of armed conflict.

    And the standards in humanitarian law or LoAC permit the use of lethal force against combattants as long as they do not unconditionally surrender and civilians are adequately protected.

    As the UNSR says here in response to the US (again the 2007 document p. 355):

    The response your letter gives regarding the killing of Haitham al-Yemeni provides a clear example of why this reinterpretation of the mandate would have unacceptable implications:

    The United States respectfully submits that inquiries related to allegations stemming from military operations conducted during the course of an armed conflict with Al Qaida do not fall within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. . . . [E]nemy combatants may be attacked unless they have surrendered or are otherwise rendered hors de combat. Al Qaida terrorists who continue to ploy attacks against the United States may be lawful subjects of armed attack in appropriate circumstances.

    This response suggests that the Special Rapporteur should automatically accept a State’s unsubstantiated assertion that a particular individual was an “enemy combatant” attacked in “appropriate circumstances”. According to this understanding, a Government may target and kill any individual without any detailed explanation to the international community simply by stating that he was an enemy combatant.

    In other words, the general position of the US is problematic because the government claims the right to (i) decide who is and who is not governed by human rights law - and (ii) do so without any principles-based process involved (though see footnote 100 in the 2009 document where there is evidence of a secret CIA-based legal review, but the Government ... denies its existence).


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:35am

    Sorry to have misrepresented you; I just spun of your mention of Panetta's reasoning.  I meant to reply two hours ago, but kept getting caught up reading more about the ICRC and UNSR articles and opinions.  So thanks for expanding this.  We can all sleep better knowing there is a CIA-based legal review for targeted killings; guess they signed off on killing some badass Afghani drug kingpins; a useful endeavor if I ever heard one. 

    It was nice to read the UNSR's letter back to the 'respectfully submitted' middle finger letter to the S. Rapporteur on the sensible but arrogant grounds of "because we say so."

    Oopsie; did it again; 20 minutes later (distractable stardust).  I got to remembering how a lot of this came up after Dana Priest's piece casusally announcing the CIA/JSOC hit squad program, googled and found commentary from that old fogie Greenwald.  From Priest:

    "After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

    The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

    Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture.  The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added."

     Well, that Anwar Alwaki is sooo demonstrably on the list.  It's toast time. 

    (edited to get rid of that nasty box.)

     


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:43am

    Yeah - targeting American citizens isn't necessarily *crazy*. If you can't just capture them, and if they are actively involved in ongoing immediate lethal action against the US. The problem is that the government is taking a really really broad reading of 'involved'. I mean we're targeting people who are just involved in vague financial transactions with people who are just vaguely allied to AQ. I mean, with the whole six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon world we have, we're all pretty much potential targets given the amount of interpretive leeway they're giving themselves.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:47am

    Targeting American citizens is not only crazy - it is the most fucked up decision in a two-decades long chain of fucked up decisions.

    There is no room for gray. Either we follow our laws and stick to our principles - or we have none and we are no different than any other piece of shit authoritarian imperialism.

    In my mind, it is almost time to eliminate the office of the presidency.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:04pm

    In my mind, it is almost time to eliminate the office of the presidency.

    Really?  And put what in its place?  Nothing?  Leave it to Congress and the Supreme Court?

    As to gray areas and targeting American citizens:  What constitutes appropriate actions when it comes to a war as elusive and unconventional as the War on Terror?  There have been numerous instances of American insurgents signing up with al Qaeda, training to do grave damage in their own country. Why should they be treated differently because they're Americans?  I don't understand your anger here.


    by Ramona on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 6:33pm

    The "War on Terror" isn't that unconventional, if you followed the IRA, ETA, Shining Path, and numerous other terrorist activities around the world the last few decades.

    Just with "American Exceptionalism" we have to go stark raving crazy just to show we're different.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:56am

    Is the overall consensus that going after bin Laden was illegal but would still have been supported by the majority? Doesn't follow that the capture or death of bin Laden was therefore illegal? Is there anyone arguing for the action against bin Laden not to have been initiated?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:18am

    My humble opinion:

    If he surrendered and was nevertheless summarily executed, that would be illegal and I wouldn't support it. But (i) that was likely not what happened, and (ii) we'll never know one way or another, so lets drop it and try to put the GWOT back on some legal footing.

    My issue isn't that it's illegal, it's that the whole GWOT policy framework (and now the Libya intervention) is LAWLESS: actors refuse to be bound or restricted by any principles or guidelines, which doesn't necessarily mean that all and every action is thereby something that would be found criminal in a War crimes tribunal.

     


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:38am

    What is the difference between lawless and illegal?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:58am

    By "lawless" I had in mind "not adhering to any legal restrictions". The administration explicitly claims that they can target anyone they damn well want to target. That doesn't mean that many targeted killings won't still be legal. OBL being a case in point: targeting the head of AQ actively plotting attacks is the paradigm legal case, as long as the actions on the ground don't violate the Law of Armed Conflict (you can't kill someone who is unconditionally surrendering, etc).

    It's just that the policy leads to a lot of illegal targeted killings as well - Afghan drug lords and such...


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:08am

    The basis for targetted killings it seems rests not what crimes the individual or individuals committed in the past, but on the assessment of what crimes the individual or individuals will commit in the future.  That seems the basic difference between a military operation going against individuals who are part of a terrorist organization and the police kicking down the door and arresting some individuals who robbed a bank and killed a few people in the process.  In the case of the latter, the assumption is that the individuals are not necessarily intending to kill again, or even rob again.  Now if in the process of apprehending the individuals, the indiviudals offer armed resistance that changes the assumptions, and thus the rules of the game.

    That is what makes terrorist organizations somewhat unique.  Their mission statement, their purpose for being so to say, is to commit murder (and mayhem).   In this way they are similiar to organized crime entities, although they tend not to actual make public statements that will commit crimes in the future.   The terrorist organization is set up to kill people.  Given that, the targetted killing is about preventing future crimes which the organization will seek to carry out.  The gray area becomes how far into the network that supports that organization can these killings go. Many would agree that senior planners, the one giving the direct orders, would be legitimate targets, as would be the ones who directly carrying out the orders to kill.  But what about those who are providing resources to these two?   Especially given that one will unlikely know if a current operation or operations have already been ordered.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:42am

    No, the rules regarding targeted killing have nothing to do with crimes one has done or will do. It has nothing to do with the target's crimes. Nothing.

    The rules governing targeted killings fall under the Law of Armed Conflict. And the Legal Authority there is the ICRC. No signatory to the Geneva Conventions can just opt out and make it up as they go along.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:14am

    From a legal wording point of view, the term crime is probably not apt since the notion is the individual(s) do not fall under one's jurisdiction. 

    From above:

    And the standards in humanitarian law or LoAC permit the use of lethal force against combattants as long as they do not unconditionally surrender and civilians are adequately protected.

    I would say that a combattant is someone who is seeking to commit a harmful act against a state and its citizens.  If they weren't going to do something they wouldn't be a combattant.  My assumption would be that one cannot do a targeted killing on someone who once was a combattant, but now no longer is - thus posing no current threat. 

    So I suppose what I am saying it is that threat, which I would say is a "criminal act", by the combattant that opens them up to be designated for a targeted killing.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:14am

    I said 'crime' wasn't relevant, because that means something quite different in the Law of War than in the Law of Peace. It's just a different legal framework.

    The core concept for terrorism-related War measures is the idea of Civilians Directly Participating in Hostilities, or DPH. And there's a vast literature on it, and a big ongoing debate. Look here if you're interested:

    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/overview-of-the-icrcs-expert-...

    Most important are the restrictions on 'Directly' participating - so it isn't usually regarded as enough that you play a secondary or logistical role in the activity (whereas in InterState warfare you can go after the logistical staff), and you can't - as you suggest - target people who have retired from terrorist action. Though of course you can still prosecute them as criminals, which is different.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:57am

    Just to clear, i suggested that you can't go after retired terrorists because they were no longer a threat.  

    It seems the administration is trying to expand to the definition to include the secondary or logistical role individuals.  As a layman, it would seem that one could argue if it is okay when fighting another state, then it would be okay if one is going after someone playing a similiar role in a NGO.  Of course there are a lot of variables to consider. 

    I guess it is this need to talk to the public in terms they can understand, rather than the specific legal terms as they used by international lawyers that things can get messy, and people talking pass one another. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:29pm

    It seems the administration is trying to expand to the definition to include the secondary or logistical role individuals.

    Well part of my problem here is that they aren't 'trying to expand' any definition, nor are they willing to have an argument about it at all. I'd be thrilled if that were what they were trying to do.

    Instead they flat out deny the ICRC's authority and declare that it is up to each state to define who is and who isn't a civilian participant in hostilities (and so a legitimate target for summary execution). So the US just claims that it is not bound by any law on this issue.

    It was in this regard that I put up the links above (or below) to the exchange between the US and the relevant UN rapporteur.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:48pm

    But probably only when that state is er..um...the US. 


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:23pm

    Again to just to be clear, I was suggesting that the administration was attempting to expand the definition for their own internal guidelines.  The US has been pretty consistent in its refusal to give authority to international bodies over the US policies, etc.  That doesn't make it right.  Nor should the pressure to join with such bodies as the ICRC be taken off.  But at the moment there doesn't seem to be much political pressure.  In fact, on the campaign trail, it would probably be a liability in much of the country if one was conceding to the authority of an international body on matters such as fighting terrorism. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:42pm

    Well, the US already is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions whereby they accept the authority of the ICRC. So no pressure need be applied to join.

    Beyond that, sure, the US likes its autonomy, and its own legal institutions usually ensure that it can claim not to need the added constraint of international institutions. But in this case there is a deep conceptual problem with the whole idea of such secret laws, laws that we are supposed to adhere to but that we can't know. And laws the executive is supposed to enforce but has no accountability except to itself. There may be a secret set of principles which govern and constrain the choice of targets. But we can't know them. UN rapporteurs can't know them. And Congress has no say. As a result each successive Executive is ultimately answerable to no one and so free to redefine those principles. In which case, there ... are no principles in any serious sense. The whole process is simply not rule-bound.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:56pm

    And thanks for the link.  I'll have to give it a read over in the near future.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:31pm

    I interpret lawless as being equivalent to being illegal. Once you agree to an illegal act you are accepting responsibility for any consequences. By agreeing that the action against bin Laden was illegal, I realize that I am also taking responsibility for the possibility that an unarmed, surrendering bin Laden was shot.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:50am

    The US is simply proclaiming that no system of law applies to it, thus "lawless". You can be illegal in a framework of law. You can't be illegal in a lawless system. Only the other guys, because we decide when and where to pop up laws we want people to follow.

    Note that no one's discussing Raymond Davis who just 3 months ago shot 2 people down in traffic in Pakistan, but was let go because someone convinced the family to take Sharia Law payouts. Ain't that ironic.


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:47pm

    The point is that if the action against bin Laden is considered illegal, then the e only legally pure position would be that no action should have been taken against bin Laden. If you agree with the action taken despite its illegality, you cannot claim any moral high ground.

    The Raymond Davis case is interesting because the argument becomes is Pakistani law in Pakistan superior to US law in Pakistan? If the court in Pakistan upholds sharia law, should that law be ignored? If that Pakistani law is unconscionable, then why is harboring bin Laden in Pakistan less egregious? Should both Pakistani laws be ignored?

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:42pm

     I am also taking responsibility for the possibility that an unarmed, surrendering bin Laden was shot.

    Can you cite any evidence that  bin Laden was surrendering?

    I realize you describe that as a possibility but there's an infinite list of things that could be proposed as possiblities: he was playing basketball, he was having sex with his wife, he was donning a pair of wings so he could fly out the window. To even mention one in particular: that he was surrendering, is to imply there is some thing in particular that elevates its' probability above the rest. . 


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:16pm

    I only cite the possibility as a "worst-case scenario". I would still have supported taking action against bin Laden knowing the end result.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:20pm

    Hm. Just speculating but here goes:

    - Here's a guy expecting an attack - he's prepared, with phone numbers in his pockets, money sewed into his clothes. A couple of helicopters land in his backyard. Firefight. They then blast their way through three walls (at least in the version I heard). Takes some time. Then inside the house they go upstairs. Blast or shoot down his door, his wife rushes the intruders, gets shot. ... and through all that time he still hasn't reached out for the guns sitting ... right next to him. So he's.just.sitting.there. For minutes. Waiting.

    Doesn't sound like a guy resisting to me. Sure, maybe he goes for the gun when he sees his wife shot or something like that. Or he deliberately provokes them to avoid getting captured alive - suicide by enemy or some such. But given the evidence, I'd say surrender is at least as plausible as 'resisting'.


    by Obey on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:23pm

    That's my story .......Today

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbxLbDdfhbY


    by Resistance on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:33pm

    At a certain point we'll get evidence from the Seals which I will accept.

    In the interim as Juan Cole reports as I quote in the blog listed to the left,  because the room was dark they were so unsure whom they had shot that one of them lay down next to the corpse as a way of trying to establish whether he was 6  feet 4 inches tall. .That suggests  the Seal shot someone who appeared to be threatening rather than someone whom appeared to be surrendering..

    But when we get facts I'll accept them

    What I won't do in the interim is  criticize Obama for some act which might possibly have been taken by the Seals.If I'm going to criticize him it will be for something they or he actually did not something I've made up..  

    Clearly,  currently on Dagblog doing that , making up something that the Osama might have done,  is not just speculating , it's accusing. And the accusation will morph into a " fact" with the next commenter.

    Personally I remember the sickening sight of pairs of people holding hands as they jumped from the World Trade Center , and  Congress passing a law  a week later authorizing the President to

       use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

     I'm delighted OBL is now dead. And if he were shot when trying to surrender , well  as Clark Gable  told Vivian Leigh  Frankly I don't give a damn.

    But then I don't hate Obama.


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:19pm

    I don't celebrate a death, but I have to admit I don't feel a great deal of remorse about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Obama did what was necessary.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:58pm

    Seems fair.

    For myself there are some deaths I do celebrate. His was one of them.


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:39pm

    Among the comments on this thread was the subtext of being 'an associate of', 'linked to', 'providing material support to' , la la la...terrorist organizations.

    Now here comes this story about the US Treasury (Office of Foreign Assets Control) freezing the bank accoounts of Hatem Abudayyeh and his wife, Naima.  Kevin Gosztola writes at Oped News:

    Hatem Abudayyeh is one of 23 activists from Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in Chicago, and his home was raided by the FBI in September of last year. Neither Hatem Abudayyeh nor Naima Abudayyeh have been charged with any crime. One of the bank accounts frozen was exclusively in Naima Abudayyeh's name.

    Joe Iosbaker of the National Committee to Stop FBI Repression said, "We are appalled at the government's attempt to restrict the family's access to its finances. Not only does the government's action seriously disrupt the lives of the Abudayyehs and their five-year-old daughter, but it represents an attack on Chicago's Arab community and activist community and the fundamental rights of Americans to freedom of speech."

    Joe added, "Apparently OFAC can block your assets pending an investigation on charges of "material support for a foreign terrorist organization" without a hearing. It's a bit like a chapter out of George Orwell, they don't need any evidence to freeze your assets and thus far they won't even acknowledge that they are the source of the freeze. In the case of these activists, assets means money for food and rent."

    Bill Chambers, of the Chicago Committee Against Political Repression said: "The persecution of the Abudayyeh family is another example of the criminalization of Palestinians, their supporters, and their movement for justice and liberation. The government's attempt to conflate the anti-war and human rights movements with terrorism is a cynical attempt to capitalize on the current political climate in order to silence Palestinians and other people of conscience who exercise their First Amendment rights in a manner which does not conform to the administration's foreign policy agenda in the Middle East."

    The story smells, IMO.  I hope we hear more soon.  But I remember this administration calling NGOs trying to teach conflict resolution to groups in the ME (specifically Libya, if I remember correctly) as offering 'in-kind support to terrorist groups' (their services was free to the groups, and the G went with the 'money is fungible' reasoning.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:13pm

    I seem to recall one (Latin America?) where they even presented their workshop at an open seminar with USAID attending, but somehow the little group got the "association with terrorists" bit. Even if you're teaching them to hang laundry, it's "support", you little clothes-pins you.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:13am

    Latest Comments