Larry Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Speaking of strawmen ... you're building a nice one there. Please refer me to the post in which I said there's no middle ground or took the position that the use of force should never be subject to any rules, guidelines, oversight, etc. Have fun lookin' for that one. Such a branch could preside over depositions, hearings, and trials and render verdicts with respect to each decision to launch a cruise missile, fire artillery shells, or fire a rifle. If a suspected enemy combatant tried to run or hide prior to a verdict being rendered, such a branch could issue a decree ordering that person to stand still until such time that a verdict can be reached. ---------- Post added December-24th-2011 at 08:25 PM ---------- twa: Do you think 300 strikes with the reaper: Your choice Hellfire missile or 500pd bomb.For all enemy combatants from the CIA whose main function was to grab these individuals and get info from them: Like with Gitmo (we let 700 of the 1000 go after finding out (not that serious). We were then left with the bad ones, now we are just killing all 1000. Unless they are the 'big' fish, we need to grab them and find out if they are drivers or alqaeda commitee members. (and then theres the civilian and friendly fire). That's why I think some more info might be nice. If a Predator sees 20 armed guys, belly crawling towards an encampment of sleeping US soldiers, then as far as I'm concerned you fire at them, and sucks to be them. OTOH, if it's a case of "Sir? I think one of the people in that car is a guy who's on this list, here", then I really think that it's not unreasonable to say that the Judicial Branch should have a say over who is and isn't on that list. (And the bar for getting on that list should be really high.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I said I would likely oppose a requirement that the military obtain court approval to kill an "enemy combatant on foreign soil." I then responded to your sarcasm with some sarcasm of my own. And now you're trying to claim that I oppose the imposition of any rules governing, or any oversight of, the use of force? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I said I would likely oppose a requirement that the military obtain court approval to kill an "enemy combatant on foreign soil." I then responded to your sarcasm with some sarcasm of my own. And now you're trying to claim that I oppose the imposition of any rules governing, or any oversight of, the use of force? Please. How about determining who gets put on the "enemy combatant" list? See, that's a big part of my problem. The idea that the Executive Branch has the authority to order people killed, entirely on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 war by committee is a very bad idea and a clear chain of command imperative....Congress gave the executive a green light and are quite capable of reining It in if they desire The judiciary already reviews the rules,but they have no business in implementing them. T-bear ...how many of those 700 need killing now?...just because some idiot let them go does not mean they were innocent How many of that 1000 were brought to us rather than targeted for capture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 How about determining who gets put on the "enemy combatant" list? See, that's a big part of my problem. The idea that the Executive Branch has the authority to order people killed, entirely on their own. The Executive Branch has always had, and should continue to have, broad discretion in identifying, targeting, and killing foreign enemies. Note, I did not say the Executive Branch should have unlimited discretion in such matters. For example, I absolutely do not believe the Executive Branch has, or should have, the authority to launch a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil. On the other end of the spectrum, I think the Executive Branch should have limitless discretion in using force against armed individuals in a combat zone who are engaged in, or appear to be preparing to engage in, combat with US troops. And, of course, I am well aware there are circumstances which fall between those two extreme examples which should be subject to rules and judicial or congressional oversight. So, I recognize and share your concern about granting the Executive Branch unfettered discretion in these matters. My point (which I may not have clearly conveyed) was there's a horse pulling in the other direction, and that's the interest in affording military commanders the ability to react quickly to fluid environments, utilize actionable intelligence (and the "actionability" of intelligence is often fleeting), etc. to target and kill people who don't wear uniforms, fly flags, or otherwise publicly announce their intent to kill Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 It's quaint that you guys still discuss this in terms of "military commanders" giving orders in the heat of battle. Military not involved in this. Question....who commanded mission to execute Bin Laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 The MFWIIC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 It's quaint that you guys still discuss this in terms of "military commanders" giving orders in the heat of battle. Military not involved in this. Question....who commanded mission to execute Bin Laden? Not involved in what? Drone strikes? Correct me if I am wrong, but the military and CIA both carry out drone strikes, sometimes separately and sometimes jointly. And I believe the Bin Laden raid was a joint CIA-JSOC operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Not involved in what? Drone strikes? Correct me if I am wrong, but the military and CIA both carry out drone strikes, sometimes separately and sometimes jointly. And I believe the Bin Laden raid was a joint CIA-JSOC operation. The drone strikes mentioned in the OP, the ones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. In other words...the ones that matter. JSOC took command from CIA instead of DoD. If this was as simple as some would like to make it then there would have been no reason to change the chain of command for that mission. It is the same reason why DoD UAVs are not striking in Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 The drone strikes mentioned in the OP, the ones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. In other words...the ones that matter. JSOC took command from CIA instead of DoD. If this was as simple as some would like to make it then there would have been no reason to change the chain of command for that mission. It is the same reason why DoD UAVs are not striking in Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia. It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares if it's the drones are operated by the DoD or the CIA? If you do, let me restate what I said above (note the underlined changes): So, I recognize and share your concern about granting the Executive Branch unfettered discretion in these matters. My point (which I may not have clearly conveyed) was there's a horse pulling in the other direction, and that's the interest in affording military commanders and intelligence agencies the ability to react quickly to fluid environments, utilize actionable intelligence (and the "actionability" of intelligence is often fleeting), etc. to target and kill people who don't wear uniforms, fly flags, or otherwise publicly announce their intent to kill Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Madison, The Intelligence communities (to include military) have proven to be 70% wrong in who they need and do not based on recent history. If we change to a kill only policy we are unable to fix the mistakes made. We are now doubling down on it. Twa, I believe they said 40 of the 700 went back out there.. should we have killed all 700 because of 40? 60? 100? This is why you can't "just' nuke the Iranian bunkers of Nukes. That makes you worse than the people you are claiming intolerable. The people you say are "going" to Nuke/Terrorize haven't, The Reaper/5kpd nuke bunker buster HAS! Which is more terrorizing? You can't become those you fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Oh, yes, you can. Then why fight them, why not just join. I knew you were going to say this, so i just answered it before you typed it We have the ability to do it right, don't cut corners and claim "secrecy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 You can't become those you fight. Oh, yes, you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Madison,The Intelligence communities (to include military) have proven to be 70% wrong in who they need and do not based on recent history. If we change to a kill only policy we are unable to fix the mistakes made. We are now doubling down on it. How have we shifted to a "kill only" policy? The drone strikes are just one aspect of the "WOT" and they have been proven to be a very effective tool in killing key terrorists and disabling terrorist networks, and they do so without putting American troops on the ground or otherwise risking American lives. In any case, are you taking exception to the means of killing terrorists or the WOT more broadly? If the answer is the former, I'm eager to hear how you propose we kill terrorists. Ground troops? CIA agents on the ground? If the answer is the latter, I think that's an entirely different discussion. And, BTW, Merry Christmas! ---------- Post added December-25th-2011 at 09:40 AM ---------- You can't become those you fight. When we start blowing up schools because we don't want little girls to learn to read and beheading our enemies on video and proudly broadcasting such films like a Lady Gaga video, then we'll talk. The use of drones to kill enemy combatants is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the **** AQ and the Taliban do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 How have we shifted to a "kill only" policy? The drone strikes are just one aspect of the "WOT" and they have been proven to be a very effective tool in killing key terrorists and disabling terrorist networks, and they do so without putting American troops on the ground or otherwise risking American lives. In any case, are you taking exception to the means of killing terrorists or the WOT more broadly? If the answer is the former, I'm eager to hear how you propose we kill terrorists. Ground troops? CIA agents on the ground? If the answer is the latter, I think that's an entirely different discussion. And, BTW, Merry Christmas! ---------- Post added December-25th-2011 at 09:40 AM ---------- When we start blowing up schools because we don't want little girls to learn to read and beheading our enemies on video and proudly broadcasting such films like a Lady Gaga video, then we'll talk. The use of drones to kill enemy combatants is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the **** AQ and the Taliban do. I don't mind killing those that need killing, i just prefer to have 2 branches reviewing this so its not a one man show. I've seen what happens when one branch thinks nobody can see what they do. I'm also not discussing how the Shiite and the Suni treat each other or the coptic catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 How have we shifted to a "kill only" policy? The drone strikes are just one aspect of the "WOT" and they have been proven to be a very effective tool in killing key terrorists and disabling terrorist networks, and they do so without putting American troops on the ground or otherwise risking American lives. In any case, are you taking exception to the means of killing terrorists or the WOT more broadly? If the answer is the former, I'm eager to hear how you propose we kill terrorists. Ground troops? CIA agents on the ground? If the answer is the latter, I think that's an entirely different discussion. And, BTW, Merry Christmas! ---------- Post added December-25th-2011 at 09:40 AM ---------- When we start blowing up schools because we don't want little girls to learn to read and beheading our enemies on video and proudly broadcasting such films like a Lady Gaga video, then we'll talk. The use of drones to kill enemy combatants is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the **** AQ and the Taliban do. Oh, goody. The "This technique has been proven effective (without any proof)", "You must want us not to fight terrorists", and "The President is allowed to do anything, without limit, as long as somewhere in the world, someone has done something which I claim is worse" arguments, all rolled into a single post. Usually, it takes days to get to all of those "arguments". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Oh, goody. The "This technique has been proven effective (without any proof)", "You must want us not to fight terrorists", and "The President is allowed to do anything, without limit, as long as somewhere in the world, someone has done something which I claim is worse" arguments, all rolled into a single post. Usually, it takes days to get to all of those "arguments". You must spend almost all of your income buying straw. I hear arguing with yourself is rather fun. I'll have to try it some time. I would have thought there would have been a sarcasm/strawman ceasefire today. Oh well, Merry Christmas Larry and everyone else. I'm going to go spend time with the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I don't mind killing those that need killing, i just prefer to have 2 branches reviewing this so its not a one man show.I've seen what happens when one branch thinks nobody can see what they do. . two branches are reviewing the tactic and methodology , just not making the individual target choices IF one branch thinks the other cannot see what they do it is the fault of the other branch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 IF one branch thinks the other cannot see what they do it is the fault of the other branch Boy, now there's logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Boy, now there's logic. try applying logic to the roles and responsibilities of the respective branches....of course sticking your head in the sand and ignoring duty works for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 What a perfect war, how could it ever end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Hmm, I wonder why we didnt send in another drone to destroy the one that went down in Iran? It begs the question if there are no checks/balances on drone usage, then blowing it up would have been done in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 two branches are reviewing the tactic and methodology , just not making the individual target choicesIF one branch thinks the other cannot see what they do it is the fault of the other branch Which two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Which two? the executive and legislative ones, SCOTUS is always in the wings and has already deferred for the present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 the executive and legislative ones, SCOTUS is always in the wings and has already deferred for the present I've only read that the CIA was providing targets and then took over and just started killing targets? Where was the Legislative branch at? Thats why i asked for a FISA court that already has Top Secret Status and was able to review the Presidential wire tapping of internal citizens. The SCOTUS does stuff like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.