SOCRE: concorde new design attachement
This I have to see, try re-saving it as a .jpg (it will make the file size smaller).
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: For those of you condemning the assasination
Regarding the recent terrorist actions in Yemen and Bali-it is entirely likely that the worldwide terrorism situation will get worse before it gets better. We, as in the US, have now antagonized every terrorist group in the world. Ok, with the possible exception of the IRA. All of these factions are now out to get whatever they can because they know that they have a finite lifespan. Of course they are going to exploit the opportunities that they have. If they didn’t then they would lose credibility with their followers and supporters. However, every terrorist group that makes some such attack has now drawn attention to themselves, their existance, and their areas of operation. It just makes them much easier targets for local and international antiterrorist efforts. Too bad for them. And can anyone argue that the world WON’T be a better place once they are all eliminated?
As for the US’s military antiterrorist actions, I still fail to see the problem. If there is a threat to the citizens of your country, as its leader you are obligated to deal with it. What, really, is the difference between hitting a terrorist training facility and attacking the terrorists individually? They are both targets in the antiterrorist campaign. Just because there wasn’t a large group of terrorists or some large facility that was attacked in Yemen, people complain. Nobody called it assassination when we targeted individuals or small groups in Afghanistan. It was Al-Qaeda operatives in both locations that were targeted.
Regarding Garry’s responses to my previous ranting:
The US does not seem to have a problem with isolating and impoverishing a nation when it wants… take a look at what the US does to Cuba… perhaps that sort of treatment.
I actually do not support the treatment of Cuba. I am fully in support of opening up diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba. The age-old “they’re communist” ecuse holds no water whatsoever-we trade with China.
Excellent… when some other country starts flying armed UAVs over the US you will of course not attempt to shoot them down…
Of course we will. That would be a blatant act of war between two nation-states.
So what you are saying is that in Yemen there is no law against killing people if the weapon used is a hellfire missile launched from a UAV? Or is it that you are saying that CIA operatives have the right to kill anyone they suspect anywhere in the world? And poorer nations that don’t have expensive UAVs that can fly for 24 hours at a time or don’t have Hellfire missiles in their inventory… can they use 767s instead??????
Now that is just absurd. Yemen approved our operation. Therefore, it is within our law and the’rs, and the rest of the world can complain all they want, as they obviously are here in this forum. The CIA doesn’t have the right to kill anyone they wish. In this case they targeted legitimate Al-Qaeda operatives. What is really wrong with that?
Why is it a war on terrorism when you guys kill someone, but when you capture them they have no rights as POWs and get to live in cages in Cuba?
Also why is this war on terrorism not extended to any terrorist group outside Al quada?
It seems the US definition of terrorist group is rather targetted specifically at the groups they don’t happen to like at the moment.
The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. They get no rights because there are none they should be afforded. They aren’t POWs because htere was no official declaration of war against another nation-state. As for other terrorist groups, do you really realise the scope of our operation against Al-Qaeda? We will get to other groups, but we’d like to take care of this one first, thank you very much. The war on terrorism is not only a war on Al-Qaeda. However, they did commit a heinous act of terrorism on US soil, and are the primary terrorist threat in the world, so what is wrong with attacking them first?
If on the other hand you want to make the terrorists look less bad by using their tactics and ruthlessness and total disregard for justice (and instead simply get revenge) then go right ahead we won’t and can’t stop you… just don’t expect us to respect you any more than we rescpect the terrorists (which is not at all).
Again, what disregard for justice? And you’re right, you can’t stop us. So this debate is really moot, isn’t it?
Whereas the US seems to prefer to do it from 20,000ft with smart bombs and now armed UAVs.
Woudl you be satisfied if we took surplus 737’s and used those instead?
On another note, Garry, if the US is wrong for using the military to attack terrorists who have repeatedly threatened and carried out attacks agaisnt the United States and its citizens, at home and abroad, what is your opinion of the SAS attacking IRA targets?
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: For those of you condemning the assasination
Regarding the recent terrorist actions in Yemen and Bali-it is entirely likely that the worldwide terrorism situation will get worse before it gets better. We, as in the US, have now antagonized every terrorist group in the world. Ok, with the possible exception of the IRA. All of these factions are now out to get whatever they can because they know that they have a finite lifespan. Of course they are going to exploit the opportunities that they have. If they didn’t then they would lose credibility with their followers and supporters. However, every terrorist group that makes some such attack has now drawn attention to themselves, their existance, and their areas of operation. It just makes them much easier targets for local and international antiterrorist efforts. Too bad for them. And can anyone argue that the world WON’T be a better place once they are all eliminated?
As for the US’s military antiterrorist actions, I still fail to see the problem. If there is a threat to the citizens of your country, as its leader you are obligated to deal with it. What, really, is the difference between hitting a terrorist training facility and attacking the terrorists individually? They are both targets in the antiterrorist campaign. Just because there wasn’t a large group of terrorists or some large facility that was attacked in Yemen, people complain. Nobody called it assassination when we targeted individuals or small groups in Afghanistan. It was Al-Qaeda operatives in both locations that were targeted.
Regarding Garry’s responses to my previous ranting:
The US does not seem to have a problem with isolating and impoverishing a nation when it wants… take a look at what the US does to Cuba… perhaps that sort of treatment.
I actually do not support the treatment of Cuba. I am fully in support of opening up diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba. The age-old “they’re communist” ecuse holds no water whatsoever-we trade with China.
Excellent… when some other country starts flying armed UAVs over the US you will of course not attempt to shoot them down…
Of course we will. That would be a blatant act of war between two nation-states.
So what you are saying is that in Yemen there is no law against killing people if the weapon used is a hellfire missile launched from a UAV? Or is it that you are saying that CIA operatives have the right to kill anyone they suspect anywhere in the world? And poorer nations that don’t have expensive UAVs that can fly for 24 hours at a time or don’t have Hellfire missiles in their inventory… can they use 767s instead??????
Now that is just absurd. Yemen approved our operation. Therefore, it is within our law and the’rs, and the rest of the world can complain all they want, as they obviously are here in this forum. The CIA doesn’t have the right to kill anyone they wish. In this case they targeted legitimate Al-Qaeda operatives. What is really wrong with that?
Why is it a war on terrorism when you guys kill someone, but when you capture them they have no rights as POWs and get to live in cages in Cuba?
Also why is this war on terrorism not extended to any terrorist group outside Al quada?
It seems the US definition of terrorist group is rather targetted specifically at the groups they don’t happen to like at the moment.
The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. They get no rights because there are none they should be afforded. They aren’t POWs because htere was no official declaration of war against another nation-state. As for other terrorist groups, do you really realise the scope of our operation against Al-Qaeda? We will get to other groups, but we’d like to take care of this one first, thank you very much. The war on terrorism is not only a war on Al-Qaeda. However, they did commit a heinous act of terrorism on US soil, and are the primary terrorist threat in the world, so what is wrong with attacking them first?
If on the other hand you want to make the terrorists look less bad by using their tactics and ruthlessness and total disregard for justice (and instead simply get revenge) then go right ahead we won’t and can’t stop you… just don’t expect us to respect you any more than we rescpect the terrorists (which is not at all).
Again, what disregard for justice? And you’re right, you can’t stop us. So this debate is really moot, isn’t it?
Whereas the US seems to prefer to do it from 20,000ft with smart bombs and now armed UAVs.
Woudl you be satisfied if we took surplus 737’s and used those instead?
On another note, Garry, if the US is wrong for using the military to attack terrorists who have repeatedly threatened and carried out attacks agaisnt the United States and its citizens, at home and abroad, what is your opinion of the SAS attacking IRA targets?
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: CIA tactics in Yemen
You managed to ignore the part about Yemen agreeing to our presence. That does kind of change things a little bit.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: CIA tactics in Yemen
You managed to ignore the part about Yemen agreeing to our presence. That does kind of change things a little bit.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: CIA tactics in Yemen
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-11-02 AT 07:44 PM (GMT)]Unfortunately for the rest of the world whatever we choose to do to terrorists has to be within US law, and US law only. The citizens of France or England, for example, aren’t going to be voting for Bush in 2004, so their opinion and that of any other country on how we handle our own affairs makes no real bit of difference. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge there is no world treaty that defines the use of armed UAVs in an anti-terrorist capacity. Besides, what are people really going to do. Review our actions to ensure they are within the rule of law? Whose rule of law? Are you now implying that we have to answer to someone?
This was not an assassination. We targeted and destroyed enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. And we wouldn’t be able to be there and do it if the Yemeni government didn’t allow it, so now everyone else’s opinion can legitimately be discounted anyway. Yemen says yes, Germany says no (using Germany as an example), Germany’s position is irrelevant to the issue. And by the way, the executive order banning the US from participating in political assassinations, it deals with foreign leaders, not terrorists. Thats the benefit of being very specific in your wording. The EO was #11905, by Gerald Ford. Reagan upheld it in EO 12333.
As for the incident itself, I’m all for it. It gets rid of the terrorists without placing US troops directly in harm’s way. Does the end justify the means in this case? Of course it does. Terrorists are dead. They will not be plotting or attacking anyone else. Explain why this is wrong, without using the words “human rights”, which is an asinine concept anyway. What did people expect to happen? For us to simply arrest the terrorists and give them a good slap on the wrist? In case no one has noticed, these people like to blow up buildings, cars, people, and explode themselves in crowds.
At least we don’t bomb cities, claiming that it is “possible” or “likely” that there were terrorists present. When an F-16 and high explosives are involved, you had better be sure.
I really do want to know why the killing of terrorists is making such waves.
Want more of a look at the legal side of the argument, look at this:
THE YEMEN ATTACK:
ILLEGAL ASSASSINATION OR LAWFUL KILLING?
Professor Jeffrey Addicott
St. Mary’s University School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor
In the wake of the targeted killing of senior al-Qa’eda leader Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi in Yemen this past Sunday, apparently by a CIA drone, confused voices of dissent are challenging the legality of the American strike by labeling it “assassination” in violation of Presidential Executive Order 12333. In fact, the killing of this enemy combatant and his associates as they were seated in their car is not even remotely an act of assassination prohibited by that Order. The incident does, however, provide an opportunity to revisit the nature and meaning of the so-called “assassination ban.”
Under customary international law assassination has long been recognized as an illegal act. In the United States, the origin of the presidential ban on assassination is traced to 1977, when President Gerald Ford issued the first executive order which prohibited political assassination. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued his own Executive Order 12333 which reads: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Subsequent Presidents have not changed the Reagan order banning assassination, but confusion continues to swirl over the meaning of the ban, to the point that some senior lawmakers have actually argued that the ban should be revoked because it might impede the War on Terror. This view is mistaken. Executive Order 12333 in no way restricts the lawful use of violence against legitimate enemy targets. At the same time, those who advocate lifting the ban in order to allow the United States to engage in assassination are essentially advocating that the United States should be able to engage in “unlawful killing,” or “murder.”
There are two interlocking principles that must be understood in weighing the matter of Executive Order 12333. The first involves the definition of “assassination” and the second relates to the Rule of Law.
Executive Order 12333 provides no definition of assassination. A comparison of dictionary definitions reveals that the most common definition of the term is “murder by surprise for political purposes.” Since murder is per se an illegal act, the definitional problem automatically defeats any reasoned advancement of the proposition that murder can somehow be made lawful. In other words, if murder is a violation of both domestic United States law and international law, Executive Order 12333 really does not make “illegal” something that was not already illegal.
On the other hand, the lawful use of violence is rooted in both customary principles and in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Essentially, lawful violence can be justified if – and only if – exercised in “self-defense.” In the War on Terror, it is beyond legal dispute that the virtual-State al-Qa’eda terrorists are aggressors and that the United States is engaging in self-defense when using violence against them. Indeed, on at least one occasion prior to the illegal aggression of September 11, 2001, the United States lawfully exercised the inherent right of self-defense against al-Qa’eda: President Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles against several al-Qa’eda terror training camps in Afghanistan following the 1998 al-Qa’eda attack on two United States’ embassies in Africa.
Since we are at war with al-Qa’eda, any legal analyis of the use of violence against that enemy turns on how violence is employed. In short, the United States must exercise violence lawfully in accordance with the rules associated with the law of armed conflict. The law of armed conflict describes lawful targets which can be destroyed in the proper context of combat operations. An enemy combatant – whether part of an organized military or a civilian who undertakes military activities – is a legitimate target at all times and may be lawfully killed, even if by surprise. At the same time, the law of armed conflict absolutely prohibits the killing of noncombatants, except as a matter of collateral damage where civilians may be killed ancillary to the lawful attack on a military objective. Targetting civilians specifically as a military objective in time of war is illegal and criminal.
Thus, as long as the international armed conflict with the virtual-State of al-Qa’eda continues, the killing of al-Qa’eda combatants such as al-Havethi is certainly not assassination. Unless they surrender, these individuals are legitimate and legal targets and may be killed on sight.
Or this, from terrorismanswers.com:
Does international law forbid the assassination of political leaders?
The U.N. Charter states that “in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals,” are supposed to be immune “from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.” But in wartime, international law allows the targeted killing of a member of the enemy’s chain of command, even the head of state, whether that person is a civilian or a military officer, and regardless of the means employed.
And there you have it.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: CIA tactics in Yemen
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-11-02 AT 07:44 PM (GMT)]Unfortunately for the rest of the world whatever we choose to do to terrorists has to be within US law, and US law only. The citizens of France or England, for example, aren’t going to be voting for Bush in 2004, so their opinion and that of any other country on how we handle our own affairs makes no real bit of difference. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge there is no world treaty that defines the use of armed UAVs in an anti-terrorist capacity. Besides, what are people really going to do. Review our actions to ensure they are within the rule of law? Whose rule of law? Are you now implying that we have to answer to someone?
This was not an assassination. We targeted and destroyed enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. And we wouldn’t be able to be there and do it if the Yemeni government didn’t allow it, so now everyone else’s opinion can legitimately be discounted anyway. Yemen says yes, Germany says no (using Germany as an example), Germany’s position is irrelevant to the issue. And by the way, the executive order banning the US from participating in political assassinations, it deals with foreign leaders, not terrorists. Thats the benefit of being very specific in your wording. The EO was #11905, by Gerald Ford. Reagan upheld it in EO 12333.
As for the incident itself, I’m all for it. It gets rid of the terrorists without placing US troops directly in harm’s way. Does the end justify the means in this case? Of course it does. Terrorists are dead. They will not be plotting or attacking anyone else. Explain why this is wrong, without using the words “human rights”, which is an asinine concept anyway. What did people expect to happen? For us to simply arrest the terrorists and give them a good slap on the wrist? In case no one has noticed, these people like to blow up buildings, cars, people, and explode themselves in crowds.
At least we don’t bomb cities, claiming that it is “possible” or “likely” that there were terrorists present. When an F-16 and high explosives are involved, you had better be sure.
I really do want to know why the killing of terrorists is making such waves.
Want more of a look at the legal side of the argument, look at this:
THE YEMEN ATTACK:
ILLEGAL ASSASSINATION OR LAWFUL KILLING?
Professor Jeffrey Addicott
St. Mary’s University School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor
In the wake of the targeted killing of senior al-Qa’eda leader Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi in Yemen this past Sunday, apparently by a CIA drone, confused voices of dissent are challenging the legality of the American strike by labeling it “assassination” in violation of Presidential Executive Order 12333. In fact, the killing of this enemy combatant and his associates as they were seated in their car is not even remotely an act of assassination prohibited by that Order. The incident does, however, provide an opportunity to revisit the nature and meaning of the so-called “assassination ban.”
Under customary international law assassination has long been recognized as an illegal act. In the United States, the origin of the presidential ban on assassination is traced to 1977, when President Gerald Ford issued the first executive order which prohibited political assassination. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued his own Executive Order 12333 which reads: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Subsequent Presidents have not changed the Reagan order banning assassination, but confusion continues to swirl over the meaning of the ban, to the point that some senior lawmakers have actually argued that the ban should be revoked because it might impede the War on Terror. This view is mistaken. Executive Order 12333 in no way restricts the lawful use of violence against legitimate enemy targets. At the same time, those who advocate lifting the ban in order to allow the United States to engage in assassination are essentially advocating that the United States should be able to engage in “unlawful killing,” or “murder.”
There are two interlocking principles that must be understood in weighing the matter of Executive Order 12333. The first involves the definition of “assassination” and the second relates to the Rule of Law.
Executive Order 12333 provides no definition of assassination. A comparison of dictionary definitions reveals that the most common definition of the term is “murder by surprise for political purposes.” Since murder is per se an illegal act, the definitional problem automatically defeats any reasoned advancement of the proposition that murder can somehow be made lawful. In other words, if murder is a violation of both domestic United States law and international law, Executive Order 12333 really does not make “illegal” something that was not already illegal.
On the other hand, the lawful use of violence is rooted in both customary principles and in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Essentially, lawful violence can be justified if – and only if – exercised in “self-defense.” In the War on Terror, it is beyond legal dispute that the virtual-State al-Qa’eda terrorists are aggressors and that the United States is engaging in self-defense when using violence against them. Indeed, on at least one occasion prior to the illegal aggression of September 11, 2001, the United States lawfully exercised the inherent right of self-defense against al-Qa’eda: President Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles against several al-Qa’eda terror training camps in Afghanistan following the 1998 al-Qa’eda attack on two United States’ embassies in Africa.
Since we are at war with al-Qa’eda, any legal analyis of the use of violence against that enemy turns on how violence is employed. In short, the United States must exercise violence lawfully in accordance with the rules associated with the law of armed conflict. The law of armed conflict describes lawful targets which can be destroyed in the proper context of combat operations. An enemy combatant – whether part of an organized military or a civilian who undertakes military activities – is a legitimate target at all times and may be lawfully killed, even if by surprise. At the same time, the law of armed conflict absolutely prohibits the killing of noncombatants, except as a matter of collateral damage where civilians may be killed ancillary to the lawful attack on a military objective. Targetting civilians specifically as a military objective in time of war is illegal and criminal.
Thus, as long as the international armed conflict with the virtual-State of al-Qa’eda continues, the killing of al-Qa’eda combatants such as al-Havethi is certainly not assassination. Unless they surrender, these individuals are legitimate and legal targets and may be killed on sight.
Or this, from terrorismanswers.com:
Does international law forbid the assassination of political leaders?
The U.N. Charter states that “in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals,” are supposed to be immune “from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.” But in wartime, international law allows the targeted killing of a member of the enemy’s chain of command, even the head of state, whether that person is a civilian or a military officer, and regardless of the means employed.
And there you have it.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Whats been your fav 10 songs of this year so far?
Favorite songs from 2002 releases I take it? Here’s mine-
Megadeth-Disconnect
Megadeth-Recipe For Hate…Warhorse
Sentenced-Cross My Heart And Hope To Die
Sentenced-Aika Multaa Muistot (Everything Is Nothing)
Vader-Torch Of War
Napalm Death-Per Capita
Have to include Killing Is My Business from Megadeth’s remastered debut album as well.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Whats been your fav 10 songs of this year so far?
Favorite songs from 2002 releases I take it? Here’s mine-
Megadeth-Disconnect
Megadeth-Recipe For Hate…Warhorse
Sentenced-Cross My Heart And Hope To Die
Sentenced-Aika Multaa Muistot (Everything Is Nothing)
Vader-Torch Of War
Napalm Death-Per Capita
Have to include Killing Is My Business from Megadeth’s remastered debut album as well.
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: More Music!!!!!!!
I have to pick 5? Bah. Here’s 10, in no particular order…
Carcass-Heartwork
Megadeth-So Far, So Good…So What!
Megadeth-Youthanasia
Slayer-Divine Intervention
Black Sabbath-Dehumanizer
Carcass-Necroticism/Descanting the Insalubrious
Fear Factory-Obsolete
Sentenced-Crimson
Napalm Death-Order Of The Leech
Rotting Christ-Triarchy Of The Lost Lovers
}>
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: More Music!!!!!!!
I have to pick 5? Bah. Here’s 10, in no particular order…
Carcass-Heartwork
Megadeth-So Far, So Good…So What!
Megadeth-Youthanasia
Slayer-Divine Intervention
Black Sabbath-Dehumanizer
Carcass-Necroticism/Descanting the Insalubrious
Fear Factory-Obsolete
Sentenced-Crimson
Napalm Death-Order Of The Leech
Rotting Christ-Triarchy Of The Lost Lovers
}>
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Which countries build the best cars and why?
What about the Moskvitch? }>
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Which countries build the best cars and why?
What about the Moskvitch? }>
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Jokes about your own Nationality/Country!!
Alright, here goes:
[i]There’s a Russian, a Cuban, a Mexican, and an American in a boat lost at sea. The Russian gets this great idea, he takes out a bottle, drinks a swig, and tosses it into the ocean.
The Cuban looks at the Russian, scratches his head, and asks: “Why did you throw that into the water?”
The Russian replies: “Because in my country, we have so much vodka we don’t know what to do with it.”
The Cuban thinks a moment, then produces a cigar. He lights it, puffs away, and tosses it into the ocean.
The American looks at the Russian, scratches his head, and asks: “Why did you toss that into the water?”
The Cuban replies: “Because in my country, we have so many cigars we don’t know what to do with them.”
The American thinks a moment, picks up the Mexican, and throws him into the ocean.
-I’ve heard this joke with a lawyer instead of a Mexican, but to be patriotic and American this fits better }> [/b]
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
SOCRE: Jokes about your own Nationality/Country!!
Alright, here goes:
[i]There’s a Russian, a Cuban, a Mexican, and an American in a boat lost at sea. The Russian gets this great idea, he takes out a bottle, drinks a swig, and tosses it into the ocean.
The Cuban looks at the Russian, scratches his head, and asks: “Why did you throw that into the water?”
The Russian replies: “Because in my country, we have so much vodka we don’t know what to do with it.”
The Cuban thinks a moment, then produces a cigar. He lights it, puffs away, and tosses it into the ocean.
The American looks at the Russian, scratches his head, and asks: “Why did you toss that into the water?”
The Cuban replies: “Because in my country, we have so many cigars we don’t know what to do with them.”
The American thinks a moment, picks up the Mexican, and throws him into the ocean.
-I’ve heard this joke with a lawyer instead of a Mexican, but to be patriotic and American this fits better }> [/b]
SOC
“Peace through kinetic solutions”
Sign In
