The Awesome Obama Thread II

No, it's not. That's why terrorist camps are invariably in those regions of the world that are beyond the reach of law, or where host governments promise to turn a blind eye - or even help. (Muammar Ghadafi offered Lybian state support to the Lockerbie bombers, for instance.)That's why you can't send in police - there's a stupidly obvious jurisdictional problem even if the activities of the terrorists you want to go after are breaking the laws in their host countries. Well, I guess if Noam Chomsky says it, it must be true. Maybe it has something to do with how I sound like a reasonable person, and you rave like a loon. (Also, you didn't come out looking very well, or very honest, after I demonstrated the five different instances where you said something you later claimed not to have ever said.)

Gee, if only I corroborated my post with another source.
(cough, cough, Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia. However, let me go check that Official White House website for additional terrorist info) Wow, talk about song of the desperate! Because you don't have any adequate reply, you reach back into ancient history about your willfull misinterpretation about my Iraqi "embassy" item? (I recall, ALL others refuted your fanciful interpretation, and not ONE person sided with you) Just wow.Song. Of. The. Desperate! Yes, because you, Crashfrog, finds something STUPID and INSENSITVE, are not going to respond further.It burns. It just burns.

You recall incorrectly. What you had said was obvious to all - especially since you kept repeating it. Yes, that's exactly right, since it's only my own responses which I am in control of, and only my own feelings which I can feel. Who else has to find it stupid and insensitive before I'm allowed to ignore it? Whose permission do I need, Dronester?Again, the reason that I'm convincing and you are not is that the things you say are so goddamned stupid, and the things I say are informed by reason and fact. Adequate reply to what? I'm struggling to see the relevance of what you posted to the discussion. How does what happened in Nicaragua under Reagan inform the legality of US operations against al-Qaeda authorized by the UN?

Yes, I already noted you struggle with a great many of things. It, continues, to burn.

So, no substantive response. Per usual.

1) not all terrorists are al Qaeda
2) al Qaeda does not wear a uniform when bombing US bases or public areas
3) al Qaeda is not Afghanistan or Pakistan, they are not a nation state.I never said we were violating al Qaeda's national sovereignty - they don't have a nation to have sovereigty rights over.I said we're violating the sovereignty rights of Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither of which we are at war at, both of which are supposed to be our allies, and both of whom have sovereignty rights over their own airspace, regardless of whether or not some al Qaeda militants happen to by hiding out within their borders.I never said that we should stop drone attacks if al Qaeda told us to stop. I said that we should stop violating Afghanistan and Pakistan's airspace if they revoke their permission for us to use it.Let's take a look at this from a slightly different angle - maybe your poor sensibilities will find this more "sensitive."The United States does not operate exclusively from aircraft carriers in international waters. Instead, we obtain permission from other nations to use their airspace so that we can fly more directly to where we want to go, sometimes even using their airfields.If one of those nations withdraws permission for us to use their airspace, we can no longer fly over that nation, nor use its airbases.Afghanistan and Pakistan are allied nations with their own airspace. They can choose to allow us to fly over their territory in order to seek out and attack suspected terrorists...or they could withdraw that permission.As we are not at war with Afghanistan or Pakistan (even if I grant that we are at war with al Qaeda, which I do not), we cannot legally violate their airspace without their permission.If we continue to use drone attacks in Pakistan or Afghanistan after we no longer have permission to use their airspace, we have committed an agressive act of war - even if our intent was only to attack al Qaeda.Let's say that Turkey, another US ally, has discovered several al Qaeda training camps within its territory. They can grant us permission to use their airspace and/or send troops to their nation to help root out and eliminate the al Qaeda members, or they can refuse to give that permission and say that they will take care of the problem internally. Regardless of whether they are successful or not, the United States can only send troops or fly within Turkey's airspace if they give us permission to do so. If we don't, we've just invaded Turkey, and now instead of an ally, their actual military will attack our troops and drones and planes on sight.Do you see what I;m getting at here yet? The issue isn't al Qaeda. I have no particular issue with shooting an actual suicide bomber or a guy shooting at US troops (or Afghani civilians; hell, I have no problem with lethal force being used in the immediate protection of innocent life from imminent danger from an illegal assailant regardless of circumstance, which is kind of the point when US drones are killing people who are not terrorists).The issue is that to get to al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we need the cooperation and permission of the governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan, neither of which we are at war with, neither of which are Taliban or al Qaeda. Recall that "violating international law" has been used as justification for multiple independent nations to enact trade sanctions and even military force even in the recent past. ...It should be legal to hate AnyNation. Certainly not, but if a nation is harboring terrorists there are other, diplomatic means to put pressure on them to either grant permission to use their airspace to clean up the mess or to take care of it themselves. You know, the way that we got permission from Pakistan in the first place - we give them a ton of aid, and if they revoke permission to use their airspace that aid may be revoked. This is called diplomacy, and it's how nations interact with each other without going to war so that invasions aren't necessary. Where, precisely, is it legal to conspire to bomb civilians? I was unaware that this was legal in Aghanistan or Pakistan - I wonder what else might be legal there?Honestly crash, that's an absurd argument. unless you're redefining "terrorist" to mean "anybody who hates America," which of course is perfectly legal even within the borders of the United States. Curiously, we don;t send drone attacks or even police against people who hate the current administration, not unless they follow up that hate with an actual plan or attempt to commit a real crime. Would you care to provide evidence that, in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is perfectly legal to conspire to or actually fire automatic weapons at security forces or allied military forces, or to bomb civilians?Because I don't think it's actually legal in either nation to be a terrorist. I'm fairly certain that, if the Afghani/Pakistani police were to catch a cell of terrorists assembling pipe bombs or whatever in a cave or somebody's apartment, they could in fact be arrested and charged with crimes.

The 9/11 plotters lived in Germany. Should we send drones there?The 9/11 plotters also lived in the USA. Should we drone ourselves?Germany shuts 9/11 plotters' mosque in Hamburg
Just a moment...

Perhaps you hadn't noticed but Germany and the US are not Afghanistan. Both are generally lawful areas with a rule of law, trained police and effective courts.

Yes, that's exactly right. But I'm unclear as to why you think we go to war with nations and not with armies. Who were we at war with during the American civil war? And I don't see why we have any obligation to do so, if they revoke permission but continue to harbor an army we're at war with, within their borders. Can't we? I assure you, the laws of physics are not subject to the desires of the governments of Pakistan or Afghanistan. American planes will continue to be able to fly over Pakistan and Afghanistan regardless of the desires of those governments.If this were a world where you could simply veto another nation's military, where you could simply withhold consent and, as a result, bombs and shells would fall harmlessly at the legal border, it would be a better world, no doubt. But that's not the world we live in. Just as al-Qaeda may harm us irregardless of our consent to be harmed, Pakistan's consent to allow drone strikes within their country really is irrelevant except in so far as having their consent advances American interests. Well, that's one response. Another response is that Turkey realizes we're going to attack al-Qaeda within their borders regardless of whether they give their permission, and if Turkey decides to declare war as a result and attack our military, they're likely to suffer substantial losses as a result. So what they do is "give their permission" and act like we're there by their invitation. It's a face-saving measure, in other words, and one that results in the eviction of terrorists from their country with little to no effort on their part. The justification but not the ability. The ability stems from the fact that they have those assets to deploy. We need it for what, exactly? For our bombs to work? For our drones to work?No, absolutely not. Our military power is fully functional even without the permission of the countries in which it operates. It would be a better world - an invasion-proof world, by definition - were that not so, but it is. We don't need their permission for anything. We'd like it, because it serves American interests to have it. But if the dilemma is whether we violate the national sovereignty of Pakistan or Afghanistan in order to eliminate truly dangerous threats to the United States, or sit on our hands and allow Americans to die, the latter is clearly not the right decision. Yet, invasions continue to occur. So clearly diplomacy is not the solution to every international issue. Again, your gripe is with the concept of warfare, which inherently disregards national boundaries and sovereignty, not with any particular action of the Obama administration. War was once called the "last argument of kings." It's the tool of last resort to settle international conflicts, and as yet, we've not found a way to make it permanently unnecessary - since not going to war continues to be a voluntary act on the part of nations. Well, ok - what Afghan law does it violate? Please be specific. It's legal in the United States, if you're a member of the military acting on lawful orders, and those military forces and civilians are citizens of another country. Why wouldn't the same thing be true in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any of the nations we've been at war with, in the past?

How would it serve American interests to do so?The things you say are so goddamn dumb.

Hi Dronester,You are very vocal in hating what the Obama administration is doing and has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. I assume you also hate what Bush did in the first place to hand the situation over to Obama.I wonder what you would have done differently than Bush. I also wonder what you would have done differently had you been elected at the time Obama was, inheriting the two wars. And I wonder what you would do now, that would protect America, protect the innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and protect the troops that are over there.

No, he does not sway me. I can't speak for the others you mention.I just happen to have a view that is somewhat similar to that of crashfrog. Perhaps I was looking at the same evidence. On the other hand, I disagreed with our invasion of Afghanistan. I would have supported a quick raid on terrorist camps. But a full invasion, while perhaps morally justified, was foolish.

He sways me when he's correct. As it should be. He correctly pointed out in the previous discussion that the Obama administration cannot be held responsible for what Congress does or does not do; he can use words and sign or not sign laws, but in the end only Congress gets to make them.That certainly doesn't mean I always find his arguments persuasive. Occasionally I just find him to be a stubborn, amoral asshole. Which I suppose is fair because he finds me to be "insensitive." Likely this is because crash tends to argue via the letter of the law, while I base my positions on ethics rather than legality. Ideally both would be the same, but alas, this is reality...and of course ethics are to a point subjective (excepting of course that if you have the same values to begin, the logical moral positions that stem from those values should remain the same as well).

I wonder if you could elaborate. The Taliban was a state sponsor of terrorism, was harboring Osama bin Laden, and they were intimately and directly linked to 9/11 by virtue of their logistic and monetary support for al-Qaeda. All of that in addition to the brutality of their rule, specifically in regards to women (which I understand cannot always be a justification for invasion.)Iraq, of course, was always unjustifiable except by deception. But our mission in Afghanistan seemed reasonable at the time and, in hindsight, still seems reasonable. They declared war on us by deed. What were we supposed to do, nothing? Afghanistan in 2001 wasn't like Pakistan - an ally with a terrorist "problem" in its lawless hinterlands. They were a state-sponsor of terror that had attacked us. Why was a military response "foolish"?

Just a quick aside - I'll cop to being a stubborn asshole, but I'm not amoral - I'm a moral relativist. I don't think you can construct a finite set of moral principles that properly applies to all possible situations.I have a small number of moral precepts of my own - for the most part, I don't like bullies - but I don't pretend that they can accurately inform all possible moral situations. Or even most of them.Morally, I place a very high but finite value on human life - higher value than adherence to any rules or laws.