IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I hope you're being satirical
The alternate is that your Obama-is-always-ducky glasses have caused you to flip your frolicking lid.
We're not, and never were, going to be having drones drop Hellfires on a microbus in Hamburg or Colorado Springs.

That's a pretty bold assertion. There is no oversight required. War is only a label of convenience. The operators are beyond scrutiny. Why would you possibly believe that he WOULDN'T launch in Hamburg or Colorado Springs? If one of his real backers want somebody waxed, do really think he, "the realistic president", would give a flying ferret about geography? Even if, in a feverish moment, he was willing to disappoint a banker, or someone with similar clout, do you really support having the power of autonomous life or death in the hands of a sleaze who has demonstrated by his election that he will pander to the highest bidder? It is possible that the next emperor may be even worse; at some point there HAS to be a lower limit to just how rotten a candidate can be and win, but there is no evidence we are even close to it yet. It is my opinion that we need to maintain the distinction between civil servant and civil master. If they are going to kill people, there need to be real rules and oversight, not what the good fairy thinks is cool this morning.
There is a finite chance you may hold Obama and his cohorts in slightly higher regard than I do. YMMV.
New No, I'm not being satirical.
There is no oversight required. War is only a label of convenience. The operators are beyond scrutiny. Why would you possibly believe that he WOULDN'T launch in Hamburg or Colorado Springs?


There are checks, and multiple people need to sign off on it - http://en.wikipedia....on_Matrix#Process

Is there a judicial check? No. Is that a problem? Not historically in a time of war. Am I happy about that? No, because this "war" isn't a traditional war against a nation-state and existing laws do not seem (to me) to be sufficient.

Was there a judicial check on Eisenhower when he was running D-Day? Or MacArthur when he was running the Inchon invasion? Like it or not, Congress said that the President was the person to run this "war" against al Qaeda (and assorted supporters and affiliates) using the methods and tactics he chose.

I don't like that the AUMF is still in place, I have never liked that this "war" was so open-ended. But I don't see the drone program as a threat to us or the Constitution. YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia...._on_combat_drones

[John Brennan] justified the use of drones both from domestic law and international law point of view. With respect to domestic law Brennan stated that "as a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qa’ida to Afghanistan."[33] And he further said: "As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."[33]


He's right that drones are not some uber-weapon that is categorically different from a missile or a bomb.

Is his and Obama's interpretation of the AUMF overly broad? Maybe. Can Obama and Brennan be prevented from doing this stuff with these drones? Absolutely. Congress can change the law, make explicit prohibitions on these actions, cut funding for them, etc., etc. They haven't done so.

Again, the problem is the AUMF law. It needs to go or be scaled back. There is no justification for the USA to be in a perpetual "war" mode against al Qaeda and like-minded people now.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New apples, oranges?
WWII and Korea targeted groups of soldiers on specified battle fields. I seem to recall there was a stink because we blew away a Japanese admiral in what was more of an assassination than aerial combat. Obama blew away a 16 year old kid miles from any defined battlefield because his father was a (deceased) (alleged) bad guy, with no oversight whatsoever. We are not talking about comparable types of warfare.
Defining the entire universe as a battlefield and defining the enemy to be whoever he says, is no different than unsupervised execution. Having an underling designate people he doesn't like as bad guys isn't a lot different than my retriever giving me permission to trap squirrels (currently illegal) because they are a hazard to the village. Well, my retriever probably has a lot more integrity, and would abuse the privilege less, but not a LOT less difference.
Not liking the AUMF is insufficient. There needs to be real means of restraint, even on the powerful; one set of laws for all. Break the law and suffer the consequences, and same consequences for all. Even the rich and powerful. Or the country has had it.
Sorry, but Obama should not be allowed to be high executioner even if it is inconvenient. Even if others have done it before. If we're going to have rules, they must be for everybody.
New Now whose glasses are getting rosy?
If we're going to have rules, they must be for everybody.

When in the history of this country has there ever been a time when there were one set of rules for everybody? Notwithstanding our propaganda, we've always believed that "All men are created equal. And some are more equal than others."
New Eh, I don't have a lot of illusions about success...
At one point it was at least an ideal. If there isn't even an attempt to approach the ideal, the country is doomed. I like this country to think it's worth something of an effort to try to save it. If that's overly rosy, then I guess I'll just have to live with it.
New Point taken.
New Re: blew away a Japanese admiral
Admiral Yamamoto is the guy who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Decapitating military leadership is a fairly conventional tactic of war. If that was an assassination, so was the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Alex
New Didn't say there was anything wrong with it.
Yamamoto was clearly an enemy combatant in a war zone in a military aircraft. Sucks to be him. It was unusual to specifically target flag grade officers, but if they were accidentally caught up in affairs, as it were, too bad. There were complaints that they knew specifically who, where, and when, and shouldn't necessarily have popped him. Too bad. OBL nominated himself as a target VERY deliberately. I'd give that a pass just to shut him up.
We live in a culture of death unless you're a zygote. We aren't going to get rid of death. We used to have a constitution that guaranteed certain rights, including not being killed out of hand by cranky bureaucrats or bored operatives. I'd like to see some of the thuggery of our political overlords reigned in a really considerable amount.
Meh... I'm probably just getting old and ornery. They say it beats the alternative. They won't say who told them.
New Re: Yamamoto
Yamamoto had a fetish for punctuality that was his downfall. The message with his itinerary was decrypted and flight schedules were known. His flight passed barely within flight range of US fighter planes. There was no more than 10-15 minutes available to the fighters to locate Yamamoto's plane before they had to return home.

There's a nice write up of the incident in the "Codebreakers" by Davis Khan. I read it in the mid 1960s.
Alex
New The Japanese had a lot of structural problems.
One of those problems is they could not get their new code books out on time. This meant that once the Americans broke a code book, it was quite a while before they needed to break a new one.

Doing a major operation on an old code book was disastrous at Midway - the Americans knew the timing of the operation and positions of the ships.

I seem to recall this was a factor in Yamamoto's being shot down.

The Germans had told the Japanese "Purple" had been broken early in the war, but they considered that a false story. Americans just weren't smart enough to do that, so the code books weren't a high priority.

No Purple machine survived, they all being ground to sand size, but a small section of one was found in Germany. Interestingly, in trying to build an imitation, the Americans had selected the same telephone switch used by the Japanese.

It is possible there is one on Musashi, sister ship to Yamato, that could be within reach (expensively).

New Excellent book.. herewith an interesting 'review'
https://www.smalldem...oned_In_This_Book

Pix of many mentioned in the book: mouse-over each pic!
New Wow
The bibliography would make a book on its own.
--

Drew
New Very nice find! Thanks.
Alex
New Our 'culture of death'
Focussing upon the wild-ass possibility of Mad President X getting even with his own personal High School Bully: simply distracts.
[apparently today a reeel-common phenom, that bullying thing: goes with the general meme of Violence everywhere?]

What about a bloody Majority of the place, millions of whom are daily menaced by the easy, sub-rosa, cheap Guns.. now in every teen-age gang, and on up?
Congress / The Executive / The Courts--merely the usual suspects and easy to blame (why's there no Law against [this Bad thing?]

But we have made the bed we lie in, over decades of surrendering to Gun Nuts USA--still a small minority/no-where a plurality:
via a highly biased non-reading of that 2nd Amendment. We have agreed to look away as it is interpreted by thousands-with-small weinies:
Who Feel Better About Themselves ..even when nobody-else Feels Good about Them? IF we let them buy any fucking cannon imaginable.

So.. WHO's To --> BLAME!?
Walt Kelly knew: We have met the enemy and it is US

Akin: $245 BILLIONS last year! to treat 'diabetes'--much of which appears to devolve from the Murican Three of ez-fast-not-cheap 'food': Sugar/Salt/Grease

So.. WHO's To --> BLAME!?
Sucks to be 'US'


Carrion.
New Nit
Grease doesn't contribute to diabetes.
--

Drew
New Re: Re: Nit
Grease doesn't contribute to diabetes.
It does when its in combo of adding on pounds that exacerbates the diabetes, making it far worse...

That is partially why losing weight is so important in type 2 diabetes.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New Wrong cause/effect
Metabolic syndrome causes both weight gain and diabetes. They are both effects with a common cause.

Which is why most of the things that fix one tend to fix the other.
--

Drew
New protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack
eating lunch at an outdoor restaurant is a long way away from imminent
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Innocents die in war. Film at 11. :-/
New At least the trains run on time.
New Read me in my posts. What's your alternative?
New Innocents targeted deliberately die in war. yes they do
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Eh?
Your statement is ambiguous.

The missile presumably hit the coordinates it was aimed at.

I don't think the intent in firing the missile was to kill a 16 year old kid. Do you?

http://en.wikipedia....lrahman_al-Aulaqi

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[3] Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[3]


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Well that's OK then
Collaterally damaging any old 16-year-old is fine, so long as they aren't intentionally killing any specific 16-year-old.
--

Drew
New What's the alternative you're proposing?
You know better than me that war is a messy business. It's never clean, and innocents always get the brunt of it no matter how careful or righteous the belligerents are. That was my point.

http://www.balloon-j...y-your-life-away/

The memo was released a prior to tomorrow’s confirmation hearing for John Brennan, and he’s going to face “tough questions”. I’m sure he’s going to be wearing incontinence pads and popping Ativan to deal with the fear of dealing with a bunch of grandstanding prima donna do nothing windbags who haven’t yet lifted a legislative finger on the drone war, and won’t do it in the future. DiFi, Rocky IV and the rest are going to vote to confirm after a little fussing, and that will be that.

I realize that we’re all supposed to be shocked and outraged that the Obama administration is running an undeclared drone war, and feel free to express that in the comments, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that Congress has essentially ceded the war power to the Executive Branch, so we’re going to be governed by shady memos instead of law when it comes to the use of our shiny killing machines.


(Emphasis added.)

As long as the Executive can make a plausible argument that what they're doing is covered under the AUMF, then there's nothing illegal about what they're doing under US law. (And dropping a Hellfire on a microbus in Colorado Springs doesn't fit under that.) People who don't like what the President is doing need to change the law.

That pretty well sums it up AFAICS.

Congress needs to step up and end (or dramatically rein in) the AUMF.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Wasn't my point
Agree with your point re: the AUMF. But in this case, the "shocked, shocked I say" question is, "Are you really targeting 16-year-olds now?" And the answer is, "No, he just happened to be in the way."

Well okay, as long as you didn't mean to kill him, I guess that's just fine.
--

Drew
New Maybe I'm being dense...
The outrage about killing/assassinating/murdering/droning Americans seems to be expressed in terms of deliberate decisions by Obama to target those he doesn't-like/views-as-enemies/has-determined-are-people-covered-by-the-AUMF. The remedy often proposed has usually involved judicial oversight ("due process of law").

It seems to me that if an American was killed in an operation but wasn't known to be there or wasn't the target, then judicial oversight wouldn't cover it anyway. The remedy can't address that problem. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

If your point is that it's counter-productive to drone people, I think that's an argument that can be had. But that's not a legal argument, it seems to me.

But I don't see how all of the outrage and the proposed remedies apply when someone is killed accidentally in an operation.

IOW, I was responding to Box's apparent claim that the 16-year-old was targeted by Obama. He wasn't. I think the distinction does matter, legally, because the remedy must be via a change in the law (it seems to me). Congress can fix this by changing the law - I'm glad you agree on that.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Oh boy...
Was he targeted or was he not? Doesn't matter. Obama doesn't have to say. He can declare anyone over 16 a target for living in the wrong neighborhood. There's no terribly good reason why Colorado Springs can't be a bad neighborhood if he declares the war is there.
Oh... bad law... Must change bad law! They have a mechanism for that: If it gives more power to them, it's bipartisan; if it takes power away, the good guys propose wonderful changes and the designated bad guys block it. Don't got the votes, folks! Don't worry, we'll fix it later. What about LGBT issues? Over there! Shiny!
We've never seen this before? Really?
It would probably be a lot more productive to get him a WOW membership and a game box filled with first person shooters, and just hope that it gets some of this out of his system.
New This Ibrahim al Banna?
http://armiesofliber...-hadramout-yemen/
This Ibrahim al Banna? ( http://armiesofliber...=ibrahim+al+banna) The undead, previously arrested, tried & convicted somehow free again long time al Qaeda operative?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New This didn't take long
http://security.blog...ssible/?hpt=hp_t2

Well... It's possible, these days, means imminent. Now, who wants to start a pool on when the first person gets droned?
New Heh.
New 2nd pool for the first oops
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New I don't like betting on your demise.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
     Drum on the Dronzzzze memo. - (Another Scott) - (40)
         if we kill everyone who doesnt like us, - (boxley) - (1)
             naomi wolf's take - (boxley)
         I hope you're being satirical - (hnick) - (32)
             No, I'm not being satirical. - (Another Scott) - (31)
                 apples, oranges? - (hnick) - (14)
                     Now whose glasses are getting rosy? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         Eh, I don't have a lot of illusions about success... - (hnick) - (1)
                             Point taken. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                     Re: blew away a Japanese admiral - (a6l6e6x) - (10)
                         Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. - (hnick) - (9)
                             Re: Yamamoto - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
                                 The Japanese had a lot of structural problems. - (Andrew Grygus)
                                 Excellent book.. herewith an interesting 'review' - (Ashton) - (2)
                                     Wow - (drook)
                                     Very nice find! Thanks. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                             Our 'culture of death' - (Ashton) - (3)
                                 Nit - (drook) - (2)
                                     Re: Re: Nit - (folkert) - (1)
                                         Wrong cause/effect - (drook)
                 protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack - (boxley) - (11)
                     Innocents die in war. Film at 11. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (10)
                         At least the trains run on time. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Read me in my posts. What's your alternative? -NT - (Another Scott)
                         Innocents targeted deliberately die in war. yes they do -NT - (boxley) - (7)
                             Eh? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                 Well that's OK then - (drook) - (4)
                                     What's the alternative you're proposing? - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         Wasn't my point - (drook) - (2)
                                             Maybe I'm being dense... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                 Oh boy... - (hnick)
                                 This Ibrahim al Banna? - (boxley)
                 This didn't take long - (hnick) - (3)
                     Heh. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     2nd pool for the first oops -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         I don't like betting on your demise. -NT - (folkert)
         BBC News: PJ Crowley on Drones. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Crowley makes his points in Real English, concisely too. -NT - (Ashton)
         Yet more from Holder. - (Another Scott) - (2)
             Re: Suppose this will help? - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                 Yeah, I saw that. He don't understand too good, I guess. - (Another Scott)

Because you should never underestimate the unoriginality of the very stupid.
106 ms