Current Events Thread: Lifting the Bar off the Floor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Current Events Thread: Lifting the Bar off the Floor

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Waroduce posted:

Re: law chat

Does the AUMF cover the strike into Pakistan for Bin Laden? As far as I know, Americans have been strictly forbidden from operating in Pakistan, even in a limited cross border capacity a-la Vietnam and Cambodia with the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

Im curious about the legalese surrounding that or if there was any?

E: ground forces forbidden not drones.

Well I do recall that, because we are not at war with Pakistan, the ground forces (and others) of Neptune Spear were actually transferred to the CIA from the US military.

Which has always made me wonder how that is done in terms of benefits and paperwork.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 23:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 22:23

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

TCD posted:

Option 1) A poo poo ton of JDAMS
Option 2) A ninja raid across the border

I'd like to think there was no option 3.
Edit: I hope in 8 or whatever years we get a memoir of who in the cabinet was for what option.

I want to know what Biden wanted because you know it has to be :krad:

# ? Dec 11, 2014 23:48

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

I want to know what Biden wanted because you know it has to be

For some reason I recall Biden liked drone strike or the B2 Strike.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 23:53

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

I can only assume they had to talk him down from driving his Trans-Am through the gates, hoping out and tearing his shirt off and challenging Bin Laden to go one on one, or was he going to show his wives he truly is a total pussy

# ? Dec 11, 2014 23:54

Booblord Zagats: Oct 30, 2011; Pork Pro

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

I want to know what Biden wanted because you know it has to be

His buddy Scooter gets his old college (prison) roomie to beat the poo poo out of Osama after a Molly Hatchet concert, then road haul him with his IROC until he was an unidentifiable stump

# ? Dec 12, 2014 00:16

nwin: Feb 25, 2002; make's u think

So regarding the whole CIA thing and interrogation tactics, I just watched a news report from the head of the CIA discussing why they did what they did and how they got positive results which led to catching Osama.

Now, why was that report even released? Is there some limit on how long they can keep that private? I'm of the opinion we shouldn't be sharing our interrogation tactics because that could be used against us.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 00:36

ded: Oct 27, 2005; Kooler than Jesus

I hope we get another government shutdown tonight.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 00:39

TCD: Nov 13, 2002; Every step, a fucking adventure.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Hagel-New-Ship-Based-LCS

Well that seems like a good use of money...

# ? Dec 12, 2014 01:10

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Booblord Zagats posted:

His buddy Scooter gets his old college (prison) roomie to beat the poo poo out of Osama after a Molly Hatchet concert, then road haul him with his IROC until he was an unidentifiable stump

I think I'm a little turned on.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 01:18

somewhatpathetic: Oct 21, 2012

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

I want to know what Biden wanted because you know it has to be

Biden didn't want to do anything due to the potential political cock-fest, if you take Gates' account at face value. Gates and Cartwright wanted to drone 'em, Panetta wanted to do the raid, and Clinton was cool with the raid but really wanted to make sure everyone still went to the correspondent's dinner.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 01:37

Courthouse: Jul 23, 2013

nwin posted:

So regarding the whole CIA thing and interrogation tactics, I just watched a news report from the head of the CIA discussing why they did what they did and how they got positive results which led to catching Osama.

Now, why was that report even released? Is there some limit on how long they can keep that private? I'm of the opinion we shouldn't be sharing our interrogation tactics because that could be used against us.

It's being released because it appears the people doing this stuff have been lying out their asses over what they were doing, and how well it worked, not only to media but to their own bosses. And much of it was made secret not to protect national security but to protect their own asses from having to take responsibility for breaking the law and general incompetence/disloyalty.

I never understood that last argument, "if we hold the government accountable for breaking the law, that will aid and comfort our enemies!"

# ? Dec 12, 2014 01:43

nwin: Feb 25, 2002; make's u think

Courthouse posted:

It's being released because it appears the people doing this stuff have been lying out their asses over what they were doing, and how well it worked, not only to media but to their own bosses. And much of it was made secret not to protect national security but to protect their own asses from having to take responsibility for breaking the law and general incompetence/disloyalty.

I never understood that last argument, "if we hold the government accountable for breaking the law, that will aid and comfort our enemies!"

I don't care about comforting the enemy- I was under the impression that some of these tactics had been approved for whatever reason (though I'd imagine rectal feeding probably isn't one of them) and they were classified for whatever reason.

But what do I know-I don't work for the CIA :ninja:

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:07

krispykremessuck: Jul 22, 2005; unlike most veterans and SA members $10 is not a meaningful expenditure for me

I'm gonna have me a swag Bar-B-Q

nwin posted:

But what do I know-I don't work for the CIA

probably as much or more than the CIA in that case

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:10

Lazy Reservist: Nov 30, 2005; FUBIJAR

Courthouse posted:

I never understood that last argument, "if we hold the government accountable for breaking the law, that will aid and comfort our enemies!"

According to some, anything that pisses off the enemy is "providing aid and comfort." The logic is that they will use the torture report as a recruiting tool, saying "See what the infidels do to us? Don't you want to join our jihad?" In reality, your average desert dwelling muzzie couldn't give two shits about some other towel crown receiving a rectally administered halal meal. In fact, quite a few would be envious; either from the fact that one of their brothers got food, or that they got something shoved up the haram hole.

The increased threat to the embassies and overseas forces is negligible, as any plans to attack would have already been in place. Maybe the memo might speed up the timeline, but there won't be massive attacks on US facilities in the land of the muz.

This thing is nothing more than a political "gently caress you" from the outgoing Democrat Senate to the incoming Republican Senate. In the end, both sides will be happy, because the Dems can yell about torture, and the Repubs can yell about how we have to contain the threat created by the Dems yelling about torture.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:13

RonMexicosPitbull: Feb 28, 2012; by Ralp

Yea the guy who presided over 3 forced child marriages and set off a car bomb in a market on Tuesday cares a whole lot that the U.S. water boarded a few dozen people

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:21

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Mr. Nice! posted:

In my mind the short version is "don't loving care if it's legal we loving got osama."

The tl:dr version is you're right.

The AUMF clearly authorized the use of force against Bin Laden...now, there's some room to argue that' snot valid because you can't declare war on a person...but LOAC is evolving in that area as we see more and more non-state aggressors operating out of failed states. So let's just assume the stronger argument that the parts of the AUMF authorizing war on the AQ responsible for 9-11 was valid.

The problem, however, is that Pakistan is a sovereign nation, and we didn't include Pakistan in the AUMF.

Now, the legal and proper way to do this would have been diplomatic cooperation with Pakistan, getting their permission, blah blah blah, like we did with Yemen for Al-Anwaki (which I also think was illegal for different reasons...but hey...at least we didn't violate Yemen's sovereignty.)

But in reality, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that there is no way in gently caress Pakistan didn't know he was there, and asking mother may I would have resulted in him not being there anymore. :iiam:

So we violated Pakistan's national sovereignty when we sent our assets in, and technically committed an act of war against Pakistan.

but at the end of the day,

Mr. Nice! posted:

"don't loving care if it's legal we loving got osama."

We also had the benefit of knowing it would only be a big deal if Pakistan went crying to the UN...which we knew they wouldn't do because that would lead to a lot of awkward questions about why a known international terrorist was hanging out in their equivalent of West Point without notice.

So yeah, illegal but who gives a gently caress. think of it like a domestic violence case...sure you're not allowed to beat your spouse, but if she wants to say she walked into a door, no one's going to do anything about it. Except in this case, you beat your spouse because she was hiding Bin Laden.

As for whether they were with CIA or DoD, that gets into a lot of the nuance of Tier one's org chart. Is complicated. And probably can't be expanded on here.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:46

Waroduce: Aug 5, 2008

Reading Way of the Knife, thought this was relevant to discussion

quote:

It was a desire for �deniability� that led Jose Rodriguez to take the extraordinary step of outsourcing a lethal CIA program to an American company. The CIA signed Prince and Prado to a personal services contract, and the two men began devising plans to carry out surveillance of potential targets, including some of the same men�like Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan�whom the CIA had first proposed killing in 2001 during the meeting with Cheney. Prince and Prado would oversee the program, and the hand of the United States would, in theory, be hidden. Prince and Prado envisioned that the Blackwater hit teams would ultimately be under CIA control, but once they were given missions they would have a large degree of autonomy. �We were building a unilateral, unattributable capability,� Prince later said during an interview with Vanity Fair. �If it went bad, we weren�t expecting the chief of station, the ambassador, or anyone to bail us out.�

As it happened, they never needed to be bailed out. Like the first iteration of the assassination program, no killing operations were carried out during this phase of the hit-team program. Prince and Prado had overseen the training of the Blackwater teams, but Prince blames �institutional osteoporosis� for why the Blackwater assassins were never dispatched to kill terrorists.

Given the support the program had from senior managers like Rodriguez, why not? Amazingly, it wasn�t because of legal concerns either at the CIA or the White House. Lawyers at the CIA had given their approval to involve Prince and Prado in the killing operation, but senior CIA officials were ultimately unconvinced that the agency would be able to keep its role in the program hidden. Blackwater had developed a web of subsidiary companies to hide its CIA work, but it likely would not have been difficult for foreign governments to untangle the web and trace operations back to Prince and, ultimately, the CIA.

�The more you outsource an operation, the more deniable it becomes,� explained one senior CIA officer involved in the decision to terminate Blackwater�s role in the assassination program. �But you�re also giving up control of the operation. And if that guy screws up, it�s still your fault.�

The ill-conceived Blackwater phase of the killing program remains�like the earlier iteration of the program�a closely guarded government secret. Even in retirement, former Counterterrorist Center officer Hank Crumpton is prohibited by the CIA from giving details about the time that he worked on the first phase of the program. But in an interview, he said he found it puzz� cfouling that the United States still seemed to make a distinction between killing people from a distance using an armed drone and training humans to do the killing themselves.

If the country is going to allow the CIA to do one, he said, should it really be queasy about allowing the other? �How we apply lethal force, and where we apply lethal force�that�s a huge debate that we really haven�t had,� he said. �There seems to be no problem with a Hellfire shot against a designated enemy in a place like Afghanistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen.� In those places, he said, it seems like just another part of war.

But, he asked, what if a suspected terrorist is in a place like Paris, or Hamburg, or somewhere else where drones can�t fly, �and you use a CIA or [military] operative on the ground to shoot him in the back of the head?

�Then,� he said, �it�s viewed as an assassination.�

oh this is priceless, last one

quote:

In late 2005 Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which included a provision banning �cruel, inhuman, and degrading� treatment of any prisoner in American custody, including CIA black sites. There was now the potential that covert officers working at the CIA prisons could be prosecuted for their work, and the specter of criminal investigations and congressional hearings hung over Langley.

These fears already had led Jose Rodriguez to order the destruction of dozens of videotapes that gave a minute-by-minute chronicle of the ordeals of al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri during CIA interrogations. Rodriguez, who had been promoted yet again and now had the powerful job of head of the Directorate of Operations�running all CIA covert-action and espionage operations across the globe�worried that the faces of the undercover officers were clearly visible on the tapes. With the toxic details of the prison program leaking out, he thought the officers might face both legal and physical jeopardy. In early November 2005, he sent a secret cable to the CIA�s Bangkok Station, where the tapes were being kept in a safe, and ordered that they be fed into an industrial-strength shredder. Seven steel blades went to work on the tapes, pulverizing them into tiny shards that were vacuumed out of the shredder and dumped into plastic trash bags.

But even after destroying vestiges of the early days of the prison program, the CIA faced more uncertainty with the passage of the new law by Congress. Days after the Detainee Treatment Act was passed, CIA director Porter Goss wrote a letter to the White House. The CIA would shut down all interrogations, he wrote, until the Justice Department could render a judgment about whether the CIA techniques violated the new law.

White House officials were incensed when they received the letter. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley thought Goss�s memo was pure posturing�the CIA trying to cover its back in the event of future investigations. Hadley called the CIA director at home on Christmas Day and accused him of not being a �team player.� But Goss wouldn�t budge, and it became clear to officials in the White House that all of the hyperventilating at the CIA, Washington�s most paranoid institution, wasn�t going to subside unless something was done to calm the spies down.

The job fell to Andrew Card, President Bush�s chief of staff. Card drove out to Langley intending to soothe the fears at CIA headquarters, but� cqua his visit was a disaster. Inside a packed conference room, Card thanked the assembled CIA officers for their service and their hard work but refused to make any firm declarations that agency officers wouldn�t be criminally liable for participating in the detention-and-interrogation program.

The room became restless. Prodded by his chief of staff, Patrick Murray, Porter Goss interrupted Card.

�Can you assure these people that the politicians will not walk away from the people who carried out this program?� Goss asked. Card didn�t answer the question directly. Instead, he tried to crack a joke.

�Let me put it this way,� he said. �Every morning I knock on the door of the Oval Office, walk in, and say, �Pardon me, Mr. President.� And, of course, the only person the president can�t pardon is himself.�

Card giggled after he said this, but his joke landed with a thud. The White House chief of staff, when asked whether President Bush would protect CIA officers from legal scrutiny, had suggested that the most they might be able to rely on is a presidential pardon after the indictments and the convictions were handed down.

At the CIA, pardon jokes don�t go down well.

gfanikf posted:

Well I do recall that, because we are not at war with Pakistan, the ground forces (and others) of Neptune Spear were actually transferred to the CIA from the US military.

Which has always made me wonder how that is done in terms of benefits and paperwork.

you are correct

quote:

President Musharraf had given his blessing to drone strikes, but he still vehemently opposed American combat operations in the tribal areas. It was fine for things to �fall out of the sky,� but not for them to come marching over the border from Afghanistan. Trying to sell Musharraf on special-operations ground campaigns in places like North Waz� cikeiristan and Bajaur was, most people in Washington agreed, a hopeless endeavor.

The CIA proposed a solution. In order to get special-operations troops inside Pakistan, they would simply be turned over to the CIA and operate under Title 50 covert-action authority. Special-operations troops would be �sheep-dipped��the SEALs would become spies. Special-operations troops would be able to launch operations into Pakistan, and Musharraf would never be told. As one former CIA officer described the arrangement, the special-operations troops �basically became the CIA director�s armed platoon.� The exact same trick would be used six years later, when helicopters carrying teams of Navy SEALs took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and crossed the border into Pakistan for the raid that would kill Osama bin Laden. That night, the SEALs were under CIA authority, and CIA director Leon E. Panetta was technically in charge of the mission.

Waroduce fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Dec 12, 2014

# ? Dec 12, 2014 02:47

somewhatpathetic: Oct 21, 2012

ActusRhesus posted:

As for whether they were with CIA or DoD, that gets into a lot of the nuance of Tier one's org chart. Is complicated. And probably can't be expanded on here.

Gates' memoirs again, so take it with a grain of salt, but they tossed authorization over the Panetta in order to have the "fig leaf, granted a very small leaf" of deniability.

EDIT: Beat to it.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 03:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

nwin posted:

So regarding the whole CIA thing and interrogation tactics, I just watched a news report from the head of the CIA discussing why they did what they did and how they got positive results which led to catching Osama.

I'm not going to say Brennan's a liar or that you shouldn't trust him, since I'd guess if nothing else he has access to a lot more information than I do, but:
The Agency he is the head of just got publicly called out by the SSCI. He's not exactly going to hold a press conference and say, "Yup, we sure are a failure-prone clan of clownshoes anal fetishists." Part of his job is going to bat for the people that work for him.

quote:

Now, why was that report even released? Is there some limit on how long they can keep that private? I'm of the opinion we shouldn't be sharing our interrogation tactics because that could be used against us.

The thing is, all the techniques mentioned are mentioned in the context of their failure to generate useful leads. Nothing in there says, "Waterboarding was a bust, but sleep deprivation and rear end smoothies were super effective." It's just further confirmation that good interrogation is a matter of finesse and experience, rather than breaking fingers and hitting dudes with hoses.

Nothing the CIA did was especially novel either (ok, maybe the violent rectal dinners): mankind has been researching horrible ways of inflicting pain on each other ever since the first pastoral herder realized that bullwhips worked on more than just bulls. The records of the Inquisition, Witch trial histories, and the average POW memoir describe techniques for inflicting pain way beyond what the CIA did. That doesn't excuse the CIA, but the knowledge is out there already.

EDIT: loving :lol:

Way of the Knife posted:

�Can you assure these people that the politicians will not walk away from the people who carried out this program?� Goss asked. Card didn�t answer the question directly. Instead, he tried to crack a joke.

�Let me put it this way,� he said. �Every morning I knock on the door of the Oval Office, walk in, and say, �Pardon me, Mr. President.� And, of course, the only person the president can�t pardon is himself.�

Card giggled after he said this, but his joke landed with a thud. The White House chief of staff, when asked whether President Bush would protect CIA officers from legal scrutiny, had suggested that the most they might be able to rely on is a presidential pardon after the indictments and the convictions were handed down.

At the CIA, pardon jokes don�t go down well.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 12, 2014

# ? Dec 12, 2014 03:13

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

It's only a driving point from a moral perspective, not a legal one, as the fifth amendment also applies to non-citizens. The bigger question is "how do we define combat zone?" and "do we have the authorization to use force outside a combat zone?" (OK, so that's 2 questions.)

But (and I hate slippery slope arguments) if it's OK to whack an AQ propagandist in Yemen, how about an ELF blogger in Toronto? Johnson's logic makes no distinction between the two. It's basically "look, bitches, we can kill who we want. Don't question it. We're smarter."

I'm not sure how you can say it makes no distinction, it makes a very clear distinction. Unless you're trying to say Toronto is in a territory unserviceable by traditional judicial means because it's occupied by a group in a state of conflict with Canada, and you think we're in a state of armed conflict with the ELF

# ? Dec 12, 2014 03:14

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Jarmak posted:

I'm not sure how you can say it makes no distinction, it makes a very clear distinction. Unless you're trying to say Toronto is in a territory unserviceable by traditional judicial means because it's occupied by a group in a state of conflict with Canada, and you think we're in a state of armed conflict with the ELF

I was oversimplifying a bit, it's hard to really get into this on a forum without going tl;dr...but the definition of what is "unserviceable" was really spotty. There wasn't a clear definition of what is and is not serviceable. It didn't come down to the presence of a state of conflict, it came down to effectiveness/willingness of local law enforcement. The Al Anwaki thing is problematic because he was part of AQ, which was one of many parties in a major insurgency in Yemen, but not the same AQ that we included in the AUMF. AQAP was really a separate group with the AQ brand name. The memo really used the "unwillingness or inability of local law enforcement" as the basis, not a claim that we were actually at war in Yemen.

I think we'd all agree Canada has a functioning police force. Go Mounties.

But what if, for example, they refused to extradite someone because of our position on the death penalty? There's a lot in Johnson's logic that would seem to suggest we could send a drone into Toronto.

As to a state of armed conflict with ELF, no, we're not. But since we've started to address domestic terrorism as more of a war issue than a crime issue, how much poo poo does ELF have to blow up before they get declared hostile? The biggest problem I had with it was there was absolutely no acknowledgement of a need for transparency or oversight. It was all "we get to decide who is a terrorist. We get to decide if we want them dead. And we get to decide if we don't feel like working with local authorities. and we don't have to tell you how we came to those conclusions."

She shittiness of it all got ignored because everyone agrees Al-Anwaki is an rear end in a top hat. Interestingly, I had an officer student actually from Yemen in the class I was teaching when this all went down. Having to tell him "well, we just think your military and law enforcement are incompetent" was all kinds of fun.

Sorry, I'm getting all socratic/hypothetical/poo poo that could totally happen in theory but probably not in practice. It's the law professor coming out.

ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Dec 12, 2014

# ? Dec 12, 2014 03:27

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm not going to say Brennan's a liar or that you shouldn't trust him, since I'd guess if nothing else he has access to a lot more information than I do, but:
The Agency he is the head of just got publicly called out by the SSCI. He's not exactly going to hold a press conference and say, "Yup, we sure are a failure-prone clan of clownshoes anal fetishists." Part of his job is going to bat for the people that work for him.

lol yeah, Brennan is loving lying through his teeth just like every other member of the IC on this. If they had any direct examples where torture did a goddamn thing they would be crowing it from the rooftops. Instead we have the CIA's own history that states "well we tortured this guy, and he was sort of kind of involving with the planning of one out of a series of attacks that were allegedly in the planning, and none of the attacks happened, so torture works I guess? (Ignore the fact that the Pakistanis had enough intel to stop all the attacks from other (non-torture) sources well before we started torturing the guy)." Also a bunch of non-specific bloviating from IC officials about that one time that torture worked, just don't ask me for specifics, trust me on this.

This ranks right up there with Clapper's "no you guys, we don't intentionally spy on the American people, seriously" testimony to Congress--*is explicitly shown to have perjured himself from Snowden's documents*

Jarmak posted:

I'm not sure how you can say it makes no distinction, it makes a very clear distinction. Unless you're trying to say Toronto is in a territory unserviceable by traditional judicial means because it's occupied by a group in a state of conflict with Canada, and you think we're in a state of armed conflict with the ELF

The problem is (among others) the distinction you lay out regarding traditional judicial means is introduced, according to Johnson, solely at the executive's prerogative. According to Johnson's logic, if the executive decided that he/she wanted to broaden the scope of the drone strike envelope to include bloggers in countries that are friendly to the US, the executive would be totally allowed to do that because determining who is/isn't a valid target of ~~extrajudicial assassination~~ targeted killing is something that rests solely with the executive, no one else.

e:

Courthouse posted:

It's being released because it appears the people doing this stuff have been lying out their asses over what they were doing, and how well it worked, not only to media but to their own bosses. And much of it was made secret not to protect national security but to protect their own asses from having to take responsibility for breaking the law and general incompetence/disloyalty.

I never understood that last argument, "if we hold the government accountable for breaking the law, that will aid and comfort our enemies!"

Just a reminder: the CIA destroyed tapes of ~~torture~~ EIT sessions because they judged that, due to the content of the tapes, the heat from illegally destroying the tapes would be orders of magnitude less than the heat if the tapes got out. They did so knowing full well that they were acting in direct contravention of an executive order.

No one has yet been held accountable for this.

iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Dec 12, 2014

# ? Dec 12, 2014 03:35

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

I was oversimplifying a bit, it's hard to really get into this on a forum without going tl;dr...but the definition of what is "unserviceable" was really spotty. There wasn't a clear definition of what is and is not serviceable. It didn't come down to the presence of a state of conflict, it came down to effectiveness/willingness of local law enforcement. The Al Anwaki thing is problematic because he was part of AQ, which was one of many parties in a major insurgency in Yemen, but not the same AQ that we included in the AUMF. AQAP was really a separate group with the AQ brand name. The memo really used the "unwillingness or inability of local law enforcement" as the basis, not a claim that we were actually at war in Yemen.

I think we'd all agree Canada has a functioning police force. Go Mounties.

But what if, for example, they refused to extradite someone because of our position on the death penalty? There's a lot in Johnson's logic that would seem to suggest we could send a drone into Toronto.

As to a state of armed conflict with ELF, no, we're not. But since we've started to address domestic terrorism as more of a war issue than a crime issue, how much poo poo does ELF have to blow up before they get declared hostile? The biggest problem I had with it was there was absolutely no acknowledgement of a need for transparency or oversight. It was all "we get to decide who is a terrorist. We get to decide if we want them dead. And we get to decide if we don't feel like working with local authorities. and we don't have to tell you how we came to those conclusions."

She shittiness of it all got ignored because everyone agrees Al-Anwaki is an rear end in a top hat. Interestingly, I had an officer student actually from Yemen in the class I was teaching when this all went down. Having to tell him "well, we just think your military and law enforcement are incompetent" was all kinds of fun.

Sorry, I'm getting all socratic/hypothetical/poo poo that could totally happen in theory but probably not in practice. It's the law professor coming out.

I'm on my phone so I can't address this at the length I'd want to, but I think there is a key difference in play with the government of Yemen agreeing they can't judicially service the area because of the presence of armed conflict, and requesting our strikes as a result of it. There needs to be more work done to define the limits of this behavior but I think this one seems definitely in bounds and the justification reasonable. The existence of unaddressed edge cases does not invalidate the overall justification.

I honestly find it very reasonable compared to Yoo's poo poo, which seemed to be a combination of " it's not torture because we used different words" and " war powers, deal with it :chord:

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:08

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Jarmak posted:

I'm on my phone so I can't address this at the length I'd want to, but I think there is a key difference in play with the government of Yemen agreeing they can't judicially service the area because of the presence of armed conflict, and requesting our strikes as a result of it. There needs to be more work done to define the limits of this behavior but I think this one seems definitely in bounds and the justification reasonable. The existence of unaddressed edge cases does not invalidate the overall justification.

I honestly find it very reasonable compared to Yoo's poo poo, which seemed to be a combination of " it's not torture because we used different words" and " war powers, deal with it "

The problem though, is that we are creating boundary lines and limits based on the undeniable shittiness of Al Anwaki and the undeniable dysfunction of Yemen, but those boundaries aren't really all that clear in the Johnson memos. It seems like we're filling in the good faith blanks because "holy poo poo they can't actually mean we get to just kill people wherever because" when really, that's kind of exactly what the memo says, they just got away with it because they had such a lovely lovely poster child. No one cares that Al Anwaki is dead.

It's also problematic that in almost every speech he's given, he talks about the legality of targeted strikes during armed conflicts...but Obama explicitly rejected the concept of a "global war" on terror. It's really inconsistent.

ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 12, 2014

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:13

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

The problem though, is that we are creating boundary lines and limits based on the undeniable shittiness of Al Anwaki and the undeniable dysfunction of Yemen, but those boundaries aren't really all that clear in the Johnson memos. It seems like we're filling in the good faith blanks because "holy poo poo they can't actually mean we get to just kill people wherever because" when really, that's kind of exactly what the memo says, they just got away with it because they had such a lovely lovely poster child. No one cares that Al Anwaki is dead.

It wasn't just the shittyness of Al Anwaki, it was also the fact the situation in Yemen is a poster child for being judicially unservicable due to armed conflict.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:20

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Also I think the shadier area is the use of the AUMF to get involved in the Yemeni conflict, I think its very clear we're a party to hostilities there even if only as an ally of the Yemen government against the rebels. In that framework I think the justification makes a lot of sense.

Basically its not Johnson's justification of the strikes that bother me, its the fact that the executive has interrupted the AUMF to mean they can decide anywhere they declare is "terrorists" is a state of armed conflict.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:26

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Jarmak posted:

It wasn't just the shittyness of Al Anwaki, it was also the fact the situation in Yemen is a poster child for being judicially unservicable due to armed conflict.

That too. I see what you're saying.

But I also think the way the rationale was laid out has a whole lot of gray area, and the refusal to incorporate any sort of transparency or check is hugely problematic for me. I say this having friends who were probably involved in some of the targeting decisions. I know them. I trust them. There probably was a very rational and thoughtful analysis and review before they decided to get rid of Al Anwaki. (and I'm not sorry he's gone...the guy was an rear end in a top hat)

But the idea of a secret panel getting to decide when it's ok to kill someone...even when the panel is made up of people whose judgment I respect, is not really a system I want. If he were in a recognized theater of combat, all bets are off. Civilians participating in hostilities are fair game. But expanding beyond that really causes a lot of problems, IMO...especially for an Administration that has, and probably rightly so, rejected the concept of a global war. (at least when it suits them).

It's really a murky topic though as warfare is looking less and less like it did when a lot of the rules were written.

Is terrorism an act of war, or an international crime? What is a theater of combat? Who are we at war with? All questions that certainly complicate any analysis. But my biggest issue with Johnson is his "gently caress off, we don't have to tell you how we made our decisions. The king can do as he likes." attitude. (But I am probably also being a little overly hard on him because he really...REALLY was an rear end in a top hat.)

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:29

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Jarmak posted:

Basically its not Johnson's justification of the strikes that bother me, its the fact that the executive has interrupted the AUMF to mean they can decide anywhere they declare is "terrorists" is a state of armed conflict.

Yes. Also this.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:30

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

Yes. Also this.

I think we're actually largely in agreement but disagree about which exact mechanism is the main trouble point.

I'm of the mind that Johnson's justification is perfectly reasonable for a theater of combat, and I think Yemen is.

I just think the justification for it being a theater of combat we're actually party to is extremely tenuous. Though the fact they actively claim to be an AQ franchise makes it murky.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:37

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

it's extremely lovely all around and everyone's very uncomfortable about the legal ramifications of the WOT

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:38

tyler: Jun 2, 2014

This thread makes me feel really dumb sometimes.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:41

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Just as an FYI, most western Canadians would not complain too much if the U.S. were to drone strike Toronto a few (dozen) times.

Have at it!

# ? Dec 12, 2014 04:53

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

zombie303 posted:

This thread makes me feel really dumb sometimes.

I prefer it that way. Most of what I know about the law comes either secondhand or from Law & Order, it's nice to be out of my depth.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 05:02

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

I know a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvSx7-CTTl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEFB0ozhcUU

# ? Dec 12, 2014 05:17

Dr. Kyle Farnsworth: Apr 23, 2004

I lurk this thread because it's the only news thread on this forum I can stand to read and ActusRhesus is A Good Poster and shouldn't let the DnD clownshoes get to her.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 05:19

Lazy Reservist: Nov 30, 2005; FUBIJAR

The problem with the executive being able to issue military orders with impunity goes back to the post WWII era, when the US, acting on a UN resolution, entered a conflict without an actual declaration of war. Granted, Congress agreed to military appropriations, but it did not actually declare war. Instead, the military was sent in at the behest of the President. The only two warring parties were North and South Korea, but those who supported both sides (China and Russia, the US and the UK) never issued a formal declaration of war. This was somewhat similar to France's intervention in the American Revolution, but on a much larger scale.

Fast forward a decade after Korea. Again, the US found itself supporting a UN resolution to commit combat forces without a formal declaration of war. But this time, the public actually took notice. So when Congress passed the War Powers Act in 73, the thought was that they would limit the executive's ability to commit the military to a conflict. What they essentially did was write the executive a blank check to fight undeclared wars whenever and wherever. Name one instance where Congress has defunded military action in the last forty years. By passing the buck on to the executive, Congress absolves itself from being blamed for getting us into an unpopular war. All they have to do is point the finger at the President, yet when they continue to fund the conflict say they're doing it "for the troops." This is exactly what happened during Afghanistan and Iraq. The executive ordered military action, and Congress continued to vote to pay for it. So you get an undeclared war, where LOAC becomes a grey area. Who is an enemy combatant? Who is a Prisoner of War? Since the enemy isn't fighting on the part of a sovereign state, how do you deal with them?

Congress does have a power to appropriately deal with stateless actors, but it hasn't used it since the early 19th century: Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Essentially granting anyone the ability to purchase a "terrist huntin' license." This would be appropriate since non-state sponsored terrorist acts are criminal acts, and not actual acts of war. Hell, if we looked at the nationalities of the 9/11 perps, we would have gone to war with Saudi.

So, over the last sixty years, Congress, the ONLY branch with the Constitutional power to actually declare war, has handed the President unilateral power to use military force at will. And why is that? As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles, "We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!" If Congress voted to declare war on some piddly rear end country like Afghanistan or Iraq, and the conflict lasted as long as GWOT did, NOBODY who voted for it would still be in. But since the President decided to use military force, it's really THEIR war, and Congress only voted to fund it to support the troops. So the President gets the blame, while Congress keeps their seats and gets to talk tough about national security and supporting the military, which usually equals votes.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 05:33

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Lazy Reservist posted:

This is exactly what happened during Afghanistan and Iraq. The executive ordered military action, and Congress continued to vote to pay for it.

Well, there's the AUMF in the case of Afghanistan (which included language stating it constituted meeting the requirement under the WPR to gain Congressional permission) and the Iraq Resolution in the case of Iraq (which also contained similar language). Not a formal declaration of war, which I agree raises issues, but it was at least a vote that Congress passed, in both Houses, authorizing the use of military force.

Compare that with Libya, where the House said "we're not going to vote on whether we authorize the war, but we will vote to slap you on the wrist for ignoring the WPR," the Senate didn't do anything, and the Executive said "well that's cool but regardless I'm going to keep using force, nyah nyah nyah," and Iraq Part III/Syria, where the justification is the 9/11 AUMF...so an authorization explicitly authorizing force only 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" is being used to justify the use of force against an organization that didn't come into existence until a decade after September 11, 2001.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 06:01

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

To run with the Canada example, under the current legal rationale, would the Americans have been justified in acting against the FLQ during the October Crisis? Technically there was an armed terrorist group operating within Canada, beyond the abilities of the Canadian police to handle, because the War Measures Act was used. Since Canadian soldiers were employed domestically, and some civil liberties were suspended, does that mean that areas were unserviced by the Canadian state and the American government would be free to act?

# ? Dec 12, 2014 06:26

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

So in non torture/AUMF/legalese news...

ded posted:

I hope we get another government shutdown tonight.

lol...that was a little unexpected.

It'll be interesting to see if anyone in the Senate pitches a shitfit...Warren seems pretty fired up over the inclusion of the derivatives trading language.

# ? Dec 12, 2014 06:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 22:23

ded: Oct 27, 2005; Kooler than Jesus

A 2 day extension. Oh boy.

I really hope they gently caress everything again.

edit : oh wait the whole thing passed? ~heh~

# ? Dec 12, 2014 06:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Current Events Thread: Lifting the Bar off the Floor

«‹›62 »