Red-Light Rhetoric
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
And, of course, I think it is. But what strikes me about our present dialogue is that you don't seem to recognize—or, perhaps, care—that, fundamentally, I agree with you.
... you have this idea in the US that a person is innocent before proven guilty. I'm saying that you should try a guy at least before you kill him, you should show evidence before you call out a hit.
I agree. But there is a rhetorical construction, based in part on the Constitution itself (
Amendment V) and a post-9/11 statute that can be arranged such as to challenge the fundamental and underlying right.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Boldface accent added)
It's that boldface portion above that demarcates the constitutional consideration.
Indeed, the article Quadraphonics pointed you to considers a context attached to that. But let us go past the
Saletan article and look to one of the Slate author's sources,
John O. Brennan:
An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa'ida as being restricted solely to "hot" battlefields like Afghanistan. Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida, the United States takes the legal position that —in accordance with international law—we have the authority to take action against al-Qa'ida and its associated forces without doing a separate self-defense analysis each time. And as President Obama has stated on numerous occasions, we reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.
That does not mean we can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for a state's sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally—and on the way in which we can use force—in foreign territories.
Others in the international community—including some of our closest allies and partners—take a different view of the geographic scope of the conflict, limiting it only to the "hot" battlefields. As such, they argue that, outside of these two active theatres, the United States can only act in self-defense against al-Qa'ida when they are planning, engaging in, or threatening an armed attack against U.S. interests if it amounts to an "imminent" threat.
In practice, the U.S. approach to targeting in the conflict with al-Qa'ida is far more aligned with our allies' approach than many assume. This Administration's counterterrorism efforts outside of Afghanistan and Iraq are focused on those individuals who are a threat to the United States, whose removal would cause a significant – even if only temporary – disruption of the plans and capabilities of al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. Practically speaking, then, the question turns principally on how you define "imminence."
We are finding increasing recognition in the international community that a more flexible understanding of "imminence" may be appropriate when dealing with terrorist groups, in part because threats posed by non-state actors do not present themselves in the ways that evidenced imminence in more traditional conflicts. After all, al-Qa'ida does not follow a traditional command structure, wear uniforms, carry its arms openly, or mass its troops at the borders of the nations it attacks. Nonetheless, it possesses the demonstrated capability to strike with little notice and cause significant civilian or military casualties. Over time, an increasing number of our international counterterrorism partners have begun to recognize that the traditional conception of what constitutes an "imminent" attack should be broadened in light of the modern-day capabilities, techniques, and technological innovations of terrorist organizations.
The convergence of our legal views with those of our international partners matters. The effectiveness of our counterterrorism activities depends on the assistance and cooperation of our allies—who, in ways public and private, take great risks to aid us in this fight. But their participation must be consistent with their laws, including their interpretation of international law. Again, we will never abdicate the security of the United States to a foreign country or refrain from taking action when appropriate. But we cannot ignore the reality that cooperative counterterrorism activities are a key to our national defense. The more our views and our allies' views on these questions converge, without constraining our flexibility, the safer we will be as a country.
Now, regardless of whether you might think that all adds up to a snow job, these are fundamental considerations in the
legal questions surrounding the hit.
As to questions of morals and principles, I think—
I mean check it out, even you react to the pavlovian cue, all you had to hear was terrorist and you no longer question anything. You immediately assume he's guilty, they don't even have to show you any evidence.
—you've slipped into a mode where you're looking for a fight more than a resolution. That is, for all I might say about how—
• "there are a number of unsettling aspects", or,
• "If he was in Afghanistan, I would can all of my concerns for now", or,
• "Were I president, I would have very publicly asked Yemen to surrender the two American citizens I was after", or,
• "They were not on a reasonably defined battlefield. Indictment, extradition, and trial. That is the proper way", or,
• "I'm unsettled", or,
• "part of the operating theory going forward is that it was an act of war, but no, I don't like the lack of delineation", or,
• "It is a slow and harrowing transformation"
—you don't seem to care. Rather, you want to pick a fight—
"I'm not arguing freedom of speech, I'm arguing that the guy should have been brought back to the US to stand trial, he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts."
—and screw reading comprehension into the ground:
Tiassa: If Yemen said no? I don't know, maybe another Abbottabad, and then I could just say they resisted arrest. But, no, I'm not certain.
Mrs.Lucysnow: Resisted arrest? It was a drone attack!!!!
The only parts of my posts you appear to have read, Mrs.Lucysnow, are the parts you want to pitch a hissy-cow about.
"I do like the way you say 'if congress doesn't want to change things' as if this is a government body somehow divorced from you the citizen. I thought those boys were supposed to work for you? I thought they were supposed to represent you? You know, that dying carcass in the corner they call 'the democracy'. Anyway, isn't it up to you to demand these changes?"
Remember that? Apparently you didn't read the paragraph that went—
At some point, people will decide they've had enough. And if we're lucky, the American way in these issues is that we won't prosecute anyone, because it would be unfair to prosecute, say, the next president for what was reasonably legal and looked past in two prior administrations. But the American people will put their foot down insofar as they ever do, and the government will publicly separate itself from the practices through legislation and executive orders, but continue to assassinate suspects abroad through covert operations.
—or, perhaps, you simply ignored it in order to throw a stupid, hysterical fit.
You want people to take you seriously, madam? Then
fuck this stupid game you're playing. Get your head out and start treating people with at least some
pretense of respect. Don't cry about what's not there when the only reason you think it's not there is because
you missed it.
You want respect? Then don't run around screaming like a desperate harpy. I mean, sure, fuck-all, I'm sorry I can't agree with you entirely about everything you say; and, yes, I like a good tussle and row sometimes, too. But you seem so desperate for it you might as well go sell it on the streetcorner, a red-light version of a Monty Python sketch°. And that's fine; it's
your business. But if that's how you present yourself, then yeah, you're pretty much the rhetorical equivalent of a quick, dirty throw in an hourly-rate motel.
And, yeah, just like real whores, sometimes people want something a bit more classy than sticky skin that reeks of bourbon and meth, at least a shade more intelligent than a spent condom in the gutter.
The world ain't as simple as any of us want it to be. But that doesn't make everyone who disagrees with you dogs.
____________________
Notes:
° a red-light version of a Monty Python sketch — And you can even say, "Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12, just down the corridor."
Works Cited:
The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 4, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
Saletan, William. "Drones Are Death Warrants". Slate. October 3, 2011. Slate.com. October 4, 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_strikes_on_u_s_citizens_due_process_wo.html
Brenan, John O. "Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws". Harvard Law School. September 16, 2011. WhiteHouse.gov. October 4, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ngthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an