Before you try and educate me.. let me help you.. US didn't declare war on anybody. They used a authorized use of military force (AUMF). Thus the US is not at war with anybody so rules of warfare don't apply and was the basis of the argument for detaining those captured without trial. So US hasn't declared war in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or even the Philippines. So by law it's not a War.
Before you try and educate me.. let me help you.. US didn't declare war on anybody. They used a authorized use of military force (AUMF). Thus the US is not at war with anybody so rules of warfare don't apply and was the basis of the argument for detaining those captured without trial. So US hasn't declared war in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or even the Philippines. So by law it's not a War.
Okay. So just to understand you VanceMack.. 9/11 victims were Casualties of War, correct? Then why the **** did they get money from the Government? September 11th Victim Compensation Fund was created to prevent victims from suing the airlines. But if it was considered an act of war then it the airlines couldn't have been sued as it was an "act of war".
Terrorism is a war which is equal to the War on Drugs. It's not a real war. No FORMAL declaration of war has never been passed by Congress. AUMF are used to subvert the law so Presidents and others can twist law in their own warped way to justify illegal spying, collection of data and assassinating Americans. Btw, you know how the Obama admin justified their "assassination" position? Using Israeli law. Not American law.
That presumes the US felt a need to inform or consult with the Israeli government.
Did the US administration inform the Pakistanis of this terrorist hideout and give them the opportunity to raid it themselves? While Pakistan is far from perfect allies, they have been fighting terrorist elements within their borders for years now. Or is the sovereignty of some nations irrelevant to America - might means right.
That presumes the US felt a need to inform or consult with the Israeli government.
Did the US administration inform the Pakistanis of this terrorist hideout and give them the opportunity to raid it themselves? While Pakistan is far from perfect allies, they have been fighting terrorist elements within their borders for years now. Or is the sovereignty of some nations irrelevant to America - might means right.
Eh? Cause you know how to police Gaza.
War doesn't need to be declared for the rules of warfare to be applied, this is your mistake here mate. A person who takes arms against his nation and poses an active threat to its safety or the safety of its citizens (e.g. a terrorist) can be killed at the spot. The US didn't need to formally declare war on Japan during the Pearl Harbor attack to be allowed to kill an American citizen who targets its bases along with the Japanese fellas.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. Under US law, it does. If no war is declared activities are considered criminal which means one has to be arrested. Period.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. Under US law, it does. If no war is declared activities are considered criminal which means one has to be arrested. Period.
Feel free to 'not' and be morally outraged.No, you can only be stripped of your rights by the court system. US Government has to bring you to trial and a trial has to take place to strip citizenship. You can voluntarily give up your citizenship but you can only do that overseas and in front U.S. consular officer. To even further explain.. Brandenburg v. Ohio (US Supreme Court) ruled that Free Speech extends to advocacy of violence and revolution against the State. Also the US Congress hasn't declared war either, but rather a AUMF. So from the start US has to filed charges and try them before anything. US hasn't bothered actually following the damn law.
So while you want to remain ignorant of the facts, throw away facts and accept assassination.. go ahead. But I will not.
This isn't an issue of sovereignty alone but also an issue of capability.
According to international law once it is proven that a sovereign nation cannot take care or is unwilling to take care of a threat posed by a citizen or organization based in the lands under its sovereignty then the nation that is being threatened by that citizen and/or organization has a right to "violate" the sovereign state's sovereignty and target the organization.
In the case of Israel it's obvious it is capable of taking care of such threats within its own territory, certainly in such a non-hostile place as the city of Haifa which is the third largest city in Israel. It's akin to the French police handling the attack on the kosher market in Paris. So you are still engaging in an hyperbole here since Pakistan is a completely different case.
He got at least part of that right.I hadn't realized the US was at war with Pakistan.
And it depends on who's involved in the terrorism. Obama seems to have no problem negotiating with the terrorists in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And don't forget arming the terrorists, or at least some of them, in Syria. But sending a drone over Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia is cool for the big man in the Oval Office, regardless of the fallout.
And who determines the issue of capability? Why couldn't the US simply say that the Israelis aren't capable in this case and we'd better use one of our drones to be sure? After all, Bibi and Barack aren't speaking. According to the principles you've been espousing, there would be nothing wrong with that scenario.
Would you condone the US sending a drone over Israeli territory to bomb a couple of terrorists hiding out in say Haifa - maybe a couple of Israeli citizens get vaporized in the process? No big deal, right?
Greetings, austrianecon. :2wave:
How does Israeli law differ from ours in this instance?
Past incidents are acting as evidence to Israel's capability.
Likewise, when Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 it was "violating" Lebanon's sovereignty, but it was justified because it was proven that Lebanon is unwilling to take care of the threat that Hezbollah posed to Israel. That's how international law determines capability and/or willingness. When one of these does not exist the threatened nation is more than welcomed to bomb the crap out of the threatening party. When they both exist it has no right to do so.
There is no possibility of such a scenario arising.
I might agree with you if terrorists had camps set up in Mexico or Canada with weapons trained on US locations. I wasn't aware that some terrorists in shacks in the mountains of Pakistan were a direct threat on US soil.
It doesn't anymore. Israel since the 1970s has had a policy of assassination. They like terms such as "targeted killing".
Not exactly. The terrorists are "unlawful combatants" as defined by the laws of war. Moreover, prisoners of war may be detained without trial for the duration of the conflict. In the case of this war, that could be several decades.
And we are copying that?
The moment a person joins a terror organization that targets a certain nation he poses an active threat to that nation until he leaves said organization or his organization renounces violence. The reason to it is that a person who is a member of a terror organization that actively targets members of a certain nation will conduct plans to target members of said nation, so even if a member of AQ hiding in Pakistan isn't currently attacking the United States that doesn't mean he isn't planning to do so and the assumption will always be that because he chose to become a member of the terror organization of al-Qaeda he will, at present or at one point, plan to target America and will be referred to as an active threat to the security of the United States as all members of al-Qaeda and other anti-American terror organizations are.
Good evening 2M - I'm simply speaking to the principles behind the actions.
Sending in special forces (for example in the case of Bin Laden) would appear to be more effective both in terms of getting the guy you intend to get and in terms of not killing scores of innocents in the process. It amazes me that neither of these seem to be a priority.
Good evening, CJ.:2wave:
Pakistan has proven itself unworthy of the trust we repose in Israel in these situations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?