We didn't kill Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan because they were Americans. We killed them because they were terrorists.
This wasn't a case of the President of the United States killing a criminal in lieu of a trial. These were enemy combatants. You kill your enemies, you don't bring them to trial.
Yet that is what you are arguing for if you oppose targeted assassinations or military trials. Unless, of course, you are arguing that the US should do nothing about jihadi terrorism, even when that terrorism is directly targeted against the United States.
Before 9/11 the policy of the US was to treat terrorists as criminals. After the USS Cole and African embassy bombings, President Clinton sent in the FBI to investigate.
Yeah, that did a lot of good. 9/11 was an outgrowth of that policy position.
So, if you want to go back to that model then, by all means, keep advocating for an end to drone strikes and military commissions.
Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people, get it?") discerned a counter-terrorism lesson from Norway's recent experience.
Money quote(s):
"The jihadis exploit our Constitution against us. So it's no surprise that a right-wing psychopath would exploit lefty anti-gun hysteria to further his irrational and evil plans"
It's basic Sun Tzu, after all, to avoid strength and attack weakness. And having a disarmed populace (including police) has to go into the "Weakness" column.
"We have much more gun violence here, but an atrocity of this scale is unthinkable in the US. Even if there were no feckless and unarmed police around had this asshole tried this anywhere in my neck of the woods he would have found a well armed citizenry ready to protect themselves and their children."
Just so.
7/25
Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people. Get it?") reacted strongly (and negatively) to reports of an official apology.
Money quote(s):
"I'm not sure if I should be laughing at this or getting really, really pissed off.
On the one hand, we pay the State Department to lie. And, if saying you're sorry for killing a terrorist isn't a lie, then I don't know what is!"Money quote(s):
"From an academic point of view the distinction between targeting civilians and those in the military is important."
In the realm of warfare, the distinction is critical, since targeting civilians can be a war crime.
(Note: Combatants who do not wear uniforms are not necessarily civilians, which also touches on the subject of war crimes.)
"Perhaps the distinction is important only because the most apt description of these 'homegrown terrorists' has fallen out of use, mostly for PC reasons.
In the past we didn't call them terrorists, we just called them traitors." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
One popular terrorist activity of the 1970s was the hijacking of passenger aircraft. This is still termed, occasionally, "air piracy."
Let's go down that road. If terrorist hijackers are air pirates, perhaps other terrorist activities are better classified as modern-day versions of the age-old phenomena of piracy, banditry, and brigandage?
The common thread here? Terrorists, by their acts and their nature, place themselves outside the normal course and protection of civilized law, as pirates, bandits, and brigands always have done.
They should be dealt with accordingly.
Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D at The Jawa Report ("Sand people, get it?") reports a common-sense data point from The Great White North.
Money quote(s):
"(B)efore we get the usual "stop all Muslim immigration", let me ask you what we should do with the thousands of Muslims who fought alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan who's families are threatened in their home countries?
Should we just hang them out to dry? Or might it not be a good idea to help them immigrate to the US, where they might be able to continue to help us?
As one Iraq vet once told me about a Muslim who he helped immigrate to the US, "He risked his life for me. What have you ever done?""
12/12
Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report ("Jawas? You know, sandpeople.") re-posted the entire Travel Warning, but asks:
"(W)hat I really think is on all our minds is this question: What kind of idiot takes a vacation to Pakistan, anyway?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Just to be clear, can you imagine the kerfuffle if State didn't issue a Travel Warning for Pakistan?
Money quote(s):
"Can you imagine the reaction from the European and American Left had this been a Taliban insurgent who was murdered at the hands of our soldiers? Not only would there be widespread protest, but our military would do the right thing and treat those responsible as criminals." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Our "right thing" and their (the Taliban's) "right thing" are two different.... things. Ours is based on a centuries of law of warfare which had quite different aims than that based on the koran.
"(T)here is a difference between us and them. We're the good guys. They are simply evil." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
&
"They captured him alive and murdered him in cold blood.
I get the arguments for abandoning Afghanistan based on the notion that the country and its people are just so backwards that there is nothing that really can be done. I also get the argument that if we don't send at least another 100k troops more than Obama's "surge" then there's really no point. I think these are legitimate arguments."
