Comments on: Wright: Assassinations Strengthen Religious Terrorist Groups

By: ¿Matar a terroristas es útil? | Obamaworld

¿Matar a terroristas es útil? | Obamaworld — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:10:41 +0000

[...] Aquí distinguen, a la hora de matar al líder, entre organizaciones y movimientos. Al Qaeda sería una organización. Los talibanes, un movimiento. (En este artículo, el corresponsal del New York Times en África del este dice precisamente que las organizaciones criminales en muchos países de África dependen de su jefe; sin él, desaparecen.) La adivinanza es saber en qué momento funciona el asesinato del cabecilla. [...]

By: MonsieurGonzo

MonsieurGonzo — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:16:14 +0000

imho, The problem for NATO-American leaders is: by what metric(s) do they measure "success" = the benefits -vs- the costs in blood and treasure of their military occupation of Afghanistan? Most sanguine analysts would agree that the death -from- above drone & special op ground assassination programmes don't really make the West's occupation troops Over There (or their own, civilian populations Over Here) any "more safe" = success ~ the metric rhetoric is hollow, without any real meaning ~ indeed, as the great Russian General Zhukov pointed out as the principle reason for his victory over the supposedly invincible Germans : great soldiers are more than mere assassins. again, imho, By adopting "assassination" without moral hazard as a military means (to an indeterminate political end) all the NATO-American leaders have succeeded in doing is having their enemies (and their modus operandi) become their teachers.

By: parrhesia

parrhesia — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:26 +0000

You miss a vital option that would achieve your outcome. If the USA accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and all the other international law bodies it hasn’t recognised, America will find it much easier to obtain international cooperation to go after people like Awlaki, and it will gain additional mechanisms by which to prosecute them. The humiliation foreign governments experience for being seen as America’s puppet when opposing terrorists will be diminished, so other nations will be more likely to exercise their universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity to prosecute terrorists or hand them over to the tribunals.
The respect that the USA would get for this simply cannot be understated, although I doubt a majority of Americans would go for it once Fox goes berserk. Its true that many, many claims will be brought against America, but it will do as much to take America off the Imperial path as anything else, and think American democracy will be much better for it. I think it would make Obama worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize, and force a revolution in the way America conducts war, if it continues to conduct it at all.

By: Peter Attwood

Peter Attwood — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:41:10 +0000

Obama’s assassination program, if wish to speak of “outcome-justified process,” is, as Juan explained, not justified by the outcome. People suffering the consequences are responding as Americans would to an invader killing people in their neighborhoods at random from the sky, especially if their children were often being killed as they played in the street – except that all those fanatics that “hate us for our freedoms” are considerably more patient and understanding under this abuse than Americans are.

The American who think the 9/11 hijackers were the worst people in the world are perfectly content to act the same way all over the world, justifying their actions and their equal contempt for the lives of the innocent using the same “outcome-justified” rationalizations that the 9/11 hijackers did. The difference is that the 9/11 hijacker mentality is generally abhorred in the rest of the world, including the Muslim world, whereas it is national policy and the public consensus in the United States.

I look forward to American Christians, in particular, giving some attention to what Jesus had to say about the speck in the eyes of the Taliban and the log in their own, but I’m not holding my breath.

By: hamite360

hamite360 — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:35:00 +0000

@ Jude

“but, given an appreciation for the motivation of those in question (ie. Awlaki) …”

What is Alwaki’s motivation? How do you know?

At any rate, if criticising, even urging violent overthrow of the US government by its citizens has become a crime (wasn’t last time I looked) necessitating ‘outcome based justice’, the backwoods of Montana etc could be crawling with outcomes waiting to happen, if you know what I mean.

By: Jude

Jude — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:10:06 +0000

“If al-Awlaki is guilty of a crime, he should be brought to justice if possible, and tried, even in absentia. Yemeni authorities should arrest him and extradite him on that basis.”
It is unclear if this is the author’s opinion or that of the reviewer. Nevertheless, it assumes an efficacy of the international legal system that is dubious at best. If justifiability of action consists of process alone, regardless of effect, then by all means, follow current legal standards and proceed with encouragement of local incarceration, extradition, etc. But if desired outcome has any influence upon process, then targeted assassinations must be considered a viable option.
The only argument for domestic trial in absentia is for a charge of treason (see US Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381). However, the efficacy of a conviction and death sentence is mitigated by the inability of extradition.
Understandably, many may bristle at outcome-justified processes, but, given an appreciation for the motivation of those in question (ie. Awlaki) and for the lack of opportunity for incarceration/rehabilitation, that indicates a problem with the system, not a problem with the outcome.

By: Helen Marshall

Helen Marshall — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:30:13 +0000

I’ve just read the comments on the Wright article and they provide a disturbing picture of a society where a substantial percentage of the presumably well-educated persons (Times readers) who should have some idea of the Constitution and the notion that government-authorized assassinations are antithetic to it apparently have no difficulty at all in accepting the idea that such assassinations are OK. And sadly not a single member of the administration has tendered his or her resignation over the matter. If we keep this up we will indeed be fighting a “War” forever – and we will no longer be a society living under the Rule of Law. What happened to the country I used to think I lived in?

By: Travis Bickle

Travis Bickle — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:24:53 +0000

Of course there is enormous truth in what you’re saying, the problem being the mindset that might listen with a relative open-mind to your/her arguement, and to recognize when they are dealing with a social movement.

Not so much cynically, but as simple observations: 1) people hear what they want to hear, and 2) people tend to achieve power in organizations through enormous focus on the acquisition of power and their own importance.

Hence, the mere thought there is NOT some other Big-Cheese out there pulling the levers, as they themselves do, does not square with experience: they have always had and will always have rival personalities to contend with. They are not inclined to either see or give much thought to leadership arising spontaneous from Little People, who you would argue are essentially motivating themselves. After all, how could that possibly be? To accept this perpspective would invalidate their worldview and diminish their extraordinary sense of self-importance (which is often rather tender point to begin with).