I'm going to beat Unseen to this one!
So Eric Holder in a recent Congressional hearing has left the door open to preforming a drone strike against terrorists on American soil in an "extraordinary circumstance."
"Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect 'sitting at a cafe' if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
'No,' Holder replied."
Given the fact that there are people out there who want to kill us, who want to die for their cause, and who label themselves as an enemy to America, do you think that they Attorney General makes a valid point? Might there be some circumstance where a drone strike is the best option to prevent even more loss of life including that of law enforcement? Is he just plain wrong and this can't be permitted at all? As Senator Paul is now filibustering on the Senate floor and making the point, is there zero room for a lethal military/law enforcement drone strike on an individual? Might there still be a comparison with the use of lethal force by a police officer to a person that is known to be armed, dangerous, and looking to kill?
Well, you see, back in 2001 there was an attack on the US, which then went on to invoke Article V of the Washington treatment. The government of Afghanistan subsequently refused to hand over those accused of the attack, upon which time war was declared.
While you obviously want to separate populations from their governments, that's not technically feasible, notwithstanding liberal interventionist doctrine propaganda to the contrary. The only time it's been even remotely successful was Libya, with "only" a thousand or so killed.
Back in 2001, how many of the hijackers were Afghans?
Zero, but that is besides the point. They were trained in Afghanistan and their backers received shelter from the Afghan government.
It's the same as asking why the US would attack France in WW2.
Most of the hijackers were Saudis. The money that funded them came from Saudi Arabia, and was routed through Germany. They trained in Afghanistan, Europe, and the United States. The Afghan government was willing to turn over OBL if evidence was supplied of his guilt; no evidence was ever supplied.
The large scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (among others) are the result of incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance. Technology isn't the problem; tools have no intent. It's the shoot first, cowboy mentality of the people using them that has been causing our problems for some time now.
I tried to help ya but I can't, maybe Obfuskation can.
Where the hijackers are from is irrelevant. Where they trained is relevant only as far as official sanctioning of the training for the purpose of terror acts. And why on earth would the US turn over evidence to the Taliban? Firstly the US didn't recognize them, secondly the Taliban was already in violation of UNSC resolutions.
I would prefer that all current and future wars be mandatorily fought with swords and bow and arrow. Perhaps it wouldn't be nearly as popular in resolving conflict.
Even more effective would be to induct all of our legislators into the armed forces with the assurance that any war they vote in favor of would put them out on the front lines.
Seeing a few legislators coming home in coffins might tone down their rhetoric quite a bit.
Now you're talking.
Perhaps we should go back to the days where you went out onto the field of battle with a sword and hacked at each other as if we were sides of pork hanging from a hook in an abattoir. Drones are used to deliver the goods in a relatively focused way. One can kill a target, taking out relatively few innocents with a drone vs. using a thermobaric bomb or block buster dropped from a B52. One could be more surgical by sending in a Seal team as we did to kill Bin Laden, but that risks valuable soldiers' lives and not every target has a high enough value to justify such a strike. It's not the President's job to risk American lives unnecessarily. Quite the opposite.
Without the exposure to the horrors of war, We may not try to resist, and have a complacency in war.
Reminds me of the inverse of Santayana's famous quote, the inverse being "If we don't repeat history, we are condemned to forgetting it."
@ Blaine Leavitt, Great episode!