Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is really happening in Ukraine

slideshare.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 324 posts

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#301

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #299
tptacek wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war against al Qaeda was a declared war. al Qaeda is specifically called out in the 2001 AUMF. Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians. And, we killed Americans fighting for the Nazis during WW2.

I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of…

These aren't meaningful rebuttals.

The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War.

It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, but unfortunately, that's all it is. We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001, and because al Qaeda is a brand name and not a nation state, at war we will remain until Congress repeals the AUMF.

The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis. We didn't read them their rights before we killed them. American citizenship did not shield them from the consequences of armed conflict. If al-Awlaki wanted to prosecute his cause using the mechanisms of due process, it was a decidedly stupid idea for him to take up residence in territory controlled by AQAP, where the only reasonable mechanism the US had available to it to stop him from killing innocent civilians was an airstrike.

Also, you're wrong about the President's authorization to kill whomever he labels a "terrorist". The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11. The President cannot authorize airstrikes against, say, Basque separatists, or the Tamil Tigers.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#302

Post by D9u »

tptacek wrote: post #301
nate_meurer wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of…

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

JSOC answers directly to the POTUS, and acts outside the normal channels of the US military.

So, yes, the POTUS can, and does, decide who JSOC will be going after next.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#303

Post by tptacek »

D9u wrote: post #302
tptacek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

JSOC answers directly to the POTUS, and acts outside the normal channels of the US military. So, yes, the POTUS can, and does, decide who JSOC will be going after next.

That's an irrelevant detail; the distinction between "JSOC" (when it's JSOC doing the dirty work) and POTUS isn't at issue. The issue is that the entire Executive Branch is limited in who it can target.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#304

Post by nate_meurer »

tptacek wrote: post #301
nate_meurer wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of…

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

>"The AUMF was a declaration of war. "

I'm not really disputing that. I'm saying that using the AUMF to draw comparisons to WW2 is not helpful.

>"The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis."

Yes, in uniforms, on the battlefield. We didn't, as far as I know, bomb a dude writing anti-american propaganda in a city far from the battlefield. This whole WW2 analogy of yours is really tortured, and I feel foolish even arguing about it.

>"The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11."

Not according to the current president. I'll let Eric Holder speak here:

It is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces.

This is from his speech at Northwestern, wherein he uses the phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" five times.

Guess who gets to decide what "associated" and "operational leader" mean.

I'm frustrated that I have to spell it out like this. This administration has made it perfectly clear that if you're an American citizen abroad, the president can have you killed based on an evaluation that he alone can make. The customary checks of the judicial branch can be waved at will if the president can link you to AQ in some way. Apparently, moving to Yemen and claiming to be a leader in AQ in some shitty youtube videos counts. The bar will possibly be lower in future administrations. Or not. The point is that the process is completely opaque and unchecked.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#305

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #304
tptacek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

>"The AUMF was a declaration of war. " I'm not really disputing that. I'm saying that using the AUMF to draw comparisons to WW2 is not helpful. >"The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis." Yes, in uniforms, on the battlefield. We didn't, as far as I know, bomb a dude writing anti-american propaganda in a city far from the battlefield. T…

I don't understand your argument. If an American citizen wears a Nazi uniform while fighting for the Germans in Holland, it's OK that we kill him. But if an American citizen wears the garb of an al Qaeda terrorist while working for al Qaeda in lawless Shabwa Province, Yemen, the site of an ongoing armed conflict between AQAP and the government of Yemen, it's not OK that we kill him. Why not? What's the difference?

In reality, the guy in Shabwa is far, far more dangerous than the random lunatic fighting with the Nazis was in Holland. The lunatic wasn't about to coordinate the bombing of a commercial airliner filled with innocent people. But that's exactly what al-Awlaki was doing.

Meanwhile, your Holder quote doesn't rebut my argument. Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda. You made a broader claim, the administration can designate people "terrorists" and kill them. You were incorrect. They cannot do that.

You also drastically oversimplify the charges against al-Awlaki. He wasn't designated a leader of al Qaeda because of "shitty Youtube videos", nor was he killed simply because he wrote articles advocating for al Qaeda. Similarly, Osama bin Laden wasn't targeted because he himself bombed an embassy in Tanzania, blew a giant hole in the USS Cole, or stabbed someone on an airplane with a box cutter.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #301
nate_meurer wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of…

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

> We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001

No, we didn't. There are no named persons or organizations in the 2001 AUMF, it is literally a blank-check declaration of war that authorizes the President to write in names. Which is one of the many reasons that people (including Barack Obama -- as President -- have said it needs to be sunsetted.)

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#307

Post by nate_meurer »

rayiner wrote: post #280
nate_meurer wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last few sentences have me very confused. >"at least its encapsulated: you're in a war zone..." Yemen is not a war zone in any sense of the word. There is no declared war on Yemeni soil. You could call it a "conflict zone", a term that could be applied to the vast majority of the developing world. >"...a place without functioning rule of law, and pose a military threat, you're fair game." According to John Yoo a…

> Yemen is not a war zone in any sense of the word. There is no declared war on Yemeni soil. You could call it a "conflict zone", a term that could be applied to the vast majority of the developing world. I don't understand this preoccupation with "declared wars." Who cares what you call it? The government simply does not have control over vast swaths of Yemen, and militant groups unaligned with the government are us…

You have faithfully channeled John Yoo, articulating the case for U.S. military action directed solely by the president, wherever and whenever he perceives a threat to Americans or American interests. It's bizarre to me that the failures of the Bush administration seem to have done little to damp the enthusiasm for this kind of thinking. You'll note, for example, the growing calls from various government officials to add drug cartels to the official list of terrorist organizations. Presumably to justify increased militarization of the War on Drugs.

I actually like John Yoo. I disagree with him, but I find no fault with those who don't. But I think it would be intellectually honest for you to admit that you've aligned yourself with a very contentious neo-conservative strain of political philosophy.

To be clear, I don't pretend to have any good answers here. I think I agree with you about trials in absentia. I don't agree that handing all the keys to whomever occupies the oval office is the best solution.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#308

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #306
tptacek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

> We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001 No, we didn't. There are no named persons or organizations in the 2001 AUMF, it is literally a blank-check declaration of war that authorizes the President to write in names. Which is one of the many reasons that people (including Barack Obama -- as President -- have said it needs to be sunsetted.)

You're right, of course; it's not the 2001 AUMF that specifies al Qaeda by name, but rather the 2012 NDAA.

The 2001 AUMF authorized force against people and organizations "he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Which is al Qaeda and the Taliban, but yes, not by name!

And yes, of course, the 2001 AUMF is awful.

But to 'nate_meurer's point: the President does not have the authority to kill people simply because he has determined that they are terrorists. Nor does he consistently have the authority to kill people that are determined to be in al Qaeda; for instance, if they're on American soil and not actively engaging in violence, Holder has testified under oath that their killing would be unconstitutional.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#309

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #307
rayiner wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yemen is not a war zone in any sense of the word. There is no declared war on Yemeni soil. You could call it a "conflict zone", a term that could be applied to the vast majority of the developing world. I don't understand this preoccupation with "declared wars." Who cares what you call it? The government simply does not have control over vast swaths of Yemen, and militant groups unaligned with the government are us…

You have faithfully channeled John Yoo, articulating the case for U.S. military action directed solely by the president, wherever and whenever he perceives a threat to Americans or American interests. It's bizarre to me that the failures of the Bush administration seem to have done little to damp the enthusiasm for this kind of thinking. You'll note, for example, the growing calls from various government officials to…

He's not channeling John Yoo. The President is acting under the express authorization of Congress, which authorization could be withdrawn, and with it the President's ability to drone strike people simply because they are on hostile soil working with al Qaeda. John Yoo's view of the authority of the "unitary executive" is far more expansive.

Of course, what you're actually doing here is invoking a bugbear (John Yoo is also notorious for conjuring quasi-legal justifications for abhorrent interrogation policies, including torture) to avoid engaging with what 'rayiner is actually saying.

Re: What is really happening in Ukraine

#310

Post by belorn »

tptacek wrote: post #301
nate_meurer wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of…

These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, b…

How can you have a war without a clear definition on who the enemy is, what goals the war has, and at what point victory can be declared. Perpetual hostile activity is not a war, its a order of existence similar to that of an religion.

The time when the US declare peace will not be because of dead terrorists. It won't be because somewhere its more safer. It won't be because some goals has been achieved. It will be because sooner or later, people will get tired of war.

I can say this with 100% certainty based on a concept made two thousand years ago:

  The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the
  formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy
  cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."
  -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", Datalinks
So long the conflict itself remains formless, there will be no way to actually fight it and end it.
Post reply on HN