[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Sorry to burst your bubble of outrage Nadia but the successful elimination of these Al Qaeda terrorists couldn’t violate the basic rules of sovereignty since Yemen is the sovereign and is obviously working and/or cooperating with and/or approving of the US actions.
[/QUOTE]
i doubt Yemen possessed much choice regarding whether or not to "approve" of the US actions. You're either with us or against us, remember? God Forbid any country should declare that it is neither with the US and nor with the terrorists. That would be akin to harboring bin Laden, i suppose.
Strange - or perhaps not, by now - how targeted killings, in the absence of providing any evidence to a second party, has become the sole domain of the US govt. Wonder how the US would feel if Pakistan decided they wanted to go and kill some "terrorists" residing in, say, the US?
I agree with Nadia (about the 'due process' part, but not the Sovereignty part), this type of pre-meditated murders will only come back to haunt them some day. It’s true that Yemen is a partner in War on Terror but CIA should not have power to kill (apparently without Bush knowing about it), because the resolution adopted on 9/13 gives CIA authority to assassinate people. It is going to be counter-productive. No one entity should ever have this much power.
I am glad that the terrorist were killed, but they should have been killed either in a combat with soldiers, or at a minimum by the Soldiers, and not by CIA drone. CM, in economics it is called comparative disadvantage. I thought you might like to know that.
i doubt Yemen possessed much choice regarding whether or not to "approve" of the US actions. You're either with us or against us, remember? God Forbid any country should declare that it is neither with the US and nor with the terrorists. That would be akin to harboring bin Laden, i suppose.
Strange - or perhaps not, by now - how targeted killings, in the absence of providing any evidence to a second party, has become the sole domain of the US govt. Wonder how the US would feel if Pakistan decided they wanted to go and kill some "terrorists" residing in, say, the US?
[/QUOTE]
Yemen did have a choice. It obviously see the terrorists in the same light as we do. God should forbid any country that declares itself on the side of the terrorists. That's the whole point.
How do you know the yemenis weren't aware of what was taking place (re: evidence), if you have an issue raise it with the yemenis.
I have to admit that the tactic leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I would probably have made the decision to strike if I had this guy in my sights.
Absolutely the best thing about this is how it effectively "terrorizes the terrorists." I can imagine them scurrying from place to place to avoid being out in the open - just like the cockroaches they are.
The other tactic is to to use Raid. Sure it's a bit toxic but gets the job done :)
Drawing a parallel..would Camp X-ray be referred to as the Roach Motel. "Roches check in but they don't check out" hahahahah
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Wonder how the US would feel if Pakistan decided they wanted to go and kill some "terrorists" residing in, say, the US?
[/QUOTE]
If Pak had our prior approval and consent like we had from the Yemeni government, I think we'd welcome it. Mushy would probably be elected Senate Majority Leader if he took out our Beltway Sniper.
By the way, you seem to be one of the only people anywhere in the world who doesn't seem to recognize Qaed Senyan al-Harthi as one real bad dude and a high chieftan of Al Qaeda. Let's start the discussion from the known facts: we got the right guy and he was well deserving of his fate. I guess you believe it would have been the honorable thing to do to let him disappear and kill a lot more people in another terrorist attack if we couldn't arrest him, read him his Miranda rights and give him a trial by jury.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *If Pak had our prior approval and consent like we had from the Yemeni government, I think we'd welcome it.
[/quote]
MyVoice, Rather than seeking "approval and consent", what if Pakistan pressured the US to let it have its way? IMF loans, tied-aid etc etc. Let's not forget what happened to little old Yemen back in 1991 when it dared to vote against the US Resolution to invade Iraq - "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast" were the words of a senior American diplomat to the Yemeni Ambassador. Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to Yemen, one of the world's poorest countries, was stopped, the country found itself suddenly experiencing problems with the World Bank and the IMF, and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. Approval and consent sounds nice in theory, not always implemented by the US admin.
*I guess you believe it would have been the honorable thing to do to let him disappear and kill a lot more people in another terrorist attack if we couldn't arrest him, read him his Miranda rights and give him a trial by jury. *
Please don't put words in my mouth. All i mean is that, if they were indeed the "right guys", then go get them according to the same methods you demand of others - due trial. If the evidence is irrefutable, then the trial should be a snap, right? Why dictate one policy to others and reserve a separate one for yourselves? THIS is what is maddeningly frustrating.
"Once the al-Qaeda assassination team was spotted headed for their attack on the American ambassador, the American CIA commander in Yemen gave the order to strike. "
Nadia ji - 800 000 Yemen workers were expelled from Saudi - Why are you blaming US for that ??
Last I knew US had a law prohibiting state agencies from assassinating people in foreign lands. Ofcourse, US can term this assassination as part of the ongoing 'war'.
I don't know anything about this Al Qaida dude, and maybe he deserved to die anyway, but using a drone aircraft, controlled from an island away from Yemen does not exactly suggest that Yemenis are "fully cooperating".
Thousands were killed in WTC on Sep 11, 2001, without any prior warning. Allegedly this act was masterminded by Al Qaida. That was an act of terrorism. US did the same in Yemen when they fired a Hellfire missile on a civilian car, without any due process of law or prior warning or even declaring a war in the state of Yemen. So, going by the same logic, there is no difference between the two. Ofcourse, if the US government had arrested this person and tried him in a court of law, they would have distinguished themselves from a terrorist organization. They chose not to do that. Thats remarkable.
Lack of Intelligence
There was also a US citizen in this car who was killed. While the passport of a person is no guarantee that he is or is not a terrorist, but the statement from US State Department today is even more striking (I heard it in the news on radio). They said "we had no knowledge he was in the car". If that was the level of intelligence US authorities had when they decided to blow up this car, I suspect ChannMahi's post above assumes new perspective in this attack.
oh come on. So that gives the right to every governmental official in the world who feels his life his being threatened, the right to take unilateral action against those who are threatening him? No it doesn’t. Using the above argument, one might argue that Saddam Hussein - who has received plenty of threats against his life from the US admin. - has the right to take out whomever he wants from Bush’s party. Doesn’t work that way. Judicial process.
Nadia, I think it's upto Yemen to decide and they have obviously decided to let drones monitor their air space.
Now if someone complains that it's not out of their own free will but their arms were twisted to get this approval then... tough luck!
When you are an inept government with no control over terrorist elements within your own borders, do not have a strong military nor are economically self reliant, you will be pressured into doing things you don't like. Don't like it?? well Shape Up or Ship Out. (I have a punjabi muhavara involving kheeras which may be inappropriate for the audience, barring NYA of course)
The right to deny cooperation is for those who are stronger and more sovereign, like China or Russia or France.. even the likes of Iran or NK who are headstrong and have decided not to bown down to pressure.... not corrupt Arab regimes like Yemen, or Kuwait etc.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Nadia, I think it's upto Yemen to decide and they have obviously decided to let drones monitor their air space.
[/QUOTE]
Total rubbish! Wish country lets its air space monitor by drones?!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *The right to deny cooperation is for those who are stronger...
[/QUOTE]
Pakistani Abroad, well alright then. Why not in essence just state in a simple manner that there should be in existence two separate sets of laws - one for the superpowers, and one for the other stupid countries that lack power.
Unfortunately, for you, none of these terrorists from Bronx, Harlem and other Cool places of America are flying planes into building or even planning for them. Their activities are limited to the residents of Bronx, Harlem etc.
[/QUOTE]
Aha that's why most of the kamikazees where studying in America and at Universities of America! Also a proven fact that ever terrorist has no job, is short of money and lives in streets of Arabia! AND OF COURSE a fundamentalist muslim as ATTA was!
If Pak had our prior approval and consent like we had from the Yemeni government, I think we'd welcome it. Mushy would probably be elected Senate Majority Leader if he took out our Beltway Sniper.
By the way, you seem to be one of the only people anywhere in the world who doesn't seem to recognize Qaed Senyan al-Harthi as one real bad dude and a high chieftan of Al Qaeda. Let's start the discussion from the known facts: we got the right guy and he was well deserving of his fate. I guess you believe it would have been the honorable thing to do to let him disappear and kill a lot more people in another terrorist attack if we couldn't arrest him, read him his Miranda rights and give him a trial by jury.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree that Yemen was ready to let it's air space monitor neither would that ever happen. No one does that and Yemen can't be an exception, only if.....................we know that all better I guess!
Nadia:
Whether or not Yemen approved, consented and/or cooperated in the US action because they didn't want to lose US aid, supplies, food, medicine, etc. makes no difference at all in determining whether sovereignity was violated. You claimed the US violated Yemen's sovereignity. It did not. Whether or not you like the way the US got approval is a whole different issue.
Finally, the fact that a trial would be a "snap" entirely begs the point. If you can't catch someone to bring him to trial, the proof means nothing. What is "maddeningly frustrating" is that you seem to think that terrorists whose objective is to kill Americans wherever they are and attack American interests wherever they are located and WITH WHOM WE ARE AT WAR are entitled to a fair fight and the protections of the laws and legal system we have established that they do not honor and want to destroy. The idea is to KILL THEM. As many as possible and hope we get them all. And to do so with the least number of our own casualties as we possibly can. As Gen. George S. Patton once said, "You don't win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by having the other poor dumb b*st*rd die for his."
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Last I knew US had a law prohibiting state agencies from assassinating people in foreign lands. Ofcourse, US can term this assassination as part of the ongoing 'war'.
[/Quote]
I thought that was only for foriegn leaders i.e. kings, presidents, czars and not for a run of the mill militant. I could be incorrect though.
Lack of proper information is a bit surprising although it should not be, the intelligence agencies had to say mia culpa to the congress just recently anyways for their inefficiency.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Pakistani Abroad, well alright then. Why not in essence just state in a simple manner that there should be in existence two separate sets of laws - one for the superpowers, and one for the other stupid countries that lack power.
[/QUOTE]
It's not international law.. it's common sense. how can you expect a country to neglect it's economics, it's security and it's borders and then wish not to be coerced by it's neighbors or others with special interest to do what may be deemed as stepping all over it's sovereignty?
We need to snap out of that liberal-utopia u know... this is the real world and Republicans are in the house.
Doesn’t work that way. Judicial process.