VOLUNTEER - yours is an excellent and perceptive analysis. Well done!

.....he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

VOLUNTEER does. It's that drone assassinations are regarded as good because the people doing them think they can get away with it on the ground that if no Americans are killed, then anything goes. That's bad thinking. It leads to crackpot nonsense by the assertion on this site {"Don't Fear The Reaper", foreignpolicy.com June 7) a couple of weeks back that drones ain't even weapons.

In any case, your remarks I quote here are sheer fiction, dreamland: "these are precise strikes against certain individuals, making them more like police work than like classic military action. Police work involves small arms used precisely. Drones aren't pistols, but firing one Hellfire at a Land Rover is more like a police action than it is like a large-scale military offensive" with artillery and such. Same sort of thing that's missing from special operator strikes. Nobody suggests they aren't war, but Mr Ricks is edging in that direction.

The first seven words in the quotation are marked by callous neglect or carelessness. The strikes mentioned here are aimed almost exclusively at clusters of people and seem to kill about ten or a dozen civilians for each possible miscreant. Gaddafi-standard police work. Drone strikes are aimed in part by guesswork, as was shown early in the year when it was the Pakistani government that had to tell Washington whom one of its strikes had killed. He was thought to be suspicious, but his identity was unclear when the rocket was launched.

That Don't Fear The Reaper piece offered the view that since the CIA and military don't tally how many civilians killed by drones, the civilian deaths don't matter. That's Kool-Aid. Mr Ricks has drunk some. It's authors suggest that separately drone strikes are good because attacking with land forces, artillery and such might (might!) kill fewer bad people AND CIVILIANS, or cost more to kill the same number. Mr Ricks seems to be eyeing a glass of that, too.

This is no different from a police sniper dropping a bad guy from 2 miles away. Is that considered war? A drone firing a hellfire from 500 hundred miles away is just using a more high powered rifle. The sniper rifle is not going to enter into a terrorists mind, telling him to think twice, but a drone surely will. All drones did was bypass national governments in projecting our sense of justice. And to worry about another country flying a drone around the US is pushing it a little far. Drones are just another step in the technology. One can only wonder what weapons we have that are not publicized. And besides, is it all bad to have weapons where our own people remain out of harms way? One mans ethical dilemma is another mans job. Who's right?

Like it or not, believe it or not, the US is the "global cop". That is to be recognized by being the only super power - by virtue of its preeminence in all major categories: military, banking, innovation, trade, etc. The UN should be the "global government", but it surely seems that the US, most assuredly, gets her way when she wants something. Are there any countries on earth that the US doesn't have its tentacles wrapped around in one way or another? Are there any other countries that come close to the control the US has on the world. How many countries have agreements of protection and defense.
Of course, being this intertwined in the world has reared misgivings by a number of countries and peoples, while also creating opportunities to "take out" a general here, or a sky scraper there. in the end, Americas will be done. (not claiming the US is GOD)
Unlike a politician drunk with power, feeling above the law and finding out that he isn't (to many examples to write), the US on a whole hasn't found that out yet. Until that happens, it matters not whether an action is called war, police action or a love fest, the US will continue doing pretty much what it damned well pleases.
Keeping ethics and ones morality out of this, I'm glad I am where I am.

I think the legal basis of this drone program outside Afghanistan and Iraq is really messy. The only comparison I remember of is the targeted killings of alleged terrorists by Israel, or the colombian attack on a FARC base in Ecuador's soil, which almost triggered a regional conflict.

Thus authorized by Congress.

There's a guy called "W" the enjoys the continued protection of the US besides having started an illegal war that killed tens of thousands. I thus assume that an Iraqi space laser is ok?

Let's say, arguendo, that a drone strike in Yemen wasn't authorized by the 2001 AUMF. Would it then be murder? Well, only if it were murder under the law of a state with jurisdiction. If Yemen didn't have a problem with it (they don't) and the U.S. government doesn't (obviously), who then has jurisdiction? There is no international law of homicide. (The LOAC deals with proportionality and the like.)

Leiber

I think you just told us you were a lawyer not whether murder is just a legal concept of modern Nation States. Murder is an ethical concept, the 6th Commandment, and much older concept than any Nation.

Since if both Yemen and and US Govts both look the other way it can't POSSIBLY be murder: If the Third Reich looks the other way it can't possibly be murder? If Pol Pot looks the other way it can't possibly be murder?

I'm surprised that you see the US Government as some monolith, where everyone signed on for this. Your legal shield is a bunch of guys who may be out of office in 18 mos, 5 years at the most. What makes you think targeteers can't be indicted at a future date? We need to establish some legal basis for our actions.

Bearcat, there is a legal basis under American law. It is called the 2001 AUMF. Full stop. (There is an additional self-defense basis -- remember the Cole?)

Granted, a regime change in Yemen could affect how their laws perceive such activity and could prevent some American personnel from taking those highly sought-after summer vacations to Sana'a.

I understand that such strikes may offend your personal moral code but I see no reason to assume that a random internet person is the arbiter of a legal code with relevant jurisdiction. In other words, what you think is right or wrong is absolutely irrelevant to whether something is a crime.

Leiber

I don't have an problem w the war, I have a problem w acting like attacking people with HellFire Missiles is NOT war. I have a problem with the idea that a transonic missile w a range of 8 KM is a police tool. Without War we have no legal basis for blowing people out of their beds at 0200. What is wrong with calling it what it is, War?

In what way have drones changed the laws, rules, or ethics of war? Drones have created opportunism, the idea that we can prosecute a war w/o any friendly casualties. We probably CAN prosecute the drone wars w/o any friendly casualties. We can probably also prosecute it w/o any viable endstate. As long as our endstate IS, we want to blow some people up, WE'RE THERE, we can accomplish that.

Who said they were?

To channel Sir Thomas More in a Man for All Seasons, the question isn't what the title of the Act is (War Powers Resolution), the question is: what does the law say?

With regard to Libya, there are 3 different questions to resolve:

A. Do the actions taken in Libya violate the War Powers Act? Reasonable minds disagree. You seem, like most laymen, to be hung up on an either/or, black/white view of law. Real law, most of the time, isn't like that. It operates on a continuum. There is a spectrum of activities between "police" and "war"....some are covered by the WPA and some are not.

B. Even if the answer to the above is affirmative, the next question is: Is the War Powers Act constitutional? The answer? No one knows. And SCOTUS is likely never to rule on it; under the political question doctrine.

C. Which leads to the third question, if the answer to both of the above is in the affirmative, what is the remedy? This answer is known: Congress can simply defund any military activity. We've dealt with this entire subject before (memories are damn short in America today): 1999, Bosnia. Congress didn't defund. Enough said. What's Qadaffi gonna do? Bring a Bivens action against American pilots or the President?

The courts have made it very clear time and again; they're not going to do Congress' dirty work for them. If Congress doesn't have the cojones to defund a military activity, the judiciary won't do it for them.

I've come to the conclusion over the past 11 years that most netizens don't really believe in democracy. They're always wanting someone to replace the ballot box and achieve their desired outcome for them. If the American people really want us out of Libya, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan they would elect different politicians. This is a civilian-run government so I salute and carryon. I suggest everyone else wearing a uniform do the same. Your oaths mandate it.

...but I do not think the war Powers Act is constitutional. The founding fathers clearly gave the POTUS authority in these matters.

Without a constitutional amendment, the WPA is not going anywhere.

Saying something violent done in and to a foreign nation is legal because it's constitutional -- US constitutional -- says very little. The US constitution was designed to define and control actions within the United States and there is no reason to believe that those who drew up and signed that document thought of it as justifying quite a lot of how the US military and CIA go about their daily work today.

I see that contributors to this string persist in the fantasy that firing a Hellfire into a group of foreigners in some foreign nation or nations because one of them might -- might -- be a bad guy is the same as, say, a police sniper trying to hit a single suspect with a well-aimed shot. But it ain't. Possibly, it's also not war. It's just assassination, and not very skilful assassination. As we see from the Kabul Intercontinental this week, claims that the Taliban is close to a Hellfire-broken force seem to be largely PR bullshit.

http://codepink4peace.org/blog/category/codepinkcampaigns/pakistan-codepinkcampaigns/

Hardly quiet!

I think you're probably falling a little to much for a right-wing message that labels Dems as "Left"

Consider how intense was the debate over Iraq in 2006-2007. Yet it came up in *none* of the Presidential Debates. It only came up once briefly in the VP Debate.

Unfortunately, we've become a nation of fat, cable television spoon-fed Cell Phone Borgs.

If you look at the website you'll see that CP is still very active indeed. As for whether their activities and message are amplified: perhaps theirs a general awakening among many who voted for the current President to the reality that no matter how loudly they said "Yes we can" there were much more powerful forces saying "No you can't". These are not issues of Left and Right. This is simply the reality.

As others have said, damn the lack of an editing button:)

I was hoping the Colonel would pop in and rip this guy a new one.

Lieber, you stated: " If the American people really want us out of Libya, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan they would elect different politicians. This is a civilian-run government so I salute and carryon. I suggest everyone else wearing a uniform do the same. Your oaths mandate it." I don't know where you've been Sir, but we did that in November 2008. The question today is whether that Executive office change, AND opposite party control of the House of Representatives, has seemingly left us where we were before: War stuffed down our throats.

Your oath Sir, the same one that I spoke first time nearly 40 years ago I would argue demands that you not merely salute and carry on, but understand fully what it is that you are ordered to do. You are obviously not a ignornant or foolish man. If you do your duty to the fullest, you will analyze what it is that orders require of you and then "carry on. If you have already made that determination, please don't belittle others for coming to a completely different conclusion. Many of us have not fared so well in this Long War Without End of Theatres

Bearcat said "if it's not war, it's murder"...
I said, "not necessarily, murder is a legal term and you're wrongly binary. Which dispositive legal code applies?"

No one has explained to me which statute makes such actions murder.

Prove it up.

I've seen comrades die as a result of these wars, not my own kin, but my brothers-in-arms yes. I grieve for any and all.

However, in November 2008 (and in every election over the past decade) the American people have elected representatives who have continued these conflicts. That is democracy, even if we don't personally like the result.

As for thinking through my orders...of course, like any human being, I have my personal opinions. My personal opinions are also absolutely irrelevant. I took an oath, I abide by it. To suggest that we should do otherwise is to subvert the Constitutional civilian control of government.....and that is a precipice we dare not start down, no matter what the cost.

Some weeks ago, this blog went through a very long thread discussing your point. A few bloggers took your position that an officer's oath was to follow orders, absolutely and without question (call this the "Prussian" notion of duty" for short). Others maintained that a thinking officer has a right to question his/her orders...and of course to suffer the consequences if it's a matter of conscience (call this the CPT Watada example). If you check out that thread, you can get the full flavor of that long and impassioned discussion.

LEIBER continues his campaign to become Best Defense's favorite random internet person, apparently with diminishing success. Hence his newly-announced tears for former colleagues not earlier mentioned. He asks somebody to supply an idea of who could define whether the US is engaged in official murder at present. That idea is the International Criminal Court.

More than 110 nations already accept the court's jurisdiction and 34 more are in some sort of holding pattern. Israel and the United States have distinguished themselves unusually by making it clear that they will never recognize the court's jurisdiction. The court is picky about whom it prosecutes, and tends to go for leaders of criminal governments. One can understand the reluctance of some national leaders to accept membership and the moral responsibility it admits. One can also understand the great internal freedom George W Bush felt when effectively declaring the entire planet a free fire zone in September 2001, with his "those who aren't with us, are against us." Hee hee hee, we're not an ICC member state.

Canada is an ICC member, and to the south, so are Mexico and most of Latin America. Elsewhere, most of Europe, most African states. So it seems that the US and Israel are less responsive to the moral understandings of most of humanity. These abhor murder, even when as an instrument of government policy.

RVN SF VET, I understand your point but I see this issue from a different point of view. I think that the drone killings campaign can be conducted without almost any significant political or legal problems to the US because of the huge difference in power between the US and Yemen, Somalia or even Pakistan. Those nations, except Pakistan, don't present any challenge to the US and can also negotiate compensations for their allowance. But all of them are countries where the rule of law simply doesn't apply or it applies in such a different way from the US that it opens problem solving systems suchs as Raymond Davis' release from Pakistan.

Let's examine some examples: Mohamed Atta spent some time in Spain. There has been several islamist terrorist cells in my country. But the US doesn´t even think of attacking Spain (I hope so, at least) or even stage some form of under cover operation because under spanish law the police goes after this terrorists, sends them to court and they receive their time in prison.

Another example turns sides: José Couso was a spanish TV crew member who was killed by US fire in Baghdad, april 8th, 2003, when a US tank fired against Hotel Palestine. Mr. Couso was in the balcony holding his TV camera so the tank crew allegedly said they thought he was going to fire some kind of RPG against them, so they fired a shell. An investigation was opened in a spanish court and it prosecuted three american soldiers. CENTCOM conducted its investigation and declared that ther was no guilt in this issue, so the US denyed access to the soldiers for the spanish court to conduct an inquiry about the facts being investigated. Please remember that I don't pretend to discuss if the spanish court is right or not. I am simply saying that 3 members of US army are prosecuted under spanish law ant the US won´t even collaborate in this issue. Now, since there is not death penalty in Spain we can't mount a targeted killing operation. But, should the spanish CNI conduct an under cover operation on US soil to bring those soldiers to justice? Would it be right? What would you think of such posibility?

BTW, the SAS killing yoo mention took place in Gibraltar which, unfortunately, is not Spain, but a British overseas territory.

So, a message to british BD blog readers: We trade Princess Letizia and some happy hour coupons in Mallorca for Kate and Gibraltar!

BTW, the SAS killing you mention took place in Gibraltar which, unfortunately, is not Spain, but a British overseas territory.

So, a message to british BD blog readers: We trade Princess Letizia and some happy hour coupons in Mallorca for Kate and Gibraltar!

"....since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Well, that was a long time ago and the playing field has leveled out somewhat, since then. Are you happy to live with the consequences of this kind of behavior?

Steve C@ I'm not sure the playing field has leveled much over time. "Might Makes Right" seems to have been the operative principle throughout history, even to the present time. How can it be any different? The only thing holding the US back from using its hard power even more is the fact that we're running out of steam; we're overstretched. Do I like a situation where Might Makes Right? For our kids and grandkids, I'd rather have a world where people act reasonably and like good global citizens (which, for example, the Chinese are not doing). But it doesn't look like that's happening any time soon. So we might as well use our power where we can (and wisely), because someone else will fill the vacuum if we don't.

Wasn't that the lesson of 9/11?

I'm not sure what the Lesson of 9/11 was. One thing for sure, though, we used our Might to the fullest, and not so wisely. And now we're pooped, gasping for breath. Got to use Power smartly.....

See above discussion about "Might Makes Right." If a stronger nation flew its drones into the US, we'd hem and haw and go to the United Nations, and protest this unwarranted "police action" (called such, in order to defuse domestic emotions) . If a weaker nation did it, we'd call it an "act of war" and immediately launch counterstrikes by air and sea in self-defense.

http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/court-indicts-bush-on-high-treason-charge/