Drawing the line between law enforcement and military action in fighting terrorism

[hack89]

1. If the terrorist is in a country that is able and willing to arrest him, or to allow the FBI to come and arrest him, then it becomes a law enforcement issue.

2. If the terrorist is in a country that is unable or unwilling to arrest him then a military solution can be considered.

There are parts of the world with failed states that are basically lawless and ungovernable. There are also states that actively support terror groups. Pakistan falls into both groups - the idea that they would cooperate with us to arrest OBL is ridiculous. Thus the military solution.

America is not blowing up terrorists in Europe and Asia - American law enforcement is collaborating with foreign police and intelligence services on a constant basis.

[KittyWampus]

1. this really seems to explain things in a straightforward manner

[Hutzpa]

21. Think they'll get it

watch them swarm this thread... 3, 2, 1..

[emulatorloo]

2. rec n/t

[JuniperLea]

3. Perfectly stated...

I'm not sure how this could be lost on anyone... thanks for stating the facts so well!

[ProSense]

4. In fact,

Pakistan was publicly assisting the U.S. in fighting terrorism and hunting bin Laden. There are Americans on the ground in Pakistan. The government of Pakistan was engaged in other operations that were compromised. They were not informed of the bin Laden mission.

Imagine if a leak compromised this mission and bin Laden had escaped. The news would be Obama's incompetence from now until forever.

Pakistan rejects complicity in bin Laden case

[hack89]

7. It is not accurate to talk about "the government" when discussing Pakistan

there are other power centers in the country besides the elected government. Their history of coups and military rule indicate this.

It is foolish to believe that the army and the ISI are completely under the control of the government. They have their own agendas and are not scared of the government. So while there are elements in Pakistan that are truly our allies, there are powerful blocs that actively support our enemies.

[ProSense]

10. Well,

"It is foolish to believe that the army and the ISI are completely under the control of the government."

I certainly don't believe that. In fact, there are likely members of the government who are sympathetic to those elements in the army and ISI.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Good observation. And when it comes to interrogations

of suspects, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. That's where the FBI comes in, as they know how to obtain information without resorting to torture or mistreatment.

[gratuitous]

6. We should stamp it big red letters

"Not intended to be a factual statement" across the Constitution.

I mean, just so nobody gets the wrong impression about what our public officials swear to preserve, protect and defend should it prove too messy or inconvenient to do so. It would probably necessitate some modification to that whole "oath" thingy, but sheesh, it shouldn't take an act of Congress to do that should it? Won't someone please think of the inconvenience?!

[hack89]

9. OBL had no Constitutional rights

is there any particular violation of the Constitution you would care to expand on? Your post is a little light on the details.

[gratuitous]

16. Well, certainly not now

Dead men being famously without rights. But yes, our Constitution and our treaty obligations are meant for our own government, and while legal scholars disagree on whether non-citizens of the United States are entitled to the protections of our Constitution, our Constitution further binds us to our treaty obligations (Article VI), such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and in particular Articles 3 through 11 of that Declaration.

Do you require further details, or is that enough to get the sophistry started?

[hack89]

17. So why didn't OBL surrender

and permit a trial? I don't think the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies to dangerous killers evading justice.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Have you ever read the language of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Um, I'm thinking specifically of these words:

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The U.S. Constitution does not say 'No American citizen'. It says 'No person.'

Various US Supreme Court rulings over the years have indeed explicitly extended various constitutional protections to non citizens.

EPIC FAIL!

[hack89]

25. The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders.

foreigners inside our borders are protected by the Constitution - those are the case you are talking about. Other people in other countries cannot claim rights or damages under the US Constitution - I challenge you to give me an example.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. The U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights? What kind of

terrorist bullshit is that?

Just because we're signatories to it, doesn't mean we're bound by it or have to follow it.

:sarcasm:

[hack89]

30. What does that have to do with the 5th Amendment? NT

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. How would America react if the Iranians had come to kill The Shah

while he was receiving medical treatment in N.Y.?

What about a Cuban special forces team coming to Florida to whack the guy that has admitted to blowing up a Cuban airliner a few years back?

What if Saudi Arabia sent a hit team to whack Larry Flint for being a pornographer terrorist?

How would America have reacted if the Cambodian govt. sent a team to kill Henry Kissinger?

Why do we claim to have the special right to kill people we deem terrorists regardless of where they are located? Will we give those rights to other governments so they can kill people here they deem terrorists?

[hack89]

11. Pakistan refused to carry out a basic obligation of a sovereign nation

if they had arrested him years ago, OBL would still be alive.

Are you really arguing that we had no right to stop OBL from killing more Americans? That if the Pakistanis didn't want to cooperate we could do nothing but wait for the next attack? Really?

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. The OP was not specifically about OBL!

Also, you completely ignored my post. You did not address a single "what if" scenario. Why is that?

Do you think that other goverments have the right to come to America and kill individuals they have deemed "terrorists" or "enemy combatants"?

[dkf]

18. If another government has evidence we are harboring and even aiding and a betting a known terrorist

They may actually have a case in snatching someone from American soil.

[hack89]

19. Well, if we let a foreign national plan acts of terrorism in America

and we do nothing, then yes they can come and kill him. If, however, they come to kill someone who committed his "crime" in the name of the US government, then it is an act of war and we should retaliate with all the force we can.

You do understand that OBL was not a government agent? He did not commit his acts in the name of a sovereign nation. Those little details mean a lot in international law.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. "You do understand that OBL was not a government agent? "

Yes! That is why my examples did not include him as a subject of my query. I find it odd that not a single person has attempted to answer the question about foreign GOVERMENTS having a right to kill people in America that they deem terrorists. The Cuban guy is the best example. He bombed a Cuban airline with men, women and children aboard and he now lives in South Florida.


The question is VERY simple - do you think that Cuba has the right to send commandos to kill Luis Posada Carriles in Florida?

[hack89]

24. If they want nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. This is exactly right, and exactly why the Glenn Greenwald's of the world are wrong

If a law enforcement solution was feasible, it should have been taken. It is highly unlikely that such a solution was feasible in this case. Hence the military solution, which comes along with military rules of engagement. This is the conceptual error people like Greenwald continue to make; they are right to want a law enforcement solution to international terrorism. Exactly correct...when feasible. If, however, it is not feasible, then the military solution (well-targeted and limited, like the OBL takedown) becomes necessary.

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. What about the rest of Greenwald's offering?

Do you believe that the President has the right to kill an American citizen without any judicial review? Do you believe that other governments have that same right? For example, should Cuba or Venezuela have the right to come to Florida and kill Luis Posada Carriles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

[deaniac21]

13. We have always been totally capabile of doing this kind of thing

in the United States of America.

[Bandit]

26. Getting Bin Ladin was not a military operation, it was CIA

Even though military personnel were used it was a CIA mission and what does CIA stand for?

[hack89]

27. CIA are not law enforcement

there has always been a paramilitary component of the CIA - they are called the Special Operations Group (SOG). This was a military operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. If "..states that actively support terror groups" is the criteria then....

..they'd better beef up security at the CIA headquarters.