I thought I might be the only person alarmed at Bob Woodward’s happy hints about his beloved “Company” getting back into the wholesale slaughter business, just because I’m old enough to remember when “an aerial campaign against [a] “neutral” [foreign nation] is a war crime and would have created a political firestorm in the US”. But Tom Scocca has a post up at Slate under the title “The World Is Flat and Full of Killing“:
The Central Intelligence Agency—not the United States military—is using remote-controlled weapons to kill people on the territory of Pakistan, a country where we are not even officially at war.
Dave
Yeah….but it’s on the other side of the world, it’s brown people dying and Wall Street execs may see their taxes go up. So who cares? Amirite?
Blegh…that snark made me throw up in my mouth…
General Stuck
Go REDS!! Kick that Philly Phanatic in the rear parts.
someguy
I wouldn’t sweat it. I think we’ve established that only Republicans can commit war crimes. So this can’t be.
Sloegin
The terrorist is the guy with the bomb, but no plane.
I love how Sully claims the AUMF is hunky-dory, because ‘Congress passed it’. It’s cute when silly Brits try to understand US law.
jeffreyw
Soup’s on.
geg6
Ah, if only Bob Woodword actually WAS Robert Redford.
Redford would never suck as much neocon dick as Woodword.
ThatPirateGuy
Hey guys, its ok because they arn’t bombing American citizens.
Then we would have to freak out and worry about process.
ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/10/if-assassination-is-ok-what-rules-are-sacred/
Remember it is only tyranny if it happens to Americans otherwise it is just the war on terror.
homerhk
This looks like a good sign. guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/06/us-afghan-government-contact-haqqani
NobodySpecial
@homerhk: If you like Whack-A-Mole.
It’ll never end until we leave.
Juicebagger
Well, the CIA has got one up on the Holy Roman Empire, as it actually is an agency, so that’s a plus.
Napoleon
Love the new tag line at the top “I personally stopped the public option.”
Stefan
The Central Intelligence Agency—not the United States military—is using remote-controlled weapons to kill people on the territory of Pakistan, a country where we are not even officially at war.
If there’s one thing the wingnuts insisted on over the last nine years, it’s that a civilian who engages in armed conflict while not part of the uniformed military of a nation is an illegal combatant and thus not protected by the laws of war. Since CIA employees are civilians, and since by operating these drones they are directly engaging in armed conflict, aren’t they therefore illegal combatants? And if so, isn’t the enemy perfectly justified in engaging them to kill or capture wherever they may operate, including in the suburban neighborhoods they live in?
Ailuridae
@Stefan:
I was just about to post something similar and then decided this was all too depressing to be glib about today.
Brachiator
To try to make a distinction between the CIA and the US military is perverse.
@NobodySpecial:
What makes you think it will stop then?
Martin
This whole narrative makes no sense. We’re not attacking the Pakistani military or it’s government. We’re attacking insurgents in Pakistan with the knowledge and assistance of the Pakistani military and government.
If we helped Mexico with their border drug problem (which more than a few people have suggested we do) and ended up killing some gang members in Mexico, it doesn’t mean we’re at war with Mexico.
Yeah, I know it seems like it was all much clearer with the obviously bad ruskies way back when, but this shit has been messy forever.
Bob L
Considering the CIA track record of failures in this area this is not a good thing. Look at all their attempts to bomb Saddam Hussian in Iraq: time after time they blew up entire neighborhoods while missing him. Being evil is bad enough, being evil and incompetent is even worse.
Martin
@Stefan:
Yes, which is why they’ve been killing CIA agents.
Was there some specific point you were trying to illustrate here?
Dennis SGMM
It’s comforting to know that the lack of actual CIA boots on the ground in the areas where these strikes are being carried out in no way affects the reliability of the intel that’s used to direct these strikes. For instance; there’s no way that someone who has a grudge against his neighbor would in any way drop a dime on him nor is there any possible way that a clever jihadi would weasel his way into the CIA’s confidence and then direct strikes against those who actually oppose the jihadists.
As we used to say in the end days in the Mekong Delta, “They’re all VC when they’re dead.”
Brachiator
@Martin:
Very important point. Also, the link about negotiations between the Karzai government and various factions in Afghanistan indicates that the US strategy may be having some impact.
Unfortunately, the other nasty aspect of this is the double-dealing of the Pakistan government and/or military.
There are a limited number of supply routes available into Afghanistan from Pakistan. If the US military has to be worried about its flank, they might as well pull out.
Now, I understand the debate about the moral and ethical issues of the war in Afghanistan. But there is a practical dimension as well. You cannot accomplish anything, with respect to either diplomatic or military aims, if supposed allies are actively subverting your efforts. And here, the Pakistan government, which played the Bush Administration for fools, is doing much the same with the Obama Administration. And here they are undermining efforts to pursue non-military solutions in the region, which would be hugely unfortunate.
Juicebagger
Dennis SGMM: No, silly, the CIA only kills bad guys, mostly.
Dennis SGMM
@Juicebagger:
Aha! So those women and children were “suspected militants” after all.
Origuy
The software that the CIA is using to target the drones is pirated and buggy.
IISi is the company that was contracted to produce the software. The CIA wanted to use its code before it was ready; the developer wouldn’t go along, but delivered parts of it to their partner, Netezza.
Brachiator
@Dennis SGMM:
The CIA has boots on the ground there, as does the British SAS, which knows the area better and has been more effective.
And for some reason, people forget one of the most successful attacks Afghan insurgents brought about, killing eight CIA agents there:
Here, the Americans were incredibly complacent and stupid in conveniently planting the agents in one location. These people may have been targeted precisely because some of their work was related to selecting targets for later attacks.
Stefan
Was there some specific point you were trying to illustrate here?
Yes, that CIA employees engaged in drone warfare are, according to Republican Logic (TM), illegal combatants who are daily committing war crimes, and that thus it’s not a crime to kill them.
Stefan
For instance; there’s no way that someone who has a grudge against his neighbor would in any way drop a dime on him nor is there any possible way that a clever jihadi would weasel his way into the CIA’s confidence and then direct strikes against those who actually oppose the jihadists.
So young, and yet so cynical. Tsk tsk.
Three-nineteen
@Brachiator: I thought you said that trying to make a distinction between the CIA and the military was perverse. I was going to ask you what you meant, but now you are calling them non-military.
This is what kills me (ha!). The government wants to have it both ways. They want to try terrorists in a court of law, unless they want to kill them because we’re at war and they are the enemy army. Al Qaeda is an army, unless you want to treat the terrorists as soldiers, in which case they are actually “enemy combatants”. The CIA is a civilian agency#, except when they are part of the military.
We need to make a decision and stick with it. Either we are not at war, in which case the bombings and killings are terrorist activities and we need to capture the perpetrators and try them in a court of law, or we are at war, in which case the bombings and killings are a normal part of the war and we need to stop calling the other side “terrorists” and fainting every time they pull of a successful mission.
#ETA: I meant to add “so they would be enemy combatants to the other side” here.
J sub D
To be fair, Bush the Lesser first started using predator drones against al qaeda and wedding parties in Pakistan. Obama merely increased the number of raids.
None of the multitude of similarities to Vietnam mean anything. We are in a fight for our way of life against
communismIslamic Fundamentalists and if we let them takeVietnamAfghanistan, the other countries insoutheastcentral Asia will be next to fall.Goddamit Obama, get the fuck out. We are doing nothing but wasting lives and treasure propping up an illegitimate kleptocratic government with no popular support.
Stefan
Insurgents intensified their campaign against military targets and U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, killing eight U.S. CIA agents at a base and four Canadian servicemen on patrol and a journalist accompanying them.
So shouldn’t that have been “Insurgents intensified their campaign against military targets and U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, killing eight illegal combatants at a base and four Canadian servicemen on patrol and a journalist accompanying them”?
Stefan
Either we are not at war, in which case the bombings and killings are terrorist activities and we need to capture the perpetrators and try them in a court of law, or we are at war, in which case the bombings and killings are a normal part of the war and we need to stop calling the other side “terrorists” and fainting every time they pull of a successful mission.
Look, it’s very simple: we’re at war, but we’re the only ones allowed to use force in this war. The other side just has to sit there and get shot or else it’s illegal.
srv
Why blame Bob, when we have so many fans right here, like eemom, for destabilizing Pakistan?
Nobody between the bad guys and the nukes. Other than the 7th largest army in the world.
Brachiator
@Three-nineteen:
I just quoted a news story. I didn’t notice that the blockquote did not properly include the last sentence. I’m not even comfortable with using the term “insurgents” to describe the opposition. And as I suggested, it is just dumbass to ascribe some of the counter attacks to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban when the Pakistan government is complicit.
Bullshit. There is no clean, spiffy option here. How are you going to “capture” perpetrators when, for example, tribes people in Yemen, not even the Yemen government, gives them safe haven?
And note that I am not advocating bombing the shit out of people indiscriminately, but Americans always want neat and tidy solutions to complex problems. It ain’t gonna happen. There ain’t no magic rule book that prescribes how you deal with this, especially if you also want to preserve rules and civil liberties. India, Spain, and the UK has followed both the criminal law path and covert operations (and occupation of Northern Ireland in the case of the UK). One size never fits all.
joe from Lowell
@Stefan:
Yes. They may not be “illegal,” but they aren’t subject to Geneva’s protections for soldiers.
When CIA officers were on the ground in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, helping the Northern Alliance, they put American flags on their clothing specifically for that reason – so that they would be openly carrying arms and wearing insignia, and thus qualify as legal combatants.
joe from Lowell
@Three-nineteen:
I think you’re a bit confused. Combatants can also be criminals; look at the SS. You can blast the hell out of them on the battlefield and capture them as POWs, and you can also put them on trial for their crimes once you’ve captured them.
You should check out the Geneva Conventions sometimes. They lay out quite clearly when and how you can try captured enemy soldiers as criminals. You can’t try them as criminals just for fighting, but if they are also committing crimes like targeting civilians, you can try them for those. We did that to any number of uniformed German combatants after WWII.
There is no “having it both ways” here. Combatants who commit crimes are both criminals and combatants.
joe from Lowell
Anyway, it’s interesting to compare the general tone and level of knowledge in the comments of Martin and Brachiator to…well…just about everyone else on this thread.
I tutor SATs. One of the things we teach people is that, on hard questions towards the end of a section, if the answer seems easy and obvious, it’s wrong, and you’re missing something.
Three-nineteen
@Brachiator: Bullshit right back to you, sir! War is not a “clean, spiffy option”. Police work is not a “clean, spiffy option”. We should work with what we have. Right now, the government is doing whatever the hell it wants and then finding cover by picking whatever rule it wants from two conflicting options, or making up its own rules and then following them. If the rules we have aren’t covering it, then we need to make up new rules BEFOREHAND and get them PREAPPROVED by law or by our judiciary, not just making up excuses afterwards.
joe from Lowell
@J sub D:
Doubled, actually. While decreasing the number of civilian casualties by a 1/3.
Whether this was a consequence of better intel and targeting, or more careful rules of engagement, or some combination of the two, or some other variable, we just don’t know. All we do know is that the rate of civilian casualties from air strikes in Pakistan dropped by 2/3 between 2008 and 2009, even as the scale of the campaign increased greatly.
Three-nineteen
@joe from Lowell: Yes, I am massively confused. What’s the difference between a combatant and a soldier? If it’s the uniform, then the other side has no soldiers? If there are no soldiers, how can there be an actual war?
joe from Lowell
@Three-nineteen:
There is no difference between a “combatant” and a “soldier,” except perhaps that the former is a formal term in international law, while the latter is a common term used as a synonymn.
Are you just playing word games for the hell of it, or asking a serious question? I don’t understand what you don’t understand. I thought my point was perfectly clear. You thought there was some contradiction between calling an al Qaeda member a combatant and calling him a criminal, and I pointed out that people can be both at the same time, and therefore subject to both military assault and criminal prosecution. I even provided an example of this from history.
joe from Lowell
Here’s another one: an American soldier who murders an innocent civilian in a country we are at war with can be fired upon by their military, and can also be charged with murder if they capture him.
Three-nineteen
@joe from Lowell: Hmm, I am apparently using the wrong term. Do I mean “illegal combatant”? I meant whatever term the previous administration tried to use to to get out of the Geneva convention requirements to treat prisoners decently.
joe from Lowell
Though misused by Bush, the concept of an “illegal combatant” is a real one, found in the Geneva conventions.
It means, combatants who violate “the laws and customs of war.” That can mean anything from soldiers who order or take part in genocide to people who fight out of uniform. The Conventions make it clear that the protections they offer to soldiers don’t apply to them – although the protections the Conventions offer to all persons do.
Where the Bushies went wrong was 1) by failing to abide by the protections that apply to all persons (like the ban on torture), and 2) putting people into the “illegal combatant” category without first trying them in the “regularly constituted tribunal” that Geneva requires for treating a captured combatant in a manner other than that required for POWs.
Stefan
Though misused by Bush, the concept of an “illegal combatant” is a real one, found in the Geneva conventions.
Well, no, it’s not, at least not expressly or explicitly. The term “illegal combatant” (or “unlawful combatant/belligerent” or variations thereof) does not appear in the Third or Fourth Geneva Conventions.
For example, in the famous case of Celebici under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the court cited the International Committe of the Red Cross’s 1958 “Commentary IV on the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative the the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” (this Commentary is considered a definitive interpretation) that all prisoners taken during wartime must be either (i) a POW and therefore under the protection of the Third Convention or (ii) a civilian and thus under the protection of the Fourth Convention, because:
“[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view”
and therefore
“If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered ‘unlawful’ or ‘unprivileged’ combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action”.