What is mistargeting

allentown wrote:I think it is directly on point as to why your example was a bad example. You confuse the rules of criminal prosecution/justice with the rules of warfare. The guy in Yemen was clearly an enemy combatant according to the law of war.

You haven't convinced me that it's me who is confused

seems well-suited to this particular politics thread:

NY Times wrote:Diplomat Calls for End to Drunkenness During U.N. Negotiations

It's a Great Recession all right:

The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever Isn't Scary Enough

The dark red line is jobs since current period's recession peak. All the other lines chart the same activity for all other post-WWII recessions.

That 1953 recession curve isn't too pretty either

chart's from this Planet Money story

drsmooth wrote:It's a Great Recession all right:

The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever Isn't Scary Enough

The dark red line is jobs since current period's recession peak. All the other lines chart the same activity for all other post-WWII recessions.

That 1953 recession curve isn't too pretty either

chart's from this Planet Money story

Yay, we're only 13 million jobs behind a normal recovery, with the residual damage of many long-term employed. Good job everyone!

It's tough to get stuff done with the most obstructionist congress in history. Yeah for the filibuster!! Congress, where over 50% doesn't get you much if the minority party would rather the president fail than turn the economy around.

I think it could also be argued that this wasn't a normal recession. We're lucky we didn't sink into a depression.

Can someone please explain to allentown that the drone program is run by the fucking CIA (not the military) and there is no judicial oversight whatsoever? That the primary objection most of us have is that the only oversight is from an "informed government official" making the determination whether to order the drone strike?

Because if he's missing out on those very basic concepts, I don't see how he can discuss this topic intelligently, regardless of my personal opinions regarding his stance.

no, john brennan was appointed head of the military, RPF

pacino wrote:What is mistargeting

Mistargeting is when coalition forces identify a group of vehicles or a troop of burdened animals as an enemy convoy and call in a strike by fighter bomber or drone and it turns out that it was an innocuous assemblage of civilians.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Can someone please explain to allentown that the drone program is run by the #$!&@ CIA (not the military) and there is no judicial oversight whatsoever? That the primary objection most of us have is that the only oversight is from an "informed government official" making the determination whether to order the drone strike?

Because if he's missing out on those very basic concepts, I don't see how he can discuss this topic intelligently, regardless of my personal opinions regarding his stance.

There is no judicial oversight in wars. Some of the drone attacks are CIA and others are military. Most are military. Again, what is the big deal about an 'informed government official' making the decision for a drone strike. How do you think every decision in every war we've ever fought has been made? The courts don't decide when we launch a bombing mission, or an artillery barrage, or a sniper shoots an enemy combatant. These are all decisions that are made by an 'informed government official'. The basic mistake critics make is confusing war with catching criminals. That the enemy combatants don't wear uniforms doesn't give them any extra rights. That is an absurd notion -- violate the basic rules of war and you are granted super rights against attack?

In a war in which the enemy does not wear uniforms or fight in standard units, the identification of the enemy to be attacked has to depend upon gathering of intelligence and surveillance. We cannot put our soldiers in the position of sitting in fixed positions or driving along vulnerable roads simply waiting to be attacked and never going on the offensive, because the enemy is out of uniform and they must wait for a court to decide that they have correctly identified the target as an enemy. If that is the standard, then it is pointless to ever fight against an enemy that fights our of uniform. You will have fatally stacked the deck against our troops.

drsmooth wrote:

allentown wrote:I think it is directly on point as to why your example was a bad example. You confuse the rules of criminal prosecution/justice with the rules of warfare. The guy in Yemen was clearly an enemy combatant according to the law of war.

You haven't convinced me that it's me who is confused

Well then, why are you comparing the targetting of terrorists to the case of a domestic criminal? What point are you trying ot make with that comparison? How does the legal model possibly apply to a terrorist operating in a portion of Yemen outside the control of the government of Yemen?

allentown wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Can someone please explain to allentown that the drone program is run by the #$!&@ CIA (not the military) and there is no judicial oversight whatsoever? That the primary objection most of us have is that the only oversight is from an "informed government official" making the determination whether to order the drone strike?

Because if he's missing out on those very basic concepts, I don't see how he can discuss this topic intelligently, regardless of my personal opinions regarding his stance.

There is no judicial oversight in wars.

I don't have to read any further than this first sentence. Actually, there is judicial oversight in wars when it involves US citizens. It's limited, but it certainly exists. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

I don't know why, but I'll continue to read anyway though.

allentown wrote:Some of the drone attacks are CIA and others are military. Most are military.

No, they're not. In fact, the administration recently considered moving control of the program over to the military to reduce the level of secrecy and assuage some of the criticism from Congress. I'm not going to do the work for you, but a Google News search should find more than a few articles discussing that.

allentown wrote:Again, what is the big deal about an 'informed government official' making the decision for a drone strike.

Again, US citizens are entitled to due process. I'm merely asking for someone outside of the Executive Branch to review the decision of that "informed government official" and determine whether it was justified.

allentown wrote:How do you think every decision in every war we've ever fought has been made? The courts don't decide when we launch a bombing mission, or an artillery barrage, or a sniper shoots an enemy combatant.

This is such a strawman it's laughable.

allentown wrote:These are all decisions that are made by an 'informed government official'. The basic mistake critics make is confusing war with catching criminals. That the enemy combatants don't wear uniforms doesn't give them any extra rights. That is an absurd notion -- violate the basic rules of war and you are granted super rights against attack?

(sigh) No, it's their US citizenship that gives them the right to due process. That is not a blanket protection against the use of deadly force by law enforcement in the case of that person presenting an imminent threat of bodily harm. That is an extremely well-settled concept. I'll suggest that you read the white paper that was discussed ad nauseam here last month, even though I suspect a lot of it may be lost on you. It sets out a lot of these concepts in a very succinct manner, even if it twists them to support the WH's position on drone strikes. Regardless, it establishes the framework of this debate: whether the US Constitution requires a check on the Executive Branch's claimed power to order the execution of US citizens.

(At least the Executive Branch is admitting (for now) that the power is limited to foreign soil.)

allentown wrote:In a war in which the enemy does not wear uniforms or fight in standard units, the identification of the enemy to be attacked has to depend upon gathering of intelligence and surveillance. We cannot put our soldiers in the position of sitting in fixed positions or driving along vulnerable roads simply waiting to be attacked and never going on the offensive, because the enemy is out of uniform and they must wait for a court to decide that they have correctly identified the target as an enemy. If that is the standard, then it is pointless to ever fight against an enemy that fights our of uniform. You will have fatally stacked the deck against our troops.

The bolded statement is yet another strawman. The rest is superfluous.

No, Hamdi is not applicable. That applies to rights after capture.

allentown wrote:No, Hamdi is not applicable. That applies to rights after capture.

It stands for the proposition that a US citizen labelled as an "enemy combatant" has at least some level of due process protection. You made the absurd claim that there is no judicial oversight in wars. You're wrong. The military does not have the authority to capture and detain US citizens without some level of independent review. That is judicial oversight.

If you meant that there is no judicial oversight prior to an order being given, fine then. But I'm not the one making sweeping statements that are completely inaccurate.

I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. Someone tell me about today's unemployment numbers beyond the raw 7.7% number. What about the other measurements? Are they as promising?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

allentown wrote:No, Hamdi is not applicable. That applies to rights after capture.

It stands for the proposition that a US citizen labelled as an "enemy combatant" has at least some level of due process protection. You made the absurd claim that there is no judicial oversight in wars. You're wrong. The military does not have the authority to capture and detain US citizens without some level of independent review. That is judicial oversight.

If you meant that there is no judicial oversight prior to an order being given, fine then. But I'm not the one making sweeping statements that are completely inaccurate.

No, you have taken the position that an American citizen who joins the enemy as an enemy combatant is constitutionally entitled to legal due process before being targetted. That is not true and the courts have supported the position that these individuals may be targetted without judicial review. In fact, al-Awlaki's father challenged his son's includion on the target list in court and the court said it did not have authority to intervene.

I will admit to not having followed this super closely. But it seems to me that greater clarity and transparency around rules of engagement would both address some of these governance concerns and actually advance the, y'know, successful conduct of the war (or "war"). This all feels way too close to how we did things in Vietnam, where every killee was posthumously categorized as an enemy combatant and the result was both a hugely exaggerated sense of our success on the battlefield and a progressive loss of hearts and minds. Moral objections aside, my big concern about the drone program (and our interventions in general) is that it might be creating more enemies than its killing.

allentown wrote:No, you have taken the position that an American citizen who joins the enemy as an enemy combatant is constitutionally entitled to legal due process before being targetted.

Incorrect. My "before the fact" legal criticism of the program involves their tortured definition of "imminent threat," not with the lack of availability of procedural due process.

Now, would the existence of a FISA-like court acting as a pre-strike check on the Executive Branch alleviate my concerns by some degree? Certainly, but that doesn't mean it's Constitutionally mandated or that there's no other solution.

Any other strawmen I can shoot down for you? I feel like I've been on a roll for the past hour.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. Someone tell me about today's unemployment numbers beyond the raw 7.7% number. What about the other measurements? Are they as promising?

246K jobs added (yay), 100k dropped out of workforce (wah), and last month revised down to 117k. LT unemployed went from 37% of the unemployed to 40%. the 246k number is better than expected