General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Drones: Do I have a line in the sand? [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you don't seem to even know what their/our arguments are.
You have no disagreement with anyone on the left that extrajudicial killing is OK. You go down the assumption that those who disagree with you believe in a set of beliefs and don't seem to care that they don't. Acting under those very unliberal and unprogressive assumptions, you go about believing and writing things you think are more progressive than other people.
Moreover, the tools for understanding the other Liberal position are easily there in front of you.
When a human being causes the death of another person, there are multiple ways our legal system has for addressing that depending on circumstances and intent. Depending on the circumstances or intent, the person could go free, or they could face life in prison or even the death penalty. In the case of self defense, the person who caused the death may well go free. I am sure you will agree with that so far, those are facts that are hardly controversial.
Those are normal civilian circumstances. The micro, if you will.
In the macro sense, when issues between nations degenerate into war, there are a set of rules codified in the geneva conventions that govern what is 'legal' in terms of war. If Americans had deserted in the second world war and joined the Japanese side, Marines defending a hill on Iwo Jima could hardly be blamed for shooting them if those deserted Americans, now in Japanese army uniforms, charged up the hill against them.
In fact, those who join the enemy side in wartime, if caught, can be executed summarily as traitors. Even those who desert in wartime can legally face the death penalty. That's war and again, I dont think any of those facts are controversial.
Now we face a situation where we have a non-state group acting against us, and 12 other countries over the past 20 years or so, in ways that straddle the difference between a criminal entity and a hostile state. In Afghanistan, that difference is nearly non-existent. Taliban and Al Qaeda act together as full battlefield combatants against our troops.
Yet, your argument is that it is impossible to consider treating these people any other way than regular criminals. Your mind cannot conceive of anything other than that. It's so alien to you that it is, in your own words, worthy of a purity test. The irony is that Al Qaeda very much consider themselves combatants. So much so that when Iraq invaded Kuwait back in 1990, and was threatening to invade Saudi Arabia, they offered themselves as a fighting force to the Saudi royal family to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. And the argument they made was a pretty compelling one. They suggested that they had just kicked the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Compared to the Soviets, who is Saddam/Iraq?
But you assert that you cannot conceive of anyone treating Al Qaeda as a military force, so much so it is one of those rare situations worthy of a purity test. I dont think that opinion holds up to scrutiny based on the evidence.
It does not require that you agree with those of us about whether Al Qaeda is a military force or should be treated as one. The only thing required of a thinking person is for you to acknowledge that the points I have raised makes it at least reasonable for other reasonable thinking people to believe it. For if you believe the entirely believeable assertion that Al Qaeda is a military force engaging in war against us, regular constitutional protections do not apply to them. Thus, you cannot accuse those who believe that as being in favor of extra-judicial or extra-Constitutional acts.