U.S. may deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of terrorism

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

Right, there might be places where it's difficult to get local authorities to intervene on your behalf. How then do you gather the evidence necessary to prove someone's guilt before you kill them?

Anything from informants to signals intelligence. Just because authorities, or even the Army, can't go somewhere doesn't mean that they have to be completely ignorant of what goes on. As I mentioned earlier, there are people fifteen miles from where I am who we can't go after. The fact that we can't get there doesn't mean we don't know they're out there and bad guys.

I'm not concerned with the citizenship of the individual but rather their innocense/guilt. Of course they'd have a hell of a time trying to get away with this in mainland America, but that's a different topic.

Arguably in mainland America there is a fully functioning capability to exert police jurisdiction over the entire grounds of the nation. There is no need to consider such mechanisms.

This judgement call nonsense is what I have the biggest objection to. When the police act, there is oversight. They are accountable, they can't just kill someone in the dark and no one will know or ask questions. Conferring these powers on ANYONE who has ZERO public accountability and can basically kill pretty much anyone they like to suit whatever agenda is a ridiculous thing to do.

As has been pointed out, they have the power to kill anyone they want, and generally have had for quite some time. It's all down to how often they use the power, which is a purely discretionary decision. And you still have not provided a viable alternative.

As for judgement, forgive me if I don't put my faith in the judgement of a government that's responsible for the current mess in Afghanasthan, the lies and misleading during the invasion of Iraq, the decision to render itself immune to the International Criminal Court and the continued and repeated flaunting of human rights.

Fair enough.

Not that you have a choice in the matter, mind. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the US government's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were in such a manner as you were fairly satisfied. Would you then allow the government to make judgements on who needs killing?

The fact that you dodged entirely the issue of proof of guilt is telling.

I don't recall dodging it as much as saying that it's unrealistic. How do you intend to prove such guilt in court? Particularly bearing in mind other principles such as the prohibition on trial in absentia?

My stance would be the same regardless of the nationality of the person being killed.

OK. Just as long as we're clear, then, that this is a tangent to the thread.

However, the justification of the executive to have the power to summarily execute people is justified on the basis that they are using this power to protect the american population.

Isn't that their job?

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Anything from informants to signals intelligence. Just because authorities, or even the Army, can't go somewhere doesn't mean that they have to be completely ignorant of what goes on. As I mentioned earlier, there are people fifteen miles from where I am who we can't go after. The fact that we can't get there doesn't mean we don't know they're out there and bad guys.

Firstly, informants can easily have their own agendas eg the one that walked into a CIA controlled room recently and blew up three of their agents. The issue of threshold of proof still remains. The issue of alternative measures still remains. Does the american government kill these people because it genuinely believes there is NO other alternative, or simply because it is convenient to do so? How do we know when they are killing someone because they are genuinely an immediate threat, or because they are part of an organisation who's aims are contrary to that of the U.S. or their allies, or even because they need to put someone more sympathetic to their aims in power This is the problem with no oversight or accountability.

Arguably in mainland America there is a fully functioning capability to exert police jurisdiction over the entire grounds of the nation. There is no need to consider such mechanisms.

Justice and law should not depend on convenience.

As has been pointed out, they have the power to kill anyone they want, and generally have had for quite some time. It's all down to how often they use the power, which is a purely discretionary decision. And you still have not provided a viable alternative.

This is exactly the problem. It's discretionary. We don't know how often they have used it and continue to do it. So how can we say it's arbitarily justified? Especially when we have so little cause to have faith in their judgement (assuming best intentions) or for that matter, their honesty (in cases of abuse of said powers). Alternative to what? This is a BLANKET DISCRETIONARY power. Maybe I would be willing to accept it if there was SOME accounting. Okay you can't reveal the info straight away because it might compromise intelligence. Fine. Then how about, 10 years after the fact, the information is revealed, and if someone has acted improperly, they are punished to the fullest extent of the law, THEN I might be okay with their powers being available because when people know they can be held accountable they are more likely to think twice and act responsibly with fragile lives they can easily snuff out. The problem with the status quo is that everything is shrouded behind a mask of secrecy.

Take the war in iraq for example. Tony Blair didn't allow an inquiry into it as long as he was able to. Even now, many details are being held back. The dance goes on. People in power can act with impunity and not be held to account, as long as they are leaders of nations with enough clout to allow them to get away with whatever.

Fair enough.

Not that you have a choice in the matter, mind. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the US government's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were in such a manner as you were fairly satisfied. Would you then allow the government to make judgements on who needs killing?

This is a difficult question. I'm not sure what it would take for me to be comfortable with this situation. I've yet to see a government democratic or otherwise with a great track record of integrity, responsibliity and good judgement. But even assuming this could be satisfied, what's more important is oversight and accountability as stated above.

I don't recall dodging it as much as saying that it's unrealistic. How do you intend to prove such guilt in court? Particularly bearing in mind other principles such as the prohibition on trial in absentia?

If you can't prove their guilt how can you be sure? The problem is that sureity doesn't really come into it does it? It's just a case of mathematics. Hey we MIGHT be killing someone innocent, but it's supposedly for hte greater good so okay. Especially since most of the time they aren't even American, and well we just don't value em as much. One standard for "us" another for "them." And "them" with THIS power is ANYONE the executive says is THEM, because we have no way of checking or verifying if they are telling the truth or not.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

Firstly, informants can easily have their own agendas eg the one that walked into a CIA controlled room recently and blew up three of their agents.

They can. Which is why the policies in place require more than just an informant to place people on the kill/capture list. We're not stupid, we know that informants can have their own agendas, down to "He killed my brother's goat, I'll set the Americans after him!" We have to deal with this at all levels, not just at the National Threat level.

The issue of threshold of proof still remains.

We like to be fairly sure before we add someone on the list. Nobody's making arbitrary decisions devoid of minimum requirements.

The issue of alternative measures still remains. Does the american government kill these people because it genuinely believes there is NO other alternative, or simply because it is convenient to do so?

In my experience, the former. There's a Kill or Capture list, there is no 'Kill Only' list. Capture is obviously the far more satisfactory outcome: You can't garner much intelligence from a body, even less if you can't get boots on the ground to exploit what's left. But if it can't be done, we'll settle for 'kill'.

How do we know when they are killing someone because they are genuinely an immediate threat, or because they are part of an organisation who's aims are contrary to that of the U.S. or their allies, or even because they need to put someone more sympathetic to their aims in power This is the problem with no oversight or accountability.

By and large, you don't.

Justice and law should not depend on convenience.

Maybe in ideology, but they do in practice. Residents of Los Angeles, for example, may have been a little more flexible with their demands for adherence to the rule of police process during the Rodney King riots, for example, when the LAPD declared parts of town off-limits to police and only the Army could go in. Martial Law gets declared because having -some- functioning system is better than having no system at all due to a policy of 'if you can't have it perfect, you can't have it at all'

This is exactly the problem. It's discretionary. We don't know how
often they have used it and continue to do it.

This is true, but I'm sure records are being kept somewhere.

So how can we say it's arbitarily justified?

You can't, at least certainly not at the time and not publicly. That doesn't mean to say that it shouldn't be happening, however. Ultimately it is a representative government, not a direct democracy. We place trust in our elected leaders to do everything on our behalf, but don't keep tabs on their every decision and move.

Alternative to what? This is a BLANKET DISCRETIONARY power.

As is the power to wage war. To shoot pirates in Somalia. If an airplane goes off course, the US Government has blanket power to shoot it down without absolute confirmation that it's been hijacked. Discretionary does not automatically mean 'bad'.

Okay you can't reveal the info straight away because it might compromise intelligence. Fine. Then how about, 10 years after the fact, the information is revealed, and if someone has acted improperly, they are punished to the fullest extent of the law, THEN I might be okay with their powers being available because when people know they can be held accountable they are more likely to think twice and act responsibly with fragile lives they can easily snuff out.

US documents are on a ten-year classification cycle. Every ten years, their classification gets reviewed and if declassified, released to the public. The UK works on a thirty-year rule, with a higher standard to remain classified after that period.

The problem with the status quo is that everything is shrouded behind a mask of secrecy.

Out of interest, have you tried looking up information for events older than ten years?

If you can't prove their guilt how can you be sure? The problem is that sureity doesn't really come into it does it? It's just a case of mathematics. Hey we MIGHT be killing someone innocent, but it's supposedly for hte greater good so okay.

It's more a case of 'we're about as certain as it's possible to get.' Killing/detaining the wrong person is somewhat detremental to the overall effort, after all. There may be no direct reprecussions to the politicians, but there are definitely reprecussions on the ground that need to be dealt with.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

In my experience, the former. There's a Kill or Capture list, there is no 'Kill Only' list. Capture is obviously the far more satisfactory outcome: You can't garner much intelligence from a body, even less if you can't get boots on the ground to exploit what's left. But if it can't be done, we'll settle for 'kill'.

Actually this is a very important point to bring up - isnt that the reason we havent carpet bombed the high-fcuk out of the Afghan Mountains? We've known at different times high probablity locations of Taliban Leadership. But I guess how could you confirm you had taken out Osama if all thats left is burning cinders and rubble.

BluePlanet

Overheal wrote: »

Actually this is a very important point to bring up - isnt that the reason we havent carpet bombed the high-fcuk out of the Afghan Mountains? We've known at different times high probablity locations of Taliban Leadership. But I guess how could you confirm you had taken out Osama if all thats left is burning cinders and rubble.

Oh, so in your opinion the US are just too goody-goody is it?

---

Nato strike kills 27 Afghanistan civilians

At least 27 civilians died in a Nato air strike in southern Afghanistan, the Afghan cabinet says, revising downwards a prior statement that 33 were killed.

The Afghan government condemned the air strike, calling it "unjustifiable" and "a major obstacle" to effective counter-terrorism efforts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8527627.stm

---

USA's intel sucks.
But hey i guess they're only Afghan civies so no worries.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh, so in your opinion the US are just too goody-goody is it?

Did I say that? No, no I did not say that. I believe in fact I said we would rather capture the Taliban Leadership than blow it to Kingdom Come. Something about being able to Interrogate them...

But look about what we've been talking about though and requirements for Authorization to Strike:

A Nato statement said it was thought the convoy contained Taliban insurgents on their way to attack Afghan and foreign military forces.

Not to mention the Convoy was in a Taliban controlled territory, and time being an issue. Good luck trying to Arrest what you believe to be a convoy of Armed Insurgents. Yes lets whip out the handcuffs lads. They're only rushing out to kill people. Nevermind it was an Intelligence muck up, thats the scenario they were acting under.

I mean ****, should I even need to point out it was a NATO strike, and not a US strike? It could have been French ordnance for all you know: you Don't Know. So go on and shove the Goody Goody USA Snark.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

I mean ****, should I even need to point out it was a NATO strike, and not a US strike? It could have been French ordnance for all you know: you Don't Know. So go on and shove the Goody Goody USA Snark.

Technically, the nationality of the ordnance itself is irrelevant. The person calling the strike 'owns' it and all its reprecussions. For example, that German strike a few weeks ago, though the bomb was dropped by an American aircraft. The airplane/bomb is just the delivery system, much as a rifle is.

NTM

Overheal

I should rephrase: we don't know whom ordered/authorized the strike, or whether they were even American.

BluePlanet

Yeah but Afghanistan is another one of those "wars of choice".
None of those other countries would be there if it weren't for America starting that war.

Didn't they basically call-up NATO after they started things.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah but Afghanistan is another one of those "wars of choice".
None of those other countries would be there if it weren't for America starting that war.

Didn't they basically call-up NATO after they started things.

I really don't understand how that is at all relevant to This discussion. Much less when the UN and NATO sanctioned the War, and NATO/ISAF is running it.

Its really irrelevant how it got started. At some point, Years Ago, NATO took over command authority of the Afghan War. This latest incident is a NATO incident, not a US incident.

Manic Moran

Although that last statement is correct in this instance, it is actually overbroad.

There are two organisations running wars in Afghanistan right now: ISAF, which is the NATO-run conflict which is focused on getting the Afghan government and infrastructure up and running, and Operation Enduring Freedom, which is US-pure, and is focused purely on finding and killing Taliban and Al Qaeda. Until recently, there were more OEF Americans than ISAF Americans, though this has now changed and most Americans are part of ISAF.

It's all very complicated, and bloody annoying on the ground as they are all operating in the same battlespace but under different rules with different goals.

NTM

BluePlanet

Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians to Be 'Massacred'

The chief author of the Bush administration's "torture memo" told Justice Department investigators that the president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be "massacred," according to a report by released Friday night by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

<snip>

At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel, that the president's wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally -"

"Yeah," Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. "Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions."

"To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?" the OPR investigator asked again.

"Sure," said Yoo.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section/10-war/1049-yoo-said-bush-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred

Pretty reassuring stuff huh?

Manic Moran

Seems pretty obvious.

He doesn't control all those nukes to just be sitting pretty in their silos. If he orders them launched, they'll destroy more than just a village.

NTM

Overheal

Mind, the Executive Power Supercedes Any and All United States Law. International Law is a completely seperate issue. And there really is no telling how much the UN Security Council would be willing to tolerate before it Expelled the US and Declared War against the United States. But Im pretty sure it would take a lot more than a village, to put it grimly.

So really all you have to be afraid of is Executive Powers that have Long long long long long been in place, and you are just now "Discovering" them.

But you'll find that in the pursuit of National Interest, getting invaded or starting WWIII are not our objectives - so Naturally The Office exercises a mere modicum of its Doom-Inspiring Powers.

rich1874

If US inteligence services have openly admitted that they would if neccessary target and kill any US citizen suspected of being a terrorist then that doesn't say much for the rest of us. Where will they stop? Will it just be a case of people starting to disappear all over the world on the basis of US 'Intelligence'. This to me seems absolutely outrageous, and I can't believe anyone on this forum would even beging to defend this statement.

And i find it more outrageous that this guy Blair even made this remark, I bet there'll be a lot of pissed off intelligence guys now with all the heat this statement is going to bring, I mean they were probably killing them anyway, there was no need to go blabbing, bragging even, to the whole world about it. Is a statement like this meant to make US citizens feel more comfortable? Absolutely outrageous.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Mind, the Executive Power Supercedes Any and All United States Law. . . .

So really all you have to be afraid of is Executive Powers that have Long long long long long been in place, and you are just now "Discovering" them.

Utter rubbish. This idea that has taken hold in the US in the last couple of years -- that war crimes are not war crimes if the president orders it, torture is not torture if the president orders it, murder is not murder if the president orders it, is fascistic. Thanks, you dirtbag John Yoo.

The president is not above the law. He is not a king, and his word is not law. He is bound to uphold our laws, and he must be held accountable if he doesn't. That is a pillar of democracy.

A long long time?? Do you think that the Founding Fathers threw off a monarchy in order to install a president with no legal boundaries when he alone declares war and alone has the power to name its enemies and its location? A global war without end (because that is precisely what the war on terror is)?

Remember this asshole?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

Overheal

Oh I remember Nixon: A prime exhibit of how Absolute the Power of the Office is not.

Without Support, the President may as well hang himself out to dry if he wants to go targetting civilians or break into the DNC HQ for no reason or personal gain.

So, you're kinda supporting my argument. The Administration has gotten away with Torture because frankly, we've allowed them to.

You've also gotten confused about something here:

This idea that has taken hold in the US in the last couple of years -- that war crimes are not war crimes if the president orders it, torture is not torture if the president orders it, murder is not murder if the president orders it, is fascistic. Thanks, you dirtbag John Yoo.

I'm not sure what the US Laws are regarding War Crimes. But I Do Know, that nothing the Presedent does can Override International Law, especially pertaining to War Crime.

As far as the Attorney General goes, I'm sure he doesn't consider it Torture. But then, he's not in Charge of International Law. But this Allll goes back to an inconclusive thread we had back in After hours a few months ago: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055541727 and in Politics Root: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055475383

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Without Support, the President may as well hang himself out to dry if he wants to go targetting civilians or break into the DNC HQ for no reason or personal gain. . . So, you're kinda supporting my argument. The Administration has gotten away with Torture because frankly, we've allowed them to.

I don't follow. What does that have to do with this?:

Overheal wrote: »

Mind, the Executive Power Supercedes Any and All United States Law.

Are you saying that the president may break the law if he has (a degree of uninformed) support behind him? Burglary for his own gain not okay; torture, assassination, etc. A-okay so long as he's claims it's for the common good and we don't rise up against him? Um, that's not how the rule of law works.

If that is not what your argument amounts to, then please explain precisely what you mean when you say that executive power supersedes any and all US law.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure what the US Laws are regarding War Crimes. But I Do Know, that nothing the Presedent does can Override International Law, especially pertaining to War Crime.

We’ve already spilt a lot of ink on war crimes in international law, but since you say you don’t know the US law on it, here we go:

Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

So, in the wake of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which made it clear that abusive interrogation techniques used by the CIA violated international law, and that CIA operatives could be held criminally liable for such abuses, with the MCA (2006) the govt decriminalized in US law certain acts that it had previously defined as war crimes, and retroactively immunized its officials from prosecution for those crimes. But in the face of strong opposition from within both parties the admin couldn’t go as far as it wanted, and “grave breaches” such as torture and murder etc. remain war crimes under US law.

Overheal wrote: »

As far as the Attorney General goes, I'm sure he doesn't consider it Torture.

(The referent here is unclear, but I’m assuming that you mean to say that the AG doesn’t consider torture to be a war crime, not that he doesn’t consider a war crime to be torture . . . ?)

Why are you sure of that? Links, please, to any evidence that suggests Holder doesn’t consider torture to be a war crime. That would be an unusual view considering that both international and US law define it as a war crime.

And may I remind you of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydfaEHZNgdQ

Waterboarding = torture = war crime

Overheal

not enough of a crime to have the fmr. president arrested i mean.

LostinKildare

So, no defense then of this:

Overheal wrote: »

Mind, the Executive Power Supercedes Any and All United States Law.

That is so lame. Apparently you are confused, not me.

And are you deliberately being vague with this?:

Overheal wrote: »

not enough of a crime to have the fmr. president arrested i mean.

What do you mean? Are you saying that the reason Holder hasn't pursued Bush (or anyone else) is because he doesn't think that crimes which he himself has defined as torture, which in turn is defined in US law as a war crime, is "enough of a crime" to warrant arrest? That he doesn't think war crimes are serious enough?

Pffft. Somehow I doubt that's the reason.:mad:

Overheal

And yet you have to wonder why GWB, or Truman, weren't arrested or impeached.

But like I have been saying as my central premise: this is all nothing new.

LostinKildare

No, I don't have to wonder. Anyone with an understanding of politics doesn't have to wonder.

Overheal

Of course not. I need to be careful with the Diet-Sarcasm I guess.

BluePlanet

Once again the US (i mean NATO) are getting heat for targeting and killing suspected "insurgents" (terrorists?) on a foreign battlefield.
This time, it was the killing of 8 school kids in a targetted attack.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040166.ece

A night-time raid in eastern Afghanistan in which eight schoolboys from one family were killed was carried out on the basis of faulty intelligence and should never have been authorised, a Times investigation has found.

Ten children and teenagers died when troops stormed a remote mountain compound near the border with Pakistan in December.

At the time, Nato claimed that the assault force was targeting a “known insurgent group responsible for a series of violent attacks”. Officials said that the victims were involved in making and smuggling improvised explosive devices.

Doubtless that would have been bought hook line and sinker by posters here. Naturally I had my doubts.

But Western sources close to the case now agree that the victims were all aged 12 to 18 and were not involved in insurgent activity.
Nato sources say that the raid should never have been authorised. “Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack,” an official in Kabul told The Times. “We don’t now believe that we busted a major ring.”

Ah well, a bunch of school kids targetted and executed? Sure maybe it probably, wasn't justified. :rolleyes:
Nice strong language there from High Command.

This is revealing, later in the same article:

Anger is growing over civilian casualties. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander, has warned that Nato risks “strategic defeat” by causing civilian deaths. The Independent Human Rights Commission said that more than 63 civilians had died in the past two weeks, including 27 killed when US special forces ordered an airstrike on a convoy of minibuses in the central Daikundi province.

Remember a page or two back when pro-USA posters were claiming it wasn't a US attack?
Well, let's just say I had a hunch.

In fairness this article makes the case that NATO is deflecting blame for this latest schoolkid massacre:

Exactly who carried out the Narang raid is unclear. Colonel Gross said that US forces were present but did not lead the operation. Nato insists that the troops were not part of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). US forces based in Kunar denied any knowledge of the raid.
Senior Western officers have hinted that the “trigger pullers” were Afghan; the Afghan Defence Ministry said its troops were not involved. Mohammed Afzal, Narang’s district police chief, insisted that US special forces were involved.Assadullah Wafa, who led an Afghan investigation into the incident, said that relatives would get $2,000 compensation for each person killed.

Manic Moran

The article doesn't state that the compound in question was the one specifically targetted. They went to Narang on a raid, apparently took fire from multiple buildings, and whoever it was entered a compound before shooting the boys. It'll probably be impossible to figure out what happened.

The initial story from the locals is pretty unbelievable as well: They claim that the soldiers handcuffed the boys, then executed them by shooting them point blank. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Remember a page or two back when pro-USA posters were claiming it wasn't a US attack?

In fairness, Overheal was addressing the false presumption that US=NATO, which it does not.

NTM

LostinKildare

BluePlanet wrote: »

This is revealing, later in the same article:

Anger is growing over civilian casualties. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander, has warned that Nato risks “strategic defeat” by causing civilian deaths. The Independent Human Rights Commission said that more than 63 civilians had died in the past two weeks, including 27 killed when US special forces ordered an airstrike on a convoy of minibuses in the central Daikundi province.

Remember a page or two back when pro-USA posters were claiming it wasn't a US attack?
Well, let's just say I had a hunch.

Nice catch, Blue. Manic Moran, didn't McChrystal last summer announce a new policy that airstrikes would normally be used only to save the lives of coalition forces that were under attack? What happened to that?

Another hunch: Re the massacre of the 10 kids and the question of who did it, anyone else get the whiff of US mercenaries? It stinks of Blackwater or Xe or Paravant or whatever corporate name they are hiding behind these days.

BluePlanet

LostinKildare wrote: »

Nice catch, Blue. Manic Moran, didn't McChrystal last summer announce a new policy that airstrikes would normally be used only to save the lives of coalition forces that were under attack? What happened to that?

Another hunch: Re the massacre of the 10 kids and the question of who did it, anyone else get the whiff of US mercenaries? It stinks of Blackwater or Xe or Paravant or whatever corporate name they are hiding behind these days.

Good point about private mercenaries for-hire.

I'm just playing the odds.
US troops make up 54% of ISAF, and 100% of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Don't think 54% is that high?
Think again; the next biggest contributer is the UK - providing a mere 11% of ISAF troops.

I don't know the math, but i'll imagine the bookies would place their odds pretty heavily in favour that US troops are to blame for X attack.

Poccington

LostinKildare wrote: »

Another hunch: Re the massacre of the 10 kids and the question of who did it, anyone else get the whiff of US mercenaries? It stinks of Blackwater or Xe or Paravant or whatever corporate name they are hiding behind these days.

PMC's are for the most part being used in support roles and protection duties. The chances of them being involved in that raid are very, very low.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Good point about private mercenaries for-hire.

I'm just playing the odds.
US troops make up 54% of ISAF, and 100% of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Don't think 54% is that high?
Think again; the next biggest contributer is the UK - providing a mere 11% of ISAF troops.

I don't know the math, but i'll imagine the bookies would place their odds pretty heavily in favour that US troops are to blame for X attack.

And yet, all you can do is speculate.

Seriously you've spent the last week trying to justify an incorrect allegation you made on Monday.

Could you please grow up and admit you were mistaken about it being a US strike?

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

Nice catch, Blue. Manic Moran, didn't McChrystal last summer announce a new policy that airstrikes would normally be used only to save the lives of coalition forces that were under attack? What happened to that?

You will forgive me for not confirming or denying US rules of engagement. I don't know what McChrystal publicly announced.

Another hunch: Re the massacre of the 10 kids and the question of who did it, anyone else get the whiff of US mercenaries? It stinks of Blackwater or Xe or Paravant or whatever corporate name they are hiding behind these days.

As Poccington says, it's the sort of thing which the mercenaries (US or British or anyone else's) do not do. They're not used as surrogate troops, they're used for personnel protection duties, installation security and the like. The three bases we have are guarded by an Afghan company.

I'm just playing the odds.
US troops make up 54% of ISAF, and 100% of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Don't think 54% is that high?
Think again; the next biggest contributer is the UK - providing a mere 11% of ISAF troops.

I don't know the math, but i'll imagine the bookies would place their odds pretty heavily in favour that US troops are to blame for X attack.

The strike, as was pointed out in the article, was in a Dutch-controlled province, and is not a border province. I'm fairly confident US forces are heavily outnumbered by non-US ISAF there. Properly "playing the numbers" would have resulted in an incorrect conclusion.

NTM