« election day coverage | Main | election 2002 »

how about a poll up your ass?

Speaking of voting, my lead is dwindling! You can vote FIVE times on every computer you can get your grubby little hands on! I don't know what Spoons is doing to get this sudden surge, but you can bet your ass if he wins I am going to have a gaggle of lawyers standing at the voting booth the second the election ends. I will drag this out for months if I have to. Go vote for me. Do it for my children, who will surely suffer my blood thirsty wrath if I lose me lead. Do it for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Do it in the name of freaky sex! Do it in the name of rock and roll! JUST DO IT!


how about a poll up your ass?

This is the poll that CNN put up today in regards to the killing of the USS Cole murderer:

terror.gif

Did they have a poll up the day after the Cole bombing asking if Abu Ali was right in killing innocent people in the name of his jihad?

Here's my poll: Are the people at CNN.com out of their minds?

Comments

ummmmm....yes?

Here's my poll:

If you are a terrorist, should you fear Sudden Death from Above?

I think that the key word is "suspected". The question relates more to whether we treat this like an action occurring in war, where mistakenly killing innocent people is somehow more acceptable than in a court of law.

If you believe that it is important to avoid killing innocent people to the extent possible, then it makes sense to first determine their guilt before executing them.

I don't know enough about the evidence the US had available to determine that these men where responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole, but I do think it is a legitimate question to ask about the actions of our government. If the government is playing as fast and loose with the "facts" in this case as they have been with a number of other situations, then the US may develop a reputation similar to the lynch mobs in the south. "We don't need no stinking evidence. We don't need no stinking trial. Let's kill the bastards, and let god sort them out!"

I know that you are trying out this bloodthirsty persona, but it is real human blood that we are talking about (even if some like to try and pretend that Arabs aren't human), and I think it deserves a bit more thought and respect. I'm not saying that the suspects didn't deserve what they got. I'm saying that we don't really know what they deserved, under the circumstances. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

I'm hoping that at least one of the people in the car was a Yemeni government official or a CNN executive.

Here's my poll:

Is CNN on our side?

Lynn Carrier is watching Fox

Unfortunately my kids are home today and one tv has the Spiderman DVD playing and the other has the PS2 and Kingdom Hearts running on it. I think it's time to kick them outside.

"I'm hoping that at least one of the people in the car was a Yemeni government official or a CNN executive."

What kind of comment is that, Mr. Simon? How would you like it if I said the same about you? Fucking callous asshole. Death is not something to joke about, or wish on someone simply because you disagree with their politics. I mean, what the hell did CNN ever do to you?

I think the point is that assassination without trial has not always been the American way.

Well things change when 3,000 of your citizens are wiped out in one day in a supposed time of peace. The "American Way" of the past no longer applies.

Well things change when 3,000 of your citizens are wiped out in one day in a supposed time of peace. The "American Way" of the past no longer applies.

>>Did they have a poll up the day after the Cole bombing asking if Abu Ali was right in killing innocent people in the name of his jihad?

Well, no, I think we can all assume that the killing of innocent people is wrong. No poll.

But, as I can tell from the comments, there is debate over whether this was a viable act. Why shouldn't there be dissenting opinions and talk about what happened? So CNN ran a poll -- and, I might add, 70% of the public agreed with your stance -- what's so bad about asking people what their opinion is?

Also, why shouldn't the American Way continue to apply? There's nothing wrong with taking the high road, you just have to be smart about it.

I'm saying that we don't really know what they deserved, under the circumstances. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

Ken, do you work for the CIA? No? Neither do I. I'm thinking that could be why we don't know everything that they do and they're not telling. I bet if you wrote them a nice letter though, they'd be more than happy to forward any notes, tapes or satellite photos to you. You know, just to ease your mind.

Sandy, tell me exactly what the "high road" would entail. I'm really interested in this.

Online sources say the Predator's ceiling is 25,000 feet, so the high road could be as much as five miles up. Watching, waiting....

Michele, I can't speak for Sandy, and I have no idea what Greg is talking about. But my idea of the high road and the American way involves due process. I don't doubt that these men were terrorists, I really don't. But I don't believe in killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out, either. You work in the court system, surely you believe that due process is important, right?

"Naked aggression is not the American way." I picked that up at ColdFury. Mike obviously posted it to ridicule it, but I think it's true. If that makes me a "liberal pussy" who should "shut the fuck up" (also found at ColdFury), then so be it. I'm not ready to rejoice at the death of anyone, even our enemies.

Stacy, obviously I don't expect the CIA to provide me with classified information. The question of the poll, and of this thread, I think, is whether the US government should kill citizens in other countries that are suspected of terrorist activities, rather than capturing them and holding some type of trial. You evidently feel that it is okay for the CIA to do that. I'm not sure that I do, but as I said, I don't know enough about what actually happened to form a hard opinion.

Michele, morality didn't change because of 9/11. Murder is still murder, even when done by someone that has been seriously victimized. A rape victim that later kills a man that she thinks was her attacker is not justified in the killing. There has to be proof first that the man was actually guilty. That's why we arrest people that are suspected of crimes, and then hold a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. If we just start killing people because we are mad and scared and just maybe they had something to do with it, we are murderers.

I don't object to killing terrorists, but I do find it alarming how quickly a blood-thirsty mob forms.

Are you saying that it isn't important whether the men killed actually had anything to do with the bombing of the USS Cole?
Are you saying that US citizens are being disloyal by questioning how the government acts?
Are you saying that there are different standards of justice for Americans and non-Americans?
Maybe I just don't understand your point.

The street all the druggies hang out on?

Nah, but I probably used the wrong word here -- what I meant is, I don't think people should lose their sense of fairness and doing good, which you seemed to imply is dead with your American Way comment.

I am not against your stance, I just take offense to the idea that we need to lose our ideals, or have lost them. There's a lot that's wrong, and sometimes downright silly about America, but I want to belong to a country that, in the long term, tries to do the right thing. (I'm sure somebody will want to argue that America doesn't, but that's not want I said -- I said I want to belong to a country that does this.) Which may, in this case, have been bombing the car -- I don't know enough about this story yet, so I can't say. It does bother me, though, that we knew where this people were and instead of arresting them and charging them with their crimes, we just lobbed a missle at them.

There are some good points made in this thread, but it seems they keep slipping into a law & order realm, instead of examining what happens in war.

Take the example of Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack. U.S. intelligence learned he was to be flown to a particular island on a particular date. We dispatched fighters, which shot down his plane, killing all aboard.

We couldn't try him (I know it was war, and he hadn't actually committed a war crime anyway, but bear with me), because we hadn't won the war yet. Also, his continued existence in the enemy leadership as a bold and insightful military planner could cost American lives daily. The lack of any realistic means of capture, and his continued threat to our war effort, meant he had to be eliminated another way.

This man wanted to kill Americans, Jews, Christians--not necessarily in that order--and had the means to continue doing so, up to the moment of his death. Note the witness descriptions of secondary explosions from the bomb(s) carried in the car. Do you want to approach a car loaded with explosives, occupied by half a dozen Islamic fanatics? Me neither.

Sorry this post has become long, but this is NOT a law & order problem; it's WAR. We didn't run through France arresting Germans in WWII, or WWI, for that matter. The only difference is that the Germans concentrated on Allied military, while the Islamists will kill any Westerner or Jew, regardless of position.

Stacy, obviously I don't expect the CIA to provide me with classified information. The question of the poll, and of this thread, I think, is whether the US government should kill citizens in other countries that are suspected of terrorist activities, rather than capturing them and holding some type of trial. You evidently feel that it is okay for the CIA to do that. I'm not sure that I do, but as I said, I don't know enough about what actually happened to form a hard opinion.

But time, Ken, is something we do not have. The intel they're releasing says the car was traveling towards the location of the American ambassador. And that there were secondary explosions after the first, possibly indicating the presence of explosives in the car. Is this true? Is this disinformation? We can't know for sure. Did these men have previous terrorist acts under their belts? Some did. Someone in the field, in a horribly hostile environment, saw a threat and acted on it. I refuse to second guess him.

I don't object to killing terrorists, but I do find it alarming how quickly a blood-thirsty mob forms.

It might have something to do with watching 3000 people die on national television.

Are you saying that it isn't important whether the men killed actually had anything to do with the bombing of the USS Cole?
Are you saying that US citizens are being disloyal by questioning how the government acts?
Are you saying that there are different standards of justice for Americans and non-Americans?
Maybe I just don't understand your point.

To me, these are all valid questions. (Except for number two and that's an unequivocal NO...it is our DUTY to question.) As for the rest, here's my thinking lately: We like to think of ourselves as better than everyone else. The most advanced technology, the most advanced justice system, the most advanced industrial complex. And, most important and despite accusations of nation building, we are not acquisitive. We haven't annexed Mexico or Canada, we still just have the 50 states. (Note: notice how that pisses some of the militants off as well...clearly we SHOULD be siphoning off our resources to yank their backwards asses out of the 9th century...only they haven't asked nicely, have they?)

What I'm thinking is that we can't progress while the rest of the world is busy regressing. Perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to regress just a bit, kick hell out of those who are threatening not just the U.S., but the ENTIRE PLANET. If you think Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Quaeda, etc. will be content with us pulling out of Muslim countries then you are sorely misguided. And guess what? They have no diplomats. Kind of makes the diplomatic solution a bit moot. So I say we play their game, destroy them when we find them, hound their protectors, both financially and politically, until they have no place to go, find no haven. Then we fucking BUILD NATIONS. Educate people. Give them the freedom to make their own choices, live their own lives, decide who is handing them a ration of shit and who simply wants prosperity. (Hint: the latter would be us.)

"even if some like to try and pretend that Arabs aren't human"

vKen, it isn't the warblogging community that tries to pretend that Arabs aren't human. It's Arabs who try to pretend that they aren't human. They're pretty good at it, too.

Deliberately seeking out innocents to kill, instead of engaging the enemy's armed forces, is inhuman. Sending children out to provoke soldiers into firing on them, is inhuman. Teaching children that one can murder one's way into Paradise, is inhuman.

Riyadh delenda est!

Good point, Greg...wKen is a law student, I keep forgetting. :)

I think Greg makes a good point, but the answer isn't really that simple.

How is this an act of war? There was no battle going on. Yemen may not be a friendly place, but I'm not certain it is hostile territory, either.

If it is an act of war, then any violent act by their "army" is also an act of war. Does that mean it is justified?

Is the US free to do anything, anywhere, anytime and in any way to anyone that we believe to be "terrorists"?

I'm not claiming to have perfect answers. I'm just wondering why people get angry when questions are asked?

I think Greg makes a good point, but the answer isn't really that simple.

How is this an act of war? There was no battle going on. Yemen may not be a friendly place, but I'm not certain it is hostile territory, either.

If it is an act of war, then any violent act by their "army" is also an act of war. Does that mean it is justified?

Is the US free to do anything, anywhere, anytime and in any way to anyone that we believe to be "terrorists"?

I'm not claiming to have perfect answers. I'm just wondering why people get angry when questions are asked?

Who's getting angry? Why do liberals scream "ouch!" when we respond to their comments? Need more K/Y? :)

Sorry for the double post. It said "system error".

I need to add, though, that war has a set of laws, as well, and the US has made a commitment to follow those laws.

Did they have a poll up the day after the Cole bombing asking if Abu Ali was right in killing innocent people in the name of his jihad?

Here's my poll: Are the people at CNN.com out of their minds?

Michele's post sounds like she is angry at CNN for asking the question. Several comments also sound angry at anyone that questions whether the CIA action was appropriate. Maybe they just sound that way to me.

wKen,

The destruction of the WTC towers, not to mention the attempted destruction of the Cole, were acts of war. When Iraq lobbed Scuds into Saudia Arabia and Israel in the Gulf War, US planners didn't say "Damn, we have to catch them in the act." No, they hunted down and destroyed other missiles and launchers, before they could be used.

You can't spread death and destruction, then dash across a border and yell "Safe!", as if it's a childhood game of tag. And the US is justified in taking actions it believes necessary to destroy terrorism, with or without quotes. One man's terrorist is...another man's terrorist.

Also, I don't see much anger on this thread (I checked. My Caps Lock key is off), which is why I consider it worth reading ;) Freedom of speech means exactly that--it does not mean freedom from criticism.

Damn, another one who needs to have a blog. :) Fine thoughts, Greg.

Kris, you say that "assassination without trial" has not always been the American way. Please answer:

1) Was it "assassination without trial" when U.S. planes shot down Japan's Admiral Yamamoto?

2) Was it "attempted assassination without trial" when British planes fired on and crippled General Rommel?

If the answer to the above is "yes," then would you argue that it's okay to kill ordinary soldiers but not their leaders? (and if so, what would be the moral grounding for such a claim)? Or are you an absolute pacifist? (which then involves us in a whole different debate.)

You can only bring people to trial, of course, if you have them in your physical possession. How might this have been accomplished in the case of the Al Quaeda people in question? Would it have been worth some number of American lives to carry out a kidnap operation? How many?

We didn't execute them we bombed them. Airstrikes are one of the ways wars are fought. Simply put; 'They' started it and we'll finish it. Even if this carload turns out to be full of innocents that's the price a society pays for harboring terrorists. If that society wants to avoid retributive military action quit sheltering those who are targeting and killing innocents. ( Oh and stuff the tired multi-culturist whine about collateral damage because it does... I repeat loser... it does matter whether you target innocents or slaughter them trying to get the bad guys... why? Because the intentional targeting of innocents is a method and targeting those people is the solution! )

Kris posts:

"I'm not ready to rejoice at the death of anyone, even our enemies."

Unfortunately, our enemies are more that ready to rejoice at our deaths.

Kris's stance leads to the inevitable "no action while our enemies plot and execute". What chance was there that these al-Qaeda types would ever be subject to "due process"? And due process according to whom? Not many countries ascribe to the same ideals of due process as exist in North America. If intel was comfortable that these guys were military targets, someone has to make the call and get them. And I wonder how many bad guys have gotten away because we weren't 100% sure, or because a pre-emptive strike endangered too many civilians.

This was as surgical as it gets. Blew up these guys in the middle of an oil field with no collateral damage.

While you certainly don't have to rejoice in the death of an enemy, you should accept the reality that killing people before they kill you is a part of this conflict. Thinks that's overly dramatic? Why don't you talk to the surviving family members of those who died in the Cole attack and get back to us.

Greg, you make interesting points, and I wasn't referring really to critisism of ideas as a form of anger. I'm talking more about the emotional jabs that some people like to ad to their comments that have nothing to do with their argument. Technically, fighting words aren't covered by freedom of speech, but that isn't even the point. I enjoy a good debate, which is why I keep commenting, instead of going somewhere else.

Now, the problem with calling all of this stuff "acts of war" is that there are specific definitions for such acts. There are reasons that governments agree not to go blowing people and things up in somebody else's country, and there are reasons that we expect civilized behavior from others, and why we defend ourselves and punish others in a civilized manor. Are we at war with the world, which allows us to strike anyone anywhere at anytime? Let Germany try blowing up some skinheads in Nebraska with a missle and see how long that argument holds up.

Your general argument suggest two things to me:

1. Civilized, moral behavior does not work in dealing with those we consider uncivilized and immoral. I disagree, and I haven't seen any proof that civilized behaviour would not have worked effectively here, unless you accept a lot of assumed (but made-up) facts. If your opinion is correct, then who determines when morality and order do not have to be followed? Is it okay with you if President Bush does anything he wants if he can call it an act of war? You might say that this act was obviously for our protection. Not everyone would agree, and evidently no one has to agree. We just have to trust the CIA.

2.Your argument is based totally on the assumption that you (or the CIA) know who these people are, and that they have done evil and will continue to do evil. You don't know that. I don't know that. Maybe the CIA knew that, but I'm not a big believer in a secret government that always knows what's best for us. That's why the US is supposed to be an open government. It really is for our good, and the evil terrorists still can't destroy us because we act justly and intelligently.

This argument isn't really about the CIA action specifically. It seems to me that there is a split between those that want to chuck the last 200 years of our country's history and our Constitution because of what a few very lucky terrorists were able to accomplish in one day, which would not have been stopped by any of the actions taken so far. I think the Constitution is fine and the US is still the most powerful nation in the world. That didn't change on 9/11.

Now, I'll shut up and let everyone else talk. I guess that I should get some work done, for a change.

Michele's post sounds like she is angry at CNN for asking the question. Several comments also sound angry at anyone that questions whether the CIA action was appropriate. Maybe they just sound that way to me.

wKen, my take is that the "anger" is actually more like disgust -- because CNN is trying to interpret this as somehow contrary to US civil law, instead of the very-reasonable war response it so obviously is. But then you tried to do the same thing, so I'm not surprised you failed to notice the distinction.

And BTW, how is the US failing to follow the "rules of war" in this action, as you hint in another post?

wKen, your last post (made while I was composing mine) explains part of your "laws of war" comment: you object, I assume, to the hit in Yemen.

But the Yemeni government is working with the US on this; the CNN story doesn't explain this well, but other reports of the incident are more explicit. We're not just poaching -- although in the case of a government which is sheltering terrorists and not cooperating, I feel that would be entirely appropriate.

wKen,

I agree name-calling is dumb, and would spoil this otherwise interesting thread. You brought up three points in your last post that need to be addressed. First, the skinheads in Nebraska is not a real comparison. These individuals were not targeted for burning crosses and chanting slogans. They were involved in the killing of Americans, and plotting more of the same.

To make it an apples-to-apples comparison, imagine if they went to Norfolk, blew a hole in the side of a visiting German naval vessel, killing 17 sailors, then the U.S. proved unwilling or unable to capture and extradite them. Would I blame Germany for sending a team to handle the situation? Nope, can't say I would. It goes without saying such a scenario is ludicrous (Nazis in Nebraska? Really!).

Second, you suggest that the US actions in Yemen were not civilized or moral. Unless you're a pacifist who believes war and killing are ALWAYS wrong, that's not realistic. When we're attacked, we may respond at the time and place of our choosing. We don't need to get the enemy's permission to counter-attack. Not only was this not an immoral act, it was quite moral; killers were themselves slain, and it was done in a desolate area, as Neal pointed out, with nobody else injured. Turning the other cheek means rising above petty slights. It doesn't mean ignoring murder.

Third, you question that these people were guilty of terrorist acts apparently because you don't have personal knowledge of them. I never met Ted Bundy, but the SOB was a murderer. You may question or argue with the government's actions (One of the benefits of living in the West, hee hee), but merely questioning those actions doesn't make them wrong. Much like those in the Middle East who still say 9-11 was an Israeli plot, some people will NEVER accept a disagreeable fact. That doesn't mean we alter policy for them.

Wow, I can see my house from up here on the soap box. I'll climb down now.

David and Neal: Okay, I'm not a pacifist. But I'm also not going to win any bloodthirstiness contests. I'm glad that this was a 'surgical strike' and was carried out in a way that did not endanger civilians. I may also have overstepped the bounds by saying that assassination has not been the American way of doing things. I would still like to believe that it's not the American ideal.

That said, the precedent set by the way this strike was carried out does concern me some.
1) It was CIA, not military; what should be the CIA role in war?
2) Carrying out an attack on the soil of a country with which we are not at war raises some questions, and I have no idea what the answers are. I'll leave that one up to Greg, wKen, and Troy.
3) It's true that domestic law-and-order rules probably shouldn't apply if this is war. On the other hand, we haven't officially declared a war, have we? And war on a terrorist group will have different rules than a war on a sovereign state. So where are we there? Do we just decide the rules every time we get a bead on a suspected terrorist, or do we draw up new protocol?
4) Speaking of drawing beads on terrorists, is that how we plan to fight this war in the long run? I mean, if we just fire a missile every time we find a carload of al Qaeda, how is that preventing the next carload from coming along? Should this be treated more as a war on organized crime, a war of intelligence, or do we just take shots every time we find someone so we can hold up bodies and feel like we've had some revenge?

I don't know any of these answers, but I think the questions are worth being asked. I'm glad that very few people here seem to be rejoicing at death, as I put it earlier; you can check out the LGF comments on this topic for that. It's nice to have a civil discussion here...

Problem is, we're a species set up with a conflict. We base our identities on the assumption that we're intellectual beings, whereas...well...we kinda crawled out of the ooze with the other apes. We're just more in tune with our inner 'self-important' side...

Here's the paradox. The intellectual side (and the constitution) says 'due process, and rational thought' whereas the emotional side (and Charles Bronson) says 'eye for an eye'. And there really isn't a final resolution to that.

Although I'd have to say that I'm not at all convinced about Nationalism as a Positive Trait. I sway more towards the belief that the more people that get together in a group, under the banner of a flag or otherwise, the less each member thinks individually. Especially since I just watched 'Return of the Jedi'. I'm currently resisting the temptation to slip in 'power of the dark side' quotes...

If we ignore the intellectual side and the emotional side and just pay attention to the practical side, we would come back to Sekimori’s comment:

“the car was traveling towards the location of the American ambassador. And that there were secondary explosions after the first, possibly indicating the presence of explosives in the car. Is this true? Is this disinformation? We can't know for sure. Did these men have previous terrorist acts under their belts? Some did. Someone in the field, in a horribly hostile environment, saw a threat and acted on it. I refuse to second guess him.”

If this info is true, in purely practical terms, trying to arrest these men would have resulted in the deaths of our soldiers. Also, these men belonged to an organization that believes it has the right to slaughter thousands to make a political point. What the CIA did was not only entirely pragmatic, it was absolutely beneficial, and it’s in all of our best interests to be sure that they’re encouraged to do this as often as they have to.

Practical...it's an awfully ambiguous words isn't it?

Been used by every side to justify everything under the sun, too...

How about we throw in a 'live in the real world' too while we're at it? I love those type of arguments...

I love those kinds of arguments too - because they rely on facts and because they make sense.

Do you have a problem with reality or facts?

Primarily reality, especially when presented in black and white, using words like 'us' and 'them'.

I'm more of a 'single spiritual consciousness' kinda guy. And I never learned my left-wing from my right, so I'm not able to dismiss my own opinions by 'labelling' myself. Oh Lord, won't someone please do it for me?

If I remember correctly, President Bush authorized the CIA to perform assassinations again. Which makes this action legal, at least here. If you're talking international law--I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about international law other than it seems to be fairly complex and still being worked on. I expect if we have a treaty with Yemen, our rights are spelled out there. That's how it used to work, pre-UN days.

As for me, I took great pleasure in the deaths of terrorists. I wish the CIA many more successes like this one. 9/11 and the horror in Israel since the spring have turned me into a bloodthirsty hawk when it comes to terrorists.

And yet, most of my politics still lean left. It's a conundrum.

Actually, the only reality that always grabs my attention is 'life or death' I guess that's why I choose the former, and why I'm like Meryl, hawkish on terrorism, left-leaning about everything else.