Al-Qaida #2 dead?

Saw this on Comcast news just now. xfinity.comcast.net...

WASHINGTON — A U.S. official says a drone strike in Pakistan's northwest tribal region has killed al-Qaida's second-in-command.

The death of Abu Yahya al-Libi is a significant blow to the terror network, which has lost a string of top leaders at the hands of the American drone program.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, says that no one left in al-Qaida comes close to replacing the expertise al-Qaida has just lost.

I'm happy that drones are getting the job done, rather than using foot soldiers. It also appears that Al-Qaida is being dismantled rather nicely. Two great things IMO.

Does anybody understand by what legal authority the United States is authorized to murder people inside the borders of other sovereign nations?

Not judging, just wondering what the legal rationale is.

I failed at the copy and paste. How do I copy and paste things from other sites to show up as "off site content"?

Very sorry, still learning this interweb thingy.

How many number one's and number two's does Al-Qaeda have? It seems like every other month we hear number one killed or number two killed. It seems like all the rest of Al-Qaeda would stop saying they are number 1 or 2 just so they could dodge our drones.

Originally posted by KawRider9
I failed at the copy and paste. How do I copy and paste things from other sites to show up as "off site content"?

Very sorry, still learning this interweb thingy.

Use the external text EXT TEXT tag

Originally posted by KawRider9
I failed at the copy and paste. How do I copy and paste things from other sites to show up as "off site content"?

Very sorry, still learning this interweb thingy.

When posting look at the top it says EX-TEXT. That is for a quote that is off site.

Thank you Violet and Buster!

Again?

Didn't they kill off the number 2 like a week or so ago?

Talk about a position you don't want to be in...
General: "Hey number 3, you have been promoted to the new number 2"
New 2: "$#$@!!!"

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Does anybody understand by what legal authority the United States is authorized to murder people inside the borders of other sovereign nations?

Not judging, just wondering what the legal rationale is.

War were declared.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Does anybody understand by what legal authority the United States is authorized to murder people inside the borders of other sovereign nations?

The legal justification for these operations is very complex covering both domestic and international law. First of all it is important to realise that executive order 12333, which prohibits American sanctioned assassination is still applicable and in force. However during the Clinton administration following the attacks on the American embassies the language used was somewhat relaxed to make possible the “targeted killing” of terrorist suspects.

There is a difference between “targeted killing” and “assassination”, assassination usually refers to the act of murder of individuals by some kind of covert means usually as part of some kind of political agenda (the exact definition is a legal and academic midfield.). Assassination is still outlawed in America, however targeted killing is not seen as assassination because it is a killing that America argues has taken place in an act of self-defence. It can simply be put as an act of self-defence, much like a sniper on the battle field shooting at the enemy who is setting up a mortar firing position.

For me the logic that the Americans have applied hear is still tantamount to being wrong unless they know in advance that the individual being targeted for killing is planning an attack. I find it very hard to believe that it is possible they have this type of intelligence for every drone attack and therefore it is inevitable that some of these attacks are state sanctioned assassination in the guise of targeted killing.

The nationality of the individual killed in a “targeted killing” has no bearing on the legal justification in regards to the jurisprudence applied by the American government when it comes to neutralise terrorist threats.

In the case of Anwar Al-Awaki the, the justification for this killing is that it was an act of self defence, which does not constitute assassination. It is an extension to the same morality that justifies a police officer shooting an armed and dangerous criminal who is going to kill innocent civilians. This comparison can be difficult to comprehend and I admit that it is a difficult concept to accept as being the morally right thing to do. Weather one believes this is the correct course of action is a personal judgement as currently the American administration is legally justified in its current use of covert drone strikes to neutralise perceived terrorist threats by successfully claiming that these operations are acts of self defence against an enemy of the state. It would be absurd to claim that each and every one of these drone strikes is legally justified in this way; however one would have to go through each individual operation and judge its legality, Al-Awaki was legal.

The issue of undertaking these operations on sovereign states is another issue that is just as complex. For the most part America has the blessing of the state in which the operation is taking place for example in Yemen. Pakistan however is a more difficult situation, for a while the pakistani’s publicly denounced and distanced themselves from the attacks but in private gave their consent. However after the raid against Bin Laden they have been publicly describing these attacks as a breach of international law and their sovereignty. To understand if these attacks are legal requires a in-depth knowledge of international law which is a somewhat abstract entity open to interpretation. These drone attacks will most likely use the same legal justification as say the attacks against Libya in the 1980’s.

Sorry if that does not fully answer your question.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


aka: War were declared.

Thats like the 237th "second in command", government want you money, these are little treat they showing you so you would feed them you greens.

reply to post by SaturnFX

aka: War were declared.

Now what makes you say that?

There is a big difference between a state acting in self-defence and an act of war. Some would argue that America is already at war if one subscribes to the notion of the “War on Terror”, which I do not but I can understand the argument.

In a sense I suppose that this is war, but I would not say that the drone strikes are a declaration of war against another state nor is it a declaration of war against terrorism. The war against terrorism, as futile as it may be has already been declared (well kind of).

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Does anybody understand by what legal authority the United States is authorized to murder people inside the borders of other sovereign nations?

Not judging, just wondering what the legal rationale is.

War were declared.

When did congress declare war on Pakistan? I must have missed it.

Also, not "taking sides" here because I think they are both wrong - but I find it odd that when Bush got the approval of congess to go after the bad guys he was called a murderer. When Obama sends drones over to kill the bad guys in Pakistan with neither congressional approval nor Pakistani approval, he's just swell.

reply to post by luciddream

Thats like the 237th "second in command",

Nope its probably about the third or fourth but most people would say the second it depends on what history book you read and how you want to interpret the position of number two in Al-Qa’ida. I doubt that core Al-Qa’ida actually have 237 members just now.