American Terrorism

[hunter]

This morning, it was reported on the news that the Central Intelligence Agency had used a small remote-control aircraft to launch a missile strike on a car in Yemen. The car contained six suspected members of al-Qaida. They were all killed.

Now, I don't know whether or not these men were guilty or not, but last time I checked the USA still a country that believed in innocent until proven guilty - and that's in a court of law.

Now, Yemen had agreed to let this go ahead because it had failed to arrest one of the suspects - a US top-20 guy called Qaed Senyan al-Harithi last year. He'd been hiding out in Marib province, which is essentially lawless, and Harithi was enjoying tribal protection there.

I'm not saying he wasn't guilty - they apparently found a variety of munitions in the car - but this is assasination. And assassination is a terrorist tactic.

If Harithi had been on US soil, this would have been murder. He would probably have been arrested (and might well have died resisting arrest), but as it is, no-one's batting an eyelid.

Now, this post isn't - as far as I'm concerned - about Harithi & co's guilt or not, or what they may or may not have deserved. This is about whether or not the US should be allowed to assassinate people overseas because it can't get them by legitimate means.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm saying no here. America's war on terrorism now includes an action which it would condemn as terrorism if someone else used it on them. The hypocrasy is obvious.

Why are they being allowed to do this? Can anyone stop them? And, from the opposing point of view, how do we get our hands on people like Harithi without breaking the rules? Remaining al-Qaeda terrorists - or suspects - are a serious problem that must be dealt with after all.

Thoughts, anyone?

[hr]"History, Sir, will tell lies as usual."
--General John Burgoyne in The Devil's Disciple

[loveridge]

Well, another question to ask here is if America's War On Terrorism is slowly turning America into terrorists themselves?

[splittter]

well we've been tacitly condoning this tactic by Israel for ages now ... I agree with you, it's just another way of showing us to be no better or worse in kind than any terrorist ... it's just, arguably, a matter of degree.

Notice as well they've only named 1 of the men, cause at the mo' they only know who one of them was ... but they were all 'al-Qaeda' suspects. But again I'm not sure this is anything new ... we've already bombed random factories killing people because they were supposed military and terrorist targets ... I guess this could concievebly be the first american 'assasination', but if we think like that we're just playing their own word games ... they've always been happy to kill first and think later, and chances are they always will.

[The_Farwall]

[s]loveridge wrote on 12:23, 5th Nov 2002:
Well, another question to ask here is if America's War On Terrorism is slowly turning America into terrorists themselves?


And the answer to that is no, there have been suggestions of this kind of covert opperations going on for years that are all probably as true as this story.
For example, one of the secret files that the former Mi5 agent, David Shayler, has been sent to jail for revealing was a plot to assasinate Colonel Gadaffi by placing a bomb in his motorcade.

I'm not saying these kind of actions are excusable but in my opinion they have become an accepted part of international politics.

[hr]
"Very occasionally, if you really pay attention,
life doesn't suck."
-Joss Whedon

[Prophet Tenebrae]

David Shayler was an idiot, who deserved to go to prison for being so stupid...

[loveridge]

Okay. Just wondering mate. =)

That's my Q answered.

[Paranoid]

You have to look at it objectively, some of us (myself NOT included) dont see Americans turning into terrorists, but when Al Queda bomb us, its a terrorist act. But if we lived in Alfghanistan, or Iraq, where it is full of propaganda, no one knows any better. Americans go and bomb Iraq or Afghanistan the public WILL still see Americans as terrorists, and it will come back to haunt them. Reminds me of how WW2 started...just. Hitler couldnt believe Germany lost in WW1 and set about for revenge. Give it 20 years, and one of those young kids in Afghanistan or Iraq who lost their parents in a bomb attack will rise up again...I dont believe bombing them just because they bombed us is going to help the cause!!!

Just like to note I'm not ghandi or an American, but I am starting to think that America, in particular George Bush, is just turning into a bully, the Middle East wont appreciate his 'help' sooner or later (I should know I've lived out there during the Gulf War!!!)

[loveridge]

Well said.

[Jake]

I'm an American student who will studying at St. Andrews next year, just to put this post in perspective.

I would have to agree that Bush is turning into somewhat of a bully, but I think what should really be questioned is his motivation for these actions, particularly those in Yemen and Iraq.

There are two main schools of thought in the US: those who support Bush almost unconditionally, believing that the US has a "right" to enforce its policy wherever it wants, regardless of international consequences, and those who believe that Bush is a) using war to improve his approval rating and b)pushing conflict in Iraq for oil.

Obviously, it is not this simple, but given the manner in which Bush was elected, it is not much of a stretch to believe he needs an approval boost. What sickens me is that many Americans believe either 'a' or 'b' is true, but still support Bush. What gives the US the right to be international police? That is the question that I struggle with. Iraq has not posed a credible threat to the US, so why push for military action?

With the introduction of the new UN resolution, which does not explicitly mention military action, Bush has obviously backed off his original plan to "go it alone" in Iraq. In my mind, he is that kid who changes his answer after he sees yours is different just to be liked. But I also believe he will still do what he wants in the end.

I believe on of the reasons the US is so hated by some (i.e. many) in the international community is exactly because of these foreign policies that condone interfering in matters that don't concern it. The US foreign policy actually incites terrorist attacks.

As far 'American Terrorism' goes, I do think the US, like any country, has a right to defend itself against attacks, but at the same time, I don't support using CIA drones to bomb cars full of 'suspects'. The American public seems to need to want to support Bush, no matter what he does due to the recently adpoted social stigma of being called 'unpatriotic'. The time to step back and examine Bush's actions in the context of historical policy change has come. Bush has used 9/11 essentially as an excuse to declare international marshall law and kill whoever he wants, which simply isn't right.

Anyway, that's my ramble. What do you guys think about the United States' role in foreign affairs? I'm not at all offended by criticism, so feel free to beat me senseless Thanks.

[Guest]

I wouldn't define the attacks as terrorism because wide media coverage through the devastation of a civilian population with the intention to lower morale was not the intention as it is with traditional terrorism. The legality of the CIA's action might be a bit dubious, but these are men engaged against the United States and the West as a whole ( remember the recent event involving the French ship?), perhaps the CIA drone should have had a recorded message " Please stop, we'd really appreciate your cooperation." Also bear in mind that Yemeni forces did try to arrest Al Qaeda members, but were attacked by tribesmen who were sheltering Al Qaeda members and failed

[kensson]

Thank you, Jake, for restoring my faith in American political analysis.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[kensson]

Incidentally, I'd define terrorism as 'the use of illegal violence to achieve a political end.' Even under Unregistered User's definition, Israel's encroachments into the Occupied Territories are terrorism as much as Palestinian suicide bombers.

If Ariel Sharon - wanted in Belgium for war crimes (the murder of somewhere between 800 and 3,500 refugees at Sabra-Shatila in 1982: see http://www.sabra-shatila.be/english/ ) - were to be assassinated, that would certainly be criminal, and probably seen as terrorism. (Naturally, I would condemn such an act.)

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Terrorism is all about POV - as they say, "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist."

[splittter]

i shot a bloke with a turban on the street today ... he was a suspected al-queda member ... my next door neighbour tipped me off cause we could all get dirty bombed into oblivion at any moment ... or poisoned ... or gassed ... I've never seen him on my street before ... the fire fighters shouldn't strike ... maybe we should shoot them too ... maybe we could program the CIA drones to patrol all the time ... fundamentalists don't value life, we have to kill them first ... they're scum

[rhodesia84]

Personally, I don't understand how eliminating a legitimate military target by military means in a war can be considered terrorism. I always thought terrorism was bombing pubs in Guilford or office towers in New York.

It's good to see that the CIA are finally taking active measures to defend the US rather than just fannying about playing with a bunch of computers.

And remember: Once the US goes, the UK is next.

[kensson]

You see, the IRA always used to call pubs where soldiers drank 'legitimate military targets' whenever it blew them up. I'm fairly sure they weren't justified.

Moreover, the last time I checked, the US wasn't at war with Yemen.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Guest]

You see, the IRA always used to call pubs where soldiers occasionally drank 'legitimate military targets' when they bombed them.

[splittter]

kensson ... you naive fool ... we're at war with them, but they're not at war with us ... see ... so we're 'justified' but they're not ... see ... its very simple ... we fight for good ... they fight for the death of little babies, puppies and the queen mum ... and nasty things ... that bloke was kinda right when he said one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ... but that sorta implies other opinions than our own have some sort of weight ... they don't ... how can they ... we've bombed 'em all

[rhodesia84]

last time i checked we werent at war with yemen, but also last time i checked those killed were not yemeni government officials, they were members of al-qaeda, who we ARE at war against.

[shar]

since i can't articulate myself as well as Jake, I'll just say that I'm an American student and I agree with Jake's ramble. And in my opinion, the hypocracy is obvious and all Bush's talk comes off as self-righteous and arrogant. I do think America is becoming a terrorist, which is just a few of my objections and frustrations aimed at Bush and the government.