In application, did this program demonstrate immediacy? Because the efficacy of the program has to live up to the verbiage. So, in other words if the program demands immediacy as a qualifier, then what exactly was the qualifier.
Was the danger to others the qualifier?
Was the ability to intervene with the drone strike the qualifier?
In those two parameters is the revealing quality of the danger of the program.
In the first question the program would act to save the lives of others by acting immediately to kill the perpetrator. In the second question that is a matter of convenience. If the immediacy was due to the location of the subject and the availability of the drone to carry out the strike, then the first qualifier is sincerely null and void.
Of course, the first qualifier has to be met to understand and explain in complete terms why others are in immediate danger. But, the idea there are others in danger also reveals a prior knowledge of the actions to be carried out to put them in danger. So, the subject of the strike has to have an established history of concern to carry out the threat to others. This program is acting on threat. It is a program of pre-emption which brings up many, many more questions. This is not a program of retaliation due to actions suffered by the subject in question. This is a program to pre-empt.
In other words, when September 11, 2001 occurred (which of course there were warning previous to the act by USA intelligence agencies AND the intelligence of allies and even the outspoken Gaddafi) the USA had complete innocence in retaliation. The USA suffered from the attacks, so retribution was a given quality to our military defense.
Those attacks allowed enough concern about other attack potential to have the USA legislature write and pass laws of Pre-Emption. So, the concept is law. The Pre-emption of that first law applies to this program and any adjustments to that definition of the term.
The problem I have with Pre-Emption being a defense of the USA is that it was instituted in fear at the time of September 11, 2001. The real test of Pre-emption as a constitutional paradigm is to ask if the law was in effect before September 11, 2001 would it have prevented the attacks at all? In other words, previous to the jets being hijacked and turned into weapons would a strike of Afghanistan KNOWN to stop them? I think not. Pre-emption of Afghanistan before the attacks would not have wounded those in the country with plans laid. So, THEREFORE, what exactly are we pre-empting. Afghanistan was never armed to destroy the USA. What we are actually pre-empting then is satisfied by intelligence of individuals known to be engaged in activities that may be threatening enough to kill citizens.
The Zacarias Moussaoui (September 11) Trial: A Chronology (click here)
The case of Moussaoui is a clear indication intelligence works. It works so well that it caused the 20th hijacker to stay at home in fear of the others being discovered. Not only that but USA intelligence knew almost immediately those involved as the hijackers within 24 hours. So, there is definately reason to invest in the idea ACTING on intelligence is far more effective than a Pre-emptive war. Iraq basically accomplished nothing.
We do not need wars of Pre-emption because what we are acting against are individuals known to be dangerous by intelligence throughout the globe. So, to carry out drone strikes against individuals that have not acted is somewhat fuzzy.
In the case of Anwar al-Aulaq I believe the USA was acting in a concrete case of defense. It has intelligence AFTER there were Americans slaughtered at Fort Hood. The gunman at Food Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan was known to act due to brainwashing by Anwar al Aulaq. I actually believe Anwar al-Aulaq was considered a danger to carry out more brainwashing to instill the deed again. So, the drone strike that killed al Aulaq was more than justified. He was hiding in Yemen and using a global access to reach the people within the USA borders to kill other Americans. Was it an artificial threat? No. It was a known and successful threat.
There was not a strong government in Yemen and the USA was left to deal a fatal blow to the threat by itself, hence, the drone was appropriate beyond any argument otherwise.
Now, beyond that realizing this was an American in Yemen is the question actually al Aulaq was unreachable due to his constitutional rights to trial. There is the word immediacy. Was al Aulaq an immediate threat to the people in the USA? Was the USA correct in acting against an American presenting as am immediate threat? I think the actions were justified.
Beyond that, al Aulaq's son? That is a good question. Was he an immediate threat and willing to carry out his father's wishes?
Sons are known to have turned from their fathers. I do believe one of bin Laden's sons lives a rather interesting life as a celebrity and quite benign to any threat to Americans. So, there is the debate.
Now, we are already seeing unarmed drones at the USA southern border. Why? What exactly is the drone program accomplishing to justify this very aggressive and successful technology?
There is a lot to be sifted through, but, the entire program relies on pre-emption and IN THAT lies its efficacy. Other use of the technology as in the death of al Aulaq is a matter of a known threat to the defense of the USA. Not just citizens, but, soldiers and our very military itself.
Are Americans exempt from being held responsible for causing the death of others? Al Aulaq was if nothing else an accomplice and a very dangerous one that wanted to propagate more attacks. I think any constitutional right to due process has its limits when an American is known to assist attacks against our very military.
There are other Americans involved in attempts to destroy the USA sovereignty and they are currently listed as treasonists. Do we not have an obligation to know the actual and factual status of that treason and do we not have a right to defend from it?
End.
Was the danger to others the qualifier?
Was the ability to intervene with the drone strike the qualifier?
In those two parameters is the revealing quality of the danger of the program.
In the first question the program would act to save the lives of others by acting immediately to kill the perpetrator. In the second question that is a matter of convenience. If the immediacy was due to the location of the subject and the availability of the drone to carry out the strike, then the first qualifier is sincerely null and void.
Of course, the first qualifier has to be met to understand and explain in complete terms why others are in immediate danger. But, the idea there are others in danger also reveals a prior knowledge of the actions to be carried out to put them in danger. So, the subject of the strike has to have an established history of concern to carry out the threat to others. This program is acting on threat. It is a program of pre-emption which brings up many, many more questions. This is not a program of retaliation due to actions suffered by the subject in question. This is a program to pre-empt.
In other words, when September 11, 2001 occurred (which of course there were warning previous to the act by USA intelligence agencies AND the intelligence of allies and even the outspoken Gaddafi) the USA had complete innocence in retaliation. The USA suffered from the attacks, so retribution was a given quality to our military defense.
Those attacks allowed enough concern about other attack potential to have the USA legislature write and pass laws of Pre-Emption. So, the concept is law. The Pre-emption of that first law applies to this program and any adjustments to that definition of the term.
The problem I have with Pre-Emption being a defense of the USA is that it was instituted in fear at the time of September 11, 2001. The real test of Pre-emption as a constitutional paradigm is to ask if the law was in effect before September 11, 2001 would it have prevented the attacks at all? In other words, previous to the jets being hijacked and turned into weapons would a strike of Afghanistan KNOWN to stop them? I think not. Pre-emption of Afghanistan before the attacks would not have wounded those in the country with plans laid. So, THEREFORE, what exactly are we pre-empting. Afghanistan was never armed to destroy the USA. What we are actually pre-empting then is satisfied by intelligence of individuals known to be engaged in activities that may be threatening enough to kill citizens.
The Zacarias Moussaoui (September 11) Trial: A Chronology (click here)
The case of Moussaoui is a clear indication intelligence works. It works so well that it caused the 20th hijacker to stay at home in fear of the others being discovered. Not only that but USA intelligence knew almost immediately those involved as the hijackers within 24 hours. So, there is definately reason to invest in the idea ACTING on intelligence is far more effective than a Pre-emptive war. Iraq basically accomplished nothing.
We do not need wars of Pre-emption because what we are acting against are individuals known to be dangerous by intelligence throughout the globe. So, to carry out drone strikes against individuals that have not acted is somewhat fuzzy.
In the case of Anwar al-Aulaq I believe the USA was acting in a concrete case of defense. It has intelligence AFTER there were Americans slaughtered at Fort Hood. The gunman at Food Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan was known to act due to brainwashing by Anwar al Aulaq. I actually believe Anwar al-Aulaq was considered a danger to carry out more brainwashing to instill the deed again. So, the drone strike that killed al Aulaq was more than justified. He was hiding in Yemen and using a global access to reach the people within the USA borders to kill other Americans. Was it an artificial threat? No. It was a known and successful threat.
There was not a strong government in Yemen and the USA was left to deal a fatal blow to the threat by itself, hence, the drone was appropriate beyond any argument otherwise.
Now, beyond that realizing this was an American in Yemen is the question actually al Aulaq was unreachable due to his constitutional rights to trial. There is the word immediacy. Was al Aulaq an immediate threat to the people in the USA? Was the USA correct in acting against an American presenting as am immediate threat? I think the actions were justified.
Beyond that, al Aulaq's son? That is a good question. Was he an immediate threat and willing to carry out his father's wishes?
Sons are known to have turned from their fathers. I do believe one of bin Laden's sons lives a rather interesting life as a celebrity and quite benign to any threat to Americans. So, there is the debate.
Now, we are already seeing unarmed drones at the USA southern border. Why? What exactly is the drone program accomplishing to justify this very aggressive and successful technology?
There is a lot to be sifted through, but, the entire program relies on pre-emption and IN THAT lies its efficacy. Other use of the technology as in the death of al Aulaq is a matter of a known threat to the defense of the USA. Not just citizens, but, soldiers and our very military itself.
Are Americans exempt from being held responsible for causing the death of others? Al Aulaq was if nothing else an accomplice and a very dangerous one that wanted to propagate more attacks. I think any constitutional right to due process has its limits when an American is known to assist attacks against our very military.
There are other Americans involved in attempts to destroy the USA sovereignty and they are currently listed as treasonists. Do we not have an obligation to know the actual and factual status of that treason and do we not have a right to defend from it?
End.
