| Followers | 80 |
| Posts | 82226 |
| Boards Moderated | 2 |
| Alias Born | 12/26/2003 |
Sunday, April 07, 2013 3:43:09 PM
So We Killed Mr. Muhammad and perhaps other people for Pakistan? That was the deal? that we worked it out with them? Pakistan to us - Yes, you can use drones, as long as you now & then kill who we want you to ? . .Mr. Muhammad was not our enemy. .He was Pakistans enemy? ...As the battles raged in South Waziristan, the station chief in Islamabad paid a visit to Gen. Ehsan ul Haq, the ISI chief, and made an offer: If the C.I.A. killed Mr. Muhammad, would the ISI allow regular armed drone flights over the tribal areas? ... Should we laugh or cry? America .. Pakistan and jeez maybe Yeman's hit man! ....I guess because they are our allies now.
There are three basic categories of targets who might find their way onto a kill-list: (1) Targets who fall within the AUMF, and its associated forces interpretations [AUMF Targets], (2) targets who fall within the terms of a covert action finding [Covert Action Targets], and (3) targets provided by allies in a non-international armed conflict in which the U.S. is a participant. [Ally Targets or derisively “side payment targets.”] These categories will oftentimes overlap, however there also may be circumstances where a target rests exclusively within one category. How to categorize a particular target will depend on detailed legal, factual, and diplomatic analysis conducted on a case-by-case basis by bureaucrats. Who specifically should be killed? And if multiple people are to be killed, how can the military and the CIA sort out the key targets from the less important ones? How does the United States ensure that killing someone will have an impact on the terrorist organization? What about the political and diplomatic consequences that might flow from a targeted killing? Who approves adding names to a kill-list and by what criteria? These questions are answered in a heavily bureaucratized target development process that I’ll explain over the course of my next few posts.
Then he points out that we have been doing this same thing with bombs since WWI ...
IT TAKES A BUREAUCRACY TO MAKE A KILL LIST
It is not surprising that the creation of kill-lists is a matter of popular debate and scholarly commentary. Since World War I, military and civilian personnel have compiled target lists for bombing. And since the inception of airpower, various theorists have argued over what type of target is proper, oftentimes debating the second and third order effects of striking certain targets. Thus while controversy over targeting decisions is not new, what is new are the levels of precision and accuracy now possible in modern air strikes. New technology has created an expectation about accuracy and has led to the politicization of air delivered weapons. Concomitantly, as the accuracy of weapons has increased, the demand for intelligence and for accountability with regard to intelligence based decisions has also dramatically increased.
It is in this context that the United States government has created kill-lists. And because killing the wrong person may lead to serious consequences, these lists are vetted through an elaborate bureaucratic process that allows for verification of intelligence information prior to the placement of a person on a kill list. The United States government’s decision that killing terrorists is one way of achieving some of the nation’s counterterrorism goals raises a host of questions. Who specifically should be killed? And if multiple people are to be killed, how can the military and the CIA sort out the key targets from the less important ones? How does the United States ensure that killing someone will have an impact on the terrorist organization? What about the political and diplomatic consequences that might flow from a targeted killing? Who approves adding names to a kill-list and by what criteria? These questions are answered in a heavily bureaucratized target development process that I’ll explain over the course of my next few posts.
he continues . . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/how-to-make-a-kill-list/
So far this is the most informed paper I've read on this type of killing ...
There are three basic categories of targets who might find their way onto a kill-list: (1) Targets who fall within the AUMF, and its associated forces interpretations [AUMF Targets], (2) targets who fall within the terms of a covert action finding [Covert Action Targets], and (3) targets provided by allies in a non-international armed conflict in which the U.S. is a participant. [Ally Targets or derisively “side payment targets.”] These categories will oftentimes overlap, however there also may be circumstances where a target rests exclusively within one category. How to categorize a particular target will depend on detailed legal, factual, and diplomatic analysis conducted on a case-by-case basis by bureaucrats. Who specifically should be killed? And if multiple people are to be killed, how can the military and the CIA sort out the key targets from the less important ones? How does the United States ensure that killing someone will have an impact on the terrorist organization? What about the political and diplomatic consequences that might flow from a targeted killing? Who approves adding names to a kill-list and by what criteria? These questions are answered in a heavily bureaucratized target development process that I’ll explain over the course of my next few posts.
Then he points out that we have been doing this same thing with bombs since WWI ...
IT TAKES A BUREAUCRACY TO MAKE A KILL LIST
It is not surprising that the creation of kill-lists is a matter of popular debate and scholarly commentary. Since World War I, military and civilian personnel have compiled target lists for bombing. And since the inception of airpower, various theorists have argued over what type of target is proper, oftentimes debating the second and third order effects of striking certain targets. Thus while controversy over targeting decisions is not new, what is new are the levels of precision and accuracy now possible in modern air strikes. New technology has created an expectation about accuracy and has led to the politicization of air delivered weapons. Concomitantly, as the accuracy of weapons has increased, the demand for intelligence and for accountability with regard to intelligence based decisions has also dramatically increased.
It is in this context that the United States government has created kill-lists. And because killing the wrong person may lead to serious consequences, these lists are vetted through an elaborate bureaucratic process that allows for verification of intelligence information prior to the placement of a person on a kill list. The United States government’s decision that killing terrorists is one way of achieving some of the nation’s counterterrorism goals raises a host of questions. Who specifically should be killed? And if multiple people are to be killed, how can the military and the CIA sort out the key targets from the less important ones? How does the United States ensure that killing someone will have an impact on the terrorist organization? What about the political and diplomatic consequences that might flow from a targeted killing? Who approves adding names to a kill-list and by what criteria? These questions are answered in a heavily bureaucratized target development process that I’ll explain over the course of my next few posts.
he continues . . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/how-to-make-a-kill-list/
So far this is the most informed paper I've read on this type of killing ...
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
