Targeting the Families of Terrorists (split from the Trump thread)

[BaiHu]

I found it revolting. Now, I don't regard waterboarding as torture. I've been waterboarded and while not fun I don't think it crosses the line into torture. Nor do I have a problem with actions that might kill innocents. Life is very tough and sometimes cities need to be bombed. But murdering a kid to cause his terrorist daddy to give up? That is not only a clear war crime but it is just as clearly morally abhorrent and I have no doubt that our military would refuse that order, (even if some of Obama's left over political generals said ok to please the new boss).

I will never vote for Hillary--a hugely corrupt member of the entitled class who would impose her left-wing economics and laws on everyone else. But I also won't vote for this guy either. The more he talks the more it is clear that he is basically an unprincipled big-government liberal who is not much different than Hillary. (By the way, I have little doubt that Hillary also would order the murder of kids if her life or the lives of others she actually cared about were at stake).

I will, however, vote for any Republican with a chance to beat first Trump and then Hillary.

Serious question that might have to be the start of a new thread, but isn't a terrorist, by their nature, bringing doom upon their country/countrymen and therefore family?

For example, IIRC, Israel actually destroys the homes of terrorists. They evacuate the family and destroy the home. I imagine they investigate the family or the family must leave once they know they are coming, right? I know that's not the 'targeting terrorist's families' people are presuming Trump is speaking of, but...remember the big stink the media made about Sarah Palin 'targeting Congress'?

Am I being an apologist for Trump? I don't think so. But the one skill he really does have is drawing out the hypocrisy of the PC/Media driven meme of presuming every 'fart' is the sound of nerve gas ready to kill everyone. Do I think it's a stupid game he's playing? Yes, but sadly, it seems to be working.

Full. Retard. Engaged.

[moderator note: split from the Trump thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?19501).]

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The issue of targeting is probably ripe for another thread. However, the discussion by the Terrible Trio lacked philosophical, legal or history of warfare sophistication. They were just playing 'gotcha' vs. 'tough guy'.

The use of the term "Party of Lincoln and Reagan" is ironic. We knew and studied those folks and frankly, you three aren't close to significant presidential stature.

I did think the question of 'Will you support' was a neat one. It encapsulated the GOP's dissociative individuation disorder (which some think is not real or iatrogenic in nature).

What a mess.

[farscott]

Serious question that might have to be the start of a new thread, but isn't a terrorist, by their nature, bringing doom upon their country/countrymen and therefore family?

For example, IIRC, Israel actually destroys the homes of terrorists. They evacuate the family and destroy the home. I imagine they investigate the family or the family must leave once they know they are coming, right? I know that's not the 'targeting terrorist's families' people are presuming Trump is speaking of, but...remember the big stink the media made about Sarah Palin 'targeting Congress'?

Am I being an apologist for Trump? I don't think so. But the one skill he really does have is drawing out the hypocrisy of the PC/Media driven meme of presuming every 'fart' is the sound of nerve gas ready to kill everyone. Do I think it's a stupid game he's playing? Yes, but sadly, it seems to be working.

Full. Retard. Engaged.

I read the debate transcript as well as listened to Trump speak the words, and I got the sense that he was perfectly comfortable ordering the execution of hypothetical (as most of the 9/11 attackers and planners were unmarried) spouses and children of terrorists.

It is one thing for there to be collateral damage and loss of life during a military operation. It is a whole other thing to threaten to execute people in custody in order to get suspected/alleged/captured terrorists to confess and/or communicate. I believe that would be a clear violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution. I also believe that it would provide another reason for people to hate the USA as well as inspire attacks on our military dependents.

I still believe the USA is better than that. In any event, Trump stating, more than once, that this is acceptable behavior for the Commander-in-Chief clearly makes him a person that will never receive my vote.

[BaiHu]

I read the debate transcript as well as listened to Trump speak the words, and I got the sense that he was perfectly comfortable ordering the execution of hypothetical (as most of the 9/11 attackers and planners were unmarried) spouses and children of terrorists.

It is one thing for there to be collateral damage and loss of life during a military operation. It is a whole other thing to threaten to execute people in custody in order to get suspected/alleged/captured terrorists to confess and/or communicate. I believe that would be a clear violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution. I also believe that it would provide another reason for people to hate the USA as well as inspire attacks on our military dependents.

I still believe the USA is better than that. In any event, Trump stating, more than once, that this is acceptable behavior for the Commander-in-Chief clearly makes him a person that will never receive my vote.
Thanks for the due diligence. I can't get through this crap anymore. I gave up after the 4th debate.

[rauchman]

I read the debate transcript as well as listened to Trump speak the words, and I got the sense that he was perfectly comfortable ordering the execution of hypothetical (as most of the 9/11 attackers and planners were unmarried) spouses and children of terrorists.

It is one thing for there to be collateral damage and loss of life during a military operation. It is a whole other thing to threaten to execute people in custody in order to get suspected/alleged/captured terrorists to confess and/or communicate. I believe that would be a clear violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution. I also believe that it would provide another reason for people to hate the USA as well as inspire attacks on our military dependents.

I still believe the USA is better than that. In any event, Trump stating, more than once, that this is acceptable behavior for the Commander-in-Chief clearly makes him a person that will never receive my vote.

Total agreement on this. If the path is taken that Trump says he wants to go down, that use of force will find it's way here domestically. If that door is opened, then there are zero citizen protections. Not that it hasn't been watered down and somewhat neutered already, but the Constitution is pretty much meaningless then.

[TAZ]

Total agreement on this. If the path is taken that Trump says he wants to go down, that use of force will find it's way here domestically. If that door is opened, then there are zero citizen protections. Not that it hasn't been watered down and somewhat neutered already, but the Constitution is pretty much meaningless then.

Bingo, if he's willing to execute people for being related to a terrorist abroad then what's to stop the next step, and the next and the next till we are targeting political dissidents in the USA.


I have no issues with collateral damage. I chalk that up to shit happens sometimes, but we are going past that here. I didn't watch the retard parade last night, so I'm n the dark so to speak. Was he stating they we should do that as a tactic of the WoT or a belief that those crazy folks only understand that kind of behavior. The latter is probably true, but doesn't change things.

[BaiHu]

Total agreement on this. If the path is taken that Trump says he wants to go down, that use of force will find it's way here domestically. If that door is opened, then there are zero citizen protections. Not that it hasn't been watered down and somewhat neutered already, but the Constitution is pretty much meaningless then.

Okay, devil's advocate. How do we fight terrorism without going into other people's homes and busting up their stuff? If we're invited to come in and help clean up a country, then I understand, but then how different would that be from 'the establishment' inviting the UK to come back and re-colonize? Yes, I get it 2A and the Constitution..blah, blah, blah. But seriously.

I'm not purposely trying to be daft, rather I'm trying to find 'reason' between two difficult propositions: 1) we can't target a terrorists family, but 2) we can target a terrorist's country of origin/training. Because there are no innocent families in those places?

We can't have it both ways. We are either the angel of death spreading freedom and democracy everywhere we go as humanistically as possible or we are the angel of mercy by only securing democracy in our corner of the world and sparing the rest of the world from our brand of freedom/tyranny, so let's hermetically seal our borders.

[Gray222]

If anyone here thinks our guys over seas arent doing good work against terrorists and their kin, I've got some news for you...

Also, as long as it stays oconus, I have no issue with hunting terorrists and their families.

We want to win right? You dont do that by being weak and letting your enemy live when they would piss on your grave after killing your whole family.

[farscott]

Okay, devil's advocate. How do we fight terrorism without going into other people's homes and busting up their stuff? If we're invited to come in and help clean up a country, then I understand, but then how different would that be from 'the establishment' inviting the UK to come back and re-colonize? Yes, I get it 2A and the Constitution..blah, blah, blah. But seriously.

I'm not purposely trying to be daft, rather I'm trying to find 'reason' between two difficult propositions: 1) we can't target a terrorists family, but 2) we can target a terrorist's country of origin/training. Because there are no innocent families in those places?

We can't have it both ways. We are either the angel of death spreading freedom and democracy everywhere we go as humanistically as possible or we are the angel of mercy by only securing democracy in our corner of the world and sparing the rest of the world from our brand of freedom/tyranny, so let's hermetically seal our borders.

My simple answer: It is acceptable to have some collateral damage when it comes to terrorist families, other innocents, and military strikes. It is not acceptable to threaten to execute family members of terrorists already in US custody unless the government can make its case in either a civilian court or military trial that those relatives are guilty of their own crimes. I think we can agree on those two extremes.

Because that in-between area has a lot of gray, we use the military JAG officers to make the determination on a case-by-case basis whether a particular action is legal. While not a perfect solution, it is a heck of a lot better than a blanket "Kill them all" as championed by Trump.

[Jeep]

Okay, devil's advocate. How do we fight terrorism without going into other people's homes and busting up their stuff? If we're invited to come in and help clean up a country, then I understand, but then how different would that be from 'the establishment' inviting the UK to come back and re-colonize? Yes, I get it 2A and the Constitution..blah, blah, blah. But seriously.

I'm not purposely trying to be daft, rather I'm trying to find 'reason' between two difficult propositions: 1) we can't target a terrorists family, but 2) we can target a terrorist's country of origin/training. Because there are no innocent families in those places?

A huge difference--a difference that much of our criminal law is based upon--is intentionality. When we target a foreign country, we don't deliberately bomb day care centers and schools. They might get hit and kids might die. But we don't try to kill them.

Targeting a terrorist's family falls on the bad side of the line (unless they are actually terrorists as well). The family, and particularly the kids, are innocents and should not be targeted.

A harder question comes when you've found Zarqawi in a house with several terrorists buddies, one of his wives and maybe some kids. Can you level the house with some JDAM's? Ten years ago, that is precisely what we did because he had to be eliminated before he could strike again. But we used 500lb bombs and not bigger stuff so as to avoid damage to neighbors.

Questions like that are tough and subject to debate, but not deliberately targeting innocent kids (even while knowing that they might be collaterally hurt or killed in some situations) is a line we never want to cross.

[Joe in PNG]

There's also a cultural aspect. Is the deliberate killing of the women and children actually going to have the intended deterrence effect?

[TAZ]

A huge difference--a difference that much of our criminal law is based upon--is intentionality. When we target a foreign country, we don't deliberately bomb day care centers and schools. They might get hit and kids might die. But we don't try to kill them.

Targeting a terrorist's family falls on the bad side of the line (unless they are actually terrorists as well). The family, and particularly the kids, are innocents and should not be targeted.

A harder question comes when you've found Zarqawi in a house with several terrorists buddies, one of his wives and maybe some kids. Can you level the house with some JDAM's? Ten years ago, that is precisely what we did because he had to be eliminated before he could strike again. But we used 500lb bombs and not bigger stuff so as to avoid damage to neighbors.

Questions like that are tough and subject to debate, but not deliberately targeting innocent kids (even while knowing that they might be collaterally hurt or killed in some situations) is a line we never want to cross.

A big plus to this. I am OK with kicking goat humper X's door in at o dark thirty and trying to arrest him and somehow managing to kill his wife or kid. Don't like it and would hope we are trying to minimize collateral damage. Absolutely NOT ok with we need to get goat humper X, so we'll kill his wife and threaten to kill his kids till he turns himself in. Very different things.

The ROE should be very simple:
1. Kill the enemy - actual war fighter and those doing actual harm. Sex, age, marital status irrelevant.
2. Eliminate the enemy's ability to pay for stuff. Seize accounts, blow up oil runs...
3. Minimize loss of US lives
4. Minimize collateral damage.

[pdb]

Were the saturation bombings of Tokyo and Dresden unlawful orders? Were the guys sitting in a silo under the Dakotas waiting to turn their keys and lob warheads at Moscow given unlawful orders?

Targeting of civilians is and will be part of strategic doctrine.

[BaiHu]

My simple answer: It is acceptable to have some collateral damage when it comes to terrorist families, other innocents, and military strikes. It is not acceptable to threaten to execute family members of terrorists already in US custody unless the government can make its case in either a civilian court or military trial that those relatives are guilty of their own crimes. I think we can agree on those two extremes.

Because that in-between area has a lot of gray, we use the military JAG officers to make the determination on a case-by-case basis whether a particular action is legal. While not a perfect solution, it is a heck of a lot better than a blanket "Kill them all" as championed by Trump.

I was unaware of that being his direct quote. I did catch this snippet last night:


Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going -- and I think most of you know where they went -- and, by the way, it wasn't Iraq -- but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.

They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

The above was short on facts and long on bluster, but no direct 'Trump wants to kill terrorist's families once we know they're living on US soil'. Once again, for all of the dumb things Trump has said, this borders on the penultimate (there's still plenty of time for him to surprise us-imagine what he'll say to Hillary). Forgive my ignorance, but I'm just trying to separate the wheat from the chaffe here.

[Jeep]

Were the saturation bombings of Tokyo and Dresden unlawful orders? Were the guys sitting in a silo under the Dakotas waiting to turn their keys and lob warheads at Moscow given unlawful orders?

Targeting of civilians is and will be part of strategic doctrine.

I think it is worthwhile drawing a few distinctions here. The purpose of the firebombings of Tokyo was to destroy Japan's war industry. At the time, much of Japanese industry consisted of small shops in primarily residential areas that produced component parts for larger enterprises (which then produced more complex parts for somewhat larger enterprises all up the chain). LeMay switched to firebombing when the B-29 raids on the large factories were having no effect--the targets were hard to hit and the Japanese air defense was fierce. So the planners figured out that by hitting the residential neighborhoods where the component manufacturers were located they could stop production. It turns out they were correct, though the Japanese civilians paid a big price.

We bombed Dresden at the request of the Russians because it was a major transportation hub and the Russians were desperate to block supplies from coming forward to the Germany troops--who were causing the Russians to incur massive casualties. Unfortunately, Dresden was packed with refugees from the Red Army.

Both episodes have been debated ever since, but neither appears to have been launched to simply kill civilians (though that might have been in the minds of some of the planners--both occurred late in the war; hatred was high (with reason) and restraint was fairly low).

As for the MAD doctrine, officially we were targeting industrial production centers, which largely happened to be cities. However, it appears to me that both us and the Russians had learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and decided that a deterrent based on destroying the other side's entire way of life and a huge percentage of its population worked even against fanatics. That does strike me as the deliberate targeting of civilians, qua civilians, and the morality of it can certainly be debated.

However, it is still different than deliberately killing kids. The jihadis did that at Beslan and then twice recently in Pakistan when they attacked schools to murder kids. I think that if we do that we are no better than them. I'm very much in favor of killing jihadis and other terrorists, but not their kids.

[Rick_ICT]

I do not have the exact quote of Mr. Trump to hand, but in context there was no doubt he was espousing the direct targeting and killing of enemy combatant's families.

To me, there is a large difference between:

A) Accepting the fact that there may/will be non-specific and non-targeted civilian casualties (perhaps even mass casualties) as a result of prosecuting total war against a declared enemy nation, who is also engaged in total war against you.

and

B) Determining that "Mohammad Doe" is an enemy combatant and subsequently tracking down his wife and children, kicking in their door in the middle of the night, lining them all up on their knees in the front room and putting bullets through their heads in a punitive, targeted assassination of non-combatants due the sins of their father/husband. And don't give me "Oh we would never do that, we'd handle it with drones/bombs/whatever", it's the same difference as they say.

If you can't stomach the scenario from "B" above, then you already know this isn't an acceptable policy in which the United States of America should engage. And if you can stomach the above scenario, and would be willing to execute same yourself (because you sure as hell better not be asking anyone else to do this if you wouldn't) - check yourself into the nearest mental health facility. I cannot imagine anyone with a sense of right and wrong regardless of the foundation upon which it rests, believing that Option B is a morally defensible choice. On the other hand, to summarize my feelings toward Mr. Trump, I believe he would be perfectly OK with Option B, and would probably gladly watch if not participate. And that is one reason I could never vote for him.


ETA: Or, what Jeep said.

[BaiHu]

A huge difference--a difference that much of our criminal law is based upon--is intentionality. When we target a foreign country, we don't deliberately bomb day care centers and schools. They might get hit and kids might die. But we don't try to kill them.

Targeting a terrorist's family falls on the bad side of the line (unless they are actually terrorists as well). The family, and particularly the kids, are innocents and should not be targeted.

A harder question comes when you've found Zarqawi in a house with several terrorists buddies, one of his wives and maybe some kids. Can you level the house with some JDAM's? Ten years ago, that is precisely what we did because he had to be eliminated before he could strike again. But we used 500lb bombs and not bigger stuff so as to avoid damage to neighbors.

Questions like that are tough and subject to debate, but not deliberately targeting innocent kids (even while knowing that they might be collaterally hurt or killed in some situations) is a line we never want to cross.

Thanks Jeep. That really rights my perspective on this. I should have known the 'intentionality' side of it, but I was too invested in trying to move the thought ball forward on 'why' we act the way we act.

In other news, we just spent more time 'trumping' the googles and raising his numbers. As we were having this conversation, he and his team put their'walk it back' (http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/04/donald-trump-walks-back-pro-war-crimes) shoes on:


I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.

There! He's officially like an old-world, beltway, insider! Now the GOP will have to get behind him and push uUUGGE!

The rest of it is behind the WSJ paywall.

[farscott]

Below is from the transcript of the debate. The way I read it is Trump is okay with killing the families of the men who attacked the USA on 9/11.

This piece really bothers me:


Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.

They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

Here is the section in its entirety, so that one can get some context. The way I read this is that Trump is okay with killing (targeting) the family of KSM, who has been held in US custody. Or it could be read that he would authorize a mission to retrieve the family of KSM.


BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.

So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly...

(APPLAUSE)

... that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?

TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.

They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

[JAD]

The rest of it is behind the WSJ paywall.

I heard Bernie is going to take that paywall down for us.

[BaiHu]

I heard Bernie is going to take that paywall down for us.
That deserved a thumbs up and a BAZINGA!

And Hillary would just destroy the WSJ, because they violate HER safe space rights?

[JAD]

Dude, if Bernie OR Trump wins the wsj newsroom is going to go Jonestown. Shit, pass the kool aid while you're up.

[Lex Luthier]

I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.

It's kind of like the disclaimer on a car ad, isn't it? "Closed Course; professional driver. Do not try this at home."

Am reading Alistair Horne's "Savage War Of Peace" right now. I have known the kids of Pied Noirs Algerians and a couple of old Legion Paras. Torture and murder sure didn't help them 50-60 years ago.

P.S. New member here. Taking in all the knowledge available here is daunting!

[Dagga Boy]

If anyone here thinks our guys over seas arent doing good work against terrorists and their kin, I've got some news for you...

Also, as long as it stays oconus, I have no issue with hunting terorrists and their families.

We want to win right? You dont do that by being weak and letting your enemy live when they would piss on your grave after killing your whole family.

Yep. I am all for working within the standards of civilized warfare (an oxymoron if ever there was one)......as long as we are not the only ones....which always seems to be the case. Terrorists are targeting our families...it's what terrorists do. In that case, I am of the all bets are off. Most efficient ammo we can get to kill them, not treating them like POW's when captured, and certainly not giving them the same status of an American criminal inside the US. These savages only understand one thing.....savagery. You want to win, or beat ourselves trying to be kind.

[Rick_ICT]

I guess this is only tangentially on topic here, and maybe should go in the other Trump thread, but since Farscott was kind enough to post the partial transcript here and this thread is about Trump's illegal suggestion I'm going to pose my question here.


TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly...

(APPLAUSE)

... that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

I realize his campaign has now convinced him that he really stepped in it here (if you didn't see the debate you really need to hear the tone in which this was said to appreciate how ominous it sounded) and he is walking back his statements about the military going along with any illegal orders he may give.

Nevertheless, I have been chewing on this all day and can come up with only two explanations for why Mr. Trump believed the military would obey whatever commands he gives, regardless of their legality, because he is "a leader".

1) He believes the military is composed of a bunch of amoral lawbreakers without regard for the constitution, who will have no problem going right along with whatever illegality he might suggest to "Make America Great Again!"

2) He believes there may be some objection to his orders, but believes he can overcome those objections. Now this brings up an interesting dilemma. Does he believe he is such a skilled communicator and negotiator that he can simply make whoever objects see the error of their rectitude and go along? That wasn't my first thought listening to him. My first thought was that I was hearing a thinly veiled threat. "Oh, they may object at first, until I toss a couple of them in cells...or line a few up against a wall wearing blindfolds."

Am I just so thoroughly suspicious of everything that Trump utters now that I'm hearing something that just wasn't there, or did anyone else immediately think it sounded like a threat to any brass that voiced any objection to his whims?

[hufnagel]

We can't have it both ways. We are either the angel of death spreading freedom and democracy everywhere we go as humanistically as possible or we are the angel of mercy by only securing democracy in our corner of the world and sparing the rest of the world from our brand of freedom/tyranny, so let's hermetically seal our borders.

I personally see it as, the combination of those two ideals ('angel of death' and "spreading freedom and democracy everywhere we go') into a single package as the main problem. We shouldn't be "spreading democracy" unless asked to assist (that brings up a whole other can of worms, which i'll try and touch on at a later date.) It should be made very clear to our enemies that if you shit on our doorstep we're not just going to rub your nose in it and shout "bad doggie!" but use you to clean up the stink and leave you in the street covered in your own filth. AND, we need to actually do it from time to time. These half measures, "police actions", or whatever modern feel good term we want to use do nothing but make us look weak to our enemies who have NO qualms with performing the most heinous of crimes against us. Those people of the tribes that do not respect anything but force need to be taught what true force is, and it's a very ugly, vile, disgusting, inhumane thing. Unequivocal force should be used as the last possible resort, but when the choice is made it needs to be used with no hesitation and no consideration. Go in, do the job, do it fast, hard, and ugly. Leave them with no other choice than to realize their actions were a "bad idea." And, don't clean the place up. Leave them with their shit wrecked and burned for a while. When you finally stand up to the bully, punch him in the nose, knock him down and stand over him bleeding on the ground, you don't put your hand out immediately to help him back up (unless you really want to knock him down again. I don't recommend that, most of the time. :D ) If he does stand up and gives you an honest apology for his actions, THEN and only then do you extend a hand of friendship. If he wants to keep acting like an asshole then he should be reminded he'll get more of the same.

[Gray222]

Yep. I am all for working within the standards of civilized warfare (an oxymoron if ever there was one)......as long as we are not the only ones....which always seems to be the case. Terrorists are targeting our families...it's what terrorists do. In that case, I am of the all bets are off. Most efficient ammo we can get to kill them, not treating them like POW's when captured, and certainly not giving them the same status of an American criminal inside the US. These savages only understand one thing.....savagery. You want to win, or beat ourselves trying to be kind.

There is no way we can win a war against those who are willing to do things and kill people we are not.

This is a war, we are being targeted for simply existing. In this particular case, the rules are wrong and we are setting ourselves and our families up for failure.

[Arbninftry]

Total War is and has been the only true way to bring a civilization to its knees. It is and will be the only way a true war is solved. Little Boy and Fat Man were not dropped indiscriminately. They were dropped on the centers of population that would effect change in a government. We did not drop them on Tokyo because we knew the Japanese would have then fought to the last child, woman, and man. Now if we can just drop one on Tehran and Riyadh.

We have tied our hands behind our back for the sake of PC. War is not PC. IF WE DONT FIX IT NOW OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL STILL BE FIGHTING THIS SAME WAR.
The Russians know this, just look at how they acted in Georgia in 2008, and the Ukraine now. They cleanse, I am not saying this is right, but this is war. We are not playing patty cake. Break some eggs, and make an omelette.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A good scholarly text on some of these issues is:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo8811560.html

Payback - The Case for Revenge
Thane Rosenbaum

One thing he points out is that revenge is strong in societies where there is not the force of law by a state to enact punishments. That is the case internationally now. The Green Lantern Corps will not arrive on Earth to punish bad state actors or terrorists groups. We do see this split in the opinion that terrorists should be brought to justice as compared to simply killed outright. It also leads to a minimization of collateral damage.

Direct attacks on civilians in WWII were planned. "Bomber" Harris thought that directly targeting civilians would disrupt German society by making the population to fearful to work in the war effort. The firebomb attacks in Japan were designed to destroy their architecture and there was no way to say this was not in part residential.

Now, Rosenbaum points out that in revenge societies (as found in the Middle East from which our adversaries come), ALL family members are seen as legitimate targets of revenge. Thus killing the wives and children is legitimate.

However, killing them does not deter as revenge societies keep on with reciprocal horrors and won't easily give up. The only thing that can stop such (as mentioned previously) is whether the revenge cycle becomes so horrendous that the parties (or one party's) total existence is threatened.

Thus, it is an empirical question whether our terrorist adversaries are deterred by Trump's suggestion (if it is true, how is it interpreted, etc.). Some cultures - the Japanese might have preferred total annihilation to preserve the Emperor (whose total obedience cult by the way was a rather new development to combat the Shogunate). Luckily, enough Japanese saw the light and the coup to fight to the death was aborted.

Last, consider why are young men legitimate targets for an enemy state to kill and women and children aren't? Dead is dead. Is it because of the biological reproductive value of women, so men are more acceptable as corpses? That falls in the realm of our morality being determined by evolutionary principles so that it seems obvious to us when it isn't from an abstract view that all lives matter.

[BaiHu]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[That Guy]

Little Boy and Fat Man were not dropped indiscriminately. They were dropped on the centers of population that would effect change in a government. We did not drop them on Tokyo because we knew the Japanese would have then fought to the last child, woman, and man.

Huh. I thought the reason Tokyo wasn't nuked was that it had already been firebombed to the extent that there wasn't much point in dropping a nuke there.

[farscott]

Huh. I thought the reason Tokyo wasn't nuked was that it had already been firebombed to the extent that there wasn't much point in dropping a nuke there.

In any event, President Truman struggled with the decisions to use the atomic bombs even after four years of horrific war, and President Trump would not lose a moment's sleep over the use of a hydrogen bomb.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While we asked for unconditional surrender, one nuance was the survival of the Emperor's line. It is the longest royal line with unbroken descent on the planet. It was thought that maintaining the Emperor - in a diminished and figurehead role - would be useful in convincing them to surrender. The Emperor was pretty much ceremonial for hundreds of years - esp. through the Shogunate. The Meji restoration used cult of the Emperor as a focus to destroy the Shogunate and start modernization after Perry's 'visit'. Killing the Emperor might have led to a fight to the death with an invasion that would kill millions on both sides. This infuriated some allies like the Australians who wanted to try the Emperor as a war criminal. Kyoto was also avoided because of cultural reasons.

The Emperor was allowed to continue but the existence of royals except for his direct descents was abolished. After some removal from direct descent, the kids aren't royal anymore. However, Japanese keep track of such and you will find that the descent of some daiymo dude is know to be the 33rd lord of something if that system existed and they may have some high industrial position.

[Chance]

I don't think comparisons to World War II are appropriate for a number of reasons, chief amongst them that terrorism is not an existential threat to the US. And we're never going to "win" the GWOT, because people are always going to be angry and want to kill Americans for some reason or other.

Progressively abandoning our morals and personal freedoms for a perceived increase in security is how we lose the GWOT. That's a slippery slope we don't want to be on, but are, and we're not getting off.

A $16 trillion debt is an existential threat to the US. Let's go crazy total war on the people responsible for that.

[JHC]

If anyone here thinks our guys over seas arent doing good work against terrorists and their kin, I've got some news for you...

Also, as long as it stays oconus, I have no issue with hunting terorrists and their families.

We want to win right? You dont do that by being weak and letting your enemy live when they would piss on your grave after killing your whole family.

Do you mean holding a toddler by his ankles and putting the muzzle of your 5.56 to his face and decapitating him with it the way LT William Calley did? Is that what is behind your nuanced reality talk?

Bet they ain't that.

Collateral damage from appropriate ROE is not what the OP is referring to.

[Gray222]

Do you mean holding a toddler by his ankles and putting the muzzle of your 5.56 to his face and decapitating him with it the way LT William Calley did? Is that what is behind your nuanced reality talk?

Bet they ain't that.

Collateral damage from appropriate ROE is not what the OP is referring to.

How about we lose the rhetorical fantasy and focus on the reason why ISIS and its predecessor, AlQ, is and was able to commit violence towards Americans without recourse from us. That is completely unacceptable, unless of course, you think we shouldn't fight them the same way they are fighting us.

[Chance]

How about we lose the rhetorical fantasy and focus on the reason why ISIS and its predecessor, AlQ, is and was able to commit violence towards Americans without recourse from us. That is completely unacceptable, unless of course, you think we shouldn't fight them the same way they are fighting us.

I'm lost. What are we talking about?

[Wobblie]

How about we lose the rhetorical fantasy and focus on the reason why ISIS and its predecessor, AlQ, is and was able to commit violence towards Americans without recourse from us. That is completely unacceptable, unless of course, you think we shouldn't fight them the same way they are fighting us.
Indeed, we should not fight them like they are fighting us. That would make us terrorists.

[JHC]

How about we lose the rhetorical fantasy and focus on the reason why ISIS and its predecessor, AlQ, is and was able to commit violence towards Americans without recourse from us. That is completely unacceptable, unless of course, you think we shouldn't fight them the same way they are fighting us.

You want to allude to being so stone cold you know all about war crimes you should be specific and get real with what you are attempting to say. You want to leave it in sterile generalities but I spelled out an example of what you are promoting might look like. You have to look if you want to send someone else's soul to do that.

Or, you could walk it back. There's always that.

[Jeep]

How about we lose the rhetorical fantasy and focus on the reason why ISIS and its predecessor, AlQ, is and was able to commit violence towards Americans without recourse from us. That is completely unacceptable, unless of course, you think we shouldn't fight them the same way they are fighting us.

Actually, I doubt that killing kids, or slaughtering civilians at an office party, or blowing up suicide bombers in street markets are effective tactics. They are all designed to inflict terror among civilians in order to get them to give up, but they never seem to work.

However, the tactics used by the JSOC hunters currently stationed around Irbil do work. They worked previously when the same units broke the back of AQI in 2006-08 and they will work now--if the administration allows them to be used. Those tactics are fully legal, well within the laws of war--and devastating.

By the way, I doubt that many of the members of the JSOC units, or the other SOF units there, would be willing to deliberately target kids. Most of them have kids of their own and are counting the days until they get back to them. It's one of the (many) very good things about our guys.

[ssb]

You want to allude to being so stone cold you know all about war crimes you should be specific and get real with what you are attempting to say.

Or, you could walk it back. There's always that.

Strongly concur...

[WobblyPossum]

It sounds to me like Trump doesn't understand the people we are fighting at all. Killing their women and children isn't a deterrent to them. It's a victory. Women and children are an acceptable target to them and a large part of their propaganda machine's message is that America is already indiscriminately killing their civilians. If we actually start targeting noncombatant women and children, not only do we confirm their bullshit propaganda as true and give them a huge win there, we also turn a whole lot of currently neutral/ambivalent people against us. The moderate folks who aren't currently strapping explosive vests on before they leave the house are going to think "Well holy shit! ISIS and AQI were right the whole time. The Americans are killing good little Muslim boys and girls because they're The Great Satan."

We will literally gain NOTHING by doing this. We stand to lose A LOT. The only thing we'd accomplish with this ignorant proposal is building a martyr factory to fuel our enemy's propaganda machine. If the goal is to recruit more ISIS fighters and double the amount of money they take in from the less radical community, then this is a great idea. If the goal is to actually beat the bad guys, it's a strategy that falls short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAD]

I'm interested in the division between the people who say this is a bad idea because it won't work, and the people who say it's a bad idea because it's morally reprehensible.

[Gray222]

As I figured would happen, lets take the overgeneralizating and obvious misconceptions for what they are. You guys can put words in my mouth all you want, but you are the one making the statement, one which I never did and never alluded to in any context.

If you guys cannot have a deep conversation without mud slinging, thats fine, do not expect me to participate.

[Jeep]

I'm interested in the division between the people who say this is a bad idea because it won't work, and the people who say it's a bad idea because it's morally reprehensible.

There's a third camp as well--those of us who think it is a bad idea for both reasons.

[Joe in PNG]

First, reprisal killings do not work on a culture that is used to holding grudges for centuries. If the threat of having one's family killed has no deterrent value, and actually provides "fuel for the fire", best not to deliberately kill people's families. Note that neither the Victorian Brits, nor the Soviets were able to tame Afghanistan, and both were pretty comfortable with being nasty.

Second, forget about an attempt at genocide aimed at all Moslems. The means does not exist to kill them all, the political will definitely does not exist, religions flourish when persecuted, and any government that tried would become one of the worst tyrants in history. Do you really think your rights to freedom of religion or freedom of speech would survive if your government is trying to root out and kill Moslems? Do you think the new Inquisition would allow you the Second Amendment, or legal representation, or other rights we take for granted?

In this, we may not know what works against terrorist, but we can know what won't work.

[ssb]

There's a third camp as well--those of us who think it is a bad idea for both reasons.

Yup. Several users have made both points quite well.

Voodoo_man, you explicitly stated you had no issue with "hunting" the families of terrorists. You further seem to imply a need to "fight them the way they fight us," which a reasonable observer can presume to mean employing the same or similar disregard for life as our enemies. Along with that and the steely-eyed death dealer attitude you're copping, I don't think anybody needs to put any words in your mouth. You should probably drop the "nobody understands me" act.

[Tamara]

Were the saturation bombings of Tokyo and Dresden unlawful orders? Were the guys sitting in a silo under the Dakotas waiting to turn their keys and lob warheads at Moscow given unlawful orders?

Targeting of civilians is and will be part of strategic doctrine.

There is a difference between bombing Tokyo, with its civilians and soldiers, warplane factories and dairies, government buildings and daycare centers; and traveling to some city in Morocco and coolly and deliberately shooting a toddler between the running lights in the hope it will make his daddy somewhere in Anbar Province surrender. Only a moral cripple could fail to distinguish the two, or even engage in the sort of sophistry it would take to conflate them.

[Tamara]

You want to allude to being so stone cold you know all about war crimes you should be specific and get real with what you are attempting to say. You want to leave it in sterile generalities but I spelled out an example of what you are promoting might look like. You have to look if you want to send someone else's soul to do that.

You don't understand, JHC.

He realized, like he was shot — like he was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through his forehead. And he thought: My God, the genius of that. The genius! The will to do that: perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then he realized they were stronger than him, because they could stand it. These were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres — these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who have children, who are filled with love — but they had the strength — the strength! — to do that. If he had ten divisions of those men our troubles there would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgement. Without judgement! Because it's judgement that defeats us.

This place needs a poker-face smiley.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

War has a strategic purpose - to further the goals of the state. Thus the method of fighting should further the goals of the state. The problem is whether the method used is effective and in accord with our moral principles. What determines moral principles? Some think the basis is evolutionary to further the survival of the group.

Fighting them the way they fight us as no meaning if it doesn't work. Killing the women and children has no purpose if it does not diminish the enemy's will or capacity to fight.

So is targeting them deliberately not acceptable for our moral/evolutionary principles to save women as reproductive resources and the children as the products of same? However, killing them in massive amounts as a side effect to referring with war production is acceptable?

Dead is dead.

Shooting a toddler - seemingly horrific but the toddler is a resource of the enemy if you are stone cold. However, it is build into us not to kill the young. Their cuteness is a mathematical perceptual relationship that evokes carrying for the young. It can be overcome in the sociopathic or if we decide those particular young are not necessary for our cohorts' genetic survival.

In vengeance societies, the children of the enemy are discounted and the inhibition discounted.

Face to face violence is also difficult for many. Thus, killing a child directly in your vision is aberrant. Killing at a distance is more acceptable and easier for some to do. You can incinerate children from the Enola Gay. If you were the WWII Human Torch (old Marvel fans) and you were to fly to Tokyo and chase kids and torch them (so you see it) - could you do it. I doubt the crew of the plane could.

Since dead is dead and a dead baby by itself is as dead as a dead baby near the ball bearing plant, the issue revolves around the competing moral and emotional heuristics that we are programmed with and then overcome on a 'rational' or 'stone cold' analysis.

Watched a pilot who was in on the attack on the Yamato. What did he remember - that he killed other young men put in stupid position by their government. That still affected him emotionally.

Thus, if the specific targeting of families worked (I think it doesn't without a Holocaust level of violence, BTW), is it acceptable on a rational basis to protect our own or unacceptable on a moral basis which may be just drive by a genetic predisposition not to hurt kids?

[Tamara]

God, I shudder to think at what a War of the Sperglords would look like.

[Chance]

Trump has reversed his position, now saying he actually wouldn't order the US military to break the law. That may be the first time he's actually acknowledged criticism.

[Joe in PNG]

Look a little deeper into the culture of waging war. We in the West prefer a decisive battle and definite settlement & end to the conflict. Thus, collateral damage in pursuit of ending the conflict is morally acceptable.

Other cultures do not look for a decisive battle and definite end to conflict. They are more than fine with a state of raid and reprisal, of payback and revenge killings against an enemy that can go on for centuries. Just look at the former states of Yugoslavia, or my current location in Papua New Guinea.

Even in Western cultures, deliberate targeting of the civilian populations DOES NOT WORK as an incentive for the soldiers to stop the battle. The Soviets in 1945 brought rape and brutality to Eastern Germany, and the exhausted, under-equipped German armies fought back all the harder because of it. Contrast to the Western front during the same time. The Japanese soldier in 1945 who's family was incinerated fought all the harder in Okinawa, or willingly climbed aboard his Zero for that one way flight.

[Chance]

Thus, if the specific targeting of families worked (I think it doesn't without a Holocaust level of violence, BTW), is it acceptable on a rational basis to protect our own or unacceptable on a moral basis which may be just drive by a genetic predisposition not to hurt kids?

I can't say I'm especially concerned with the origin of my motivation to not murder children. It's bad. That's enough for me.

[BaiHu]

Thanks Jeep. That really rights my perspective on this. I should have known the 'intentionality' side of it, but I was too invested in trying to move the thought ball forward on 'why' we act the way we act.

In other news, we just spent more time 'trumping' the googles and raising his numbers. As we were having this conversation, he and his team put their'walk it back' (http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/04/donald-trump-walks-back-pro-war-crimes) shoes on:



There! He's officially like an old-world, beltway, insider! Now the GOP will have to get behind him and push uUUGGE!

The rest of it is behind the WSJ paywall.


Trump has reversed his position, now saying he actually wouldn't order the US military to break the law. That may be the first time he's actually acknowledged criticism.
Dude, that's so post 18 ago. The world has changed in 24 hours [emoji13]

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I can't say I'm especially concerned with the origin of my motivation to not murder children. It's bad. That's enough for me.

Goes with my job before I retired. I taught a senior seminar once in awhile on aggression, violence and legal applications. We explored these in depth from psych, religious, philosophical, cultural and legal viewpoints. Supposed to teach kids critical thinking. The origin of behavior - that was definitionally what I was supposed to explore. Not a bad job.

Understanding behavior is a good thing as decision theorists think that our first emotional responses can lead to bad decisions and sometimes we should be more deliberate in policy making. However, with our current set of candidates we are doomed on those grounds.

Not to divert but we argue against those who have a gut rejection of the RKBA. They think guns and violence are bad, period. So we need to approach some of them rationally? Some will overcome the emotions.

[Tamara]

Contrary to what the Tumblrs say, Glenn, intent really is magical.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Do you prefer a revolver to Avada Kedavra or yemach shemo vesichro?

Bye bye to all for the evening. Meat Loaf beckons.

[Tamara]

It's right there in the legal code, Glenn.

Accidentally clip a tricycle while dodging a squirrel, and then go steer deliberately through a playground and try and bunt Little Billy into the great beyond on purpose. I'll bet there are even special separate charges in your jurisdiction for both actions.

[Drang]

Trump has reversed his position, now saying he actually wouldn't order the US military to break the law. That may be the first time he's actually acknowledged criticism.

Probably had something to do with the Joint Chiefs saying "Fuhgedaboutit."

[farscott]

Goes with my job before I retired. I taught a senior seminar once in awhile on aggression, violence and legal applications. We explored these in depth from psych, religious, philosophical, cultural and legal viewpoints. Supposed to teach kids critical thinking. The origin of behavior - that was definitionally what I was supposed to explore. Not a bad job.

Understanding behavior is a good thing as decision theorists think that our first emotional responses can lead to bad decisions and sometimes we should be more deliberate in policy making. However, with our current set of candidates we are doomed on those grounds.

Not to divert but we argue against those who have a gut rejection of the RKBA. They think guns and violence are bad, period. So we need to approach some of them rationally? Some will overcome the emotions.

This is definitely thread drift, but here goes.

Dr. Meyer, Are there any texts you recommend that dive into the origin of behavior? I am looking at this for both personal reasons (interesting to me) and professionally (building my team). I want them to make good decisions as opposed to bad decisions based on "gut thinking" as I see this issue a lot in engineering.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Wow - that's a giant field.

As far as things we have been discussing here:

On general decision making flaws - Thinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel Kahneman - Amazon shows a summary cliff notes type of this also

On human factors flaws - The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition - Donald Norman
On the bases of using lethal force -

Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice) 1st Edition
by Fiona Leverick (Author) - it's dense but a good read

Rosenbaum – Payback – the case for revenge (2013) University of Chicago Press

Reacting under stress:

Extreme Fear: The Science of Your Mind in Danger 29620th Edition
by Jeff Wise (Author)

The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - and Why Paperback – June 16, 2009
Amanda Ripley

For our legal - what happens in court discussions:

Bartol and Bartol. (2015), Psychology and the Law. Sage

Devine (2012). Jury Decision Making. NYU Press

That's quite a bit. A good general intro psych text is worth a read. One could skip parts that aren't of interest.

Hope this helps.