h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A headline from Reuters news service reads:

"U.S. Missile Kills Al Qaeda Suspects in Yemen"
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1678153

The story details how an unmanned, radio-controlled aircraft fired a missile into a car killing all the occupants. The occupants were Al Queda *suspects*.

The strike has been hailed a victory in the war against terrorism by the US media in the US.


What does the international community think? Does any one country have the right to judge and execute *suspects*? Does this really represent a victory in the war against terrorism, or a defeat for the international legal system, human rights and civil liberties? Is the US justified in using these measures to fight terrorism?

Seems like the US is learning from Israel.

>>Does any one country have the right to judge and execute *suspects*?
No

>>Does this really represent a victory in the war against terrorism, or a defeat for the international legal system, human rights and civil liberties?
This could not be seen as a victory against terrorists. Shooting down suspects in cold blood will not convert those who support the terrorists to the American cause.

>>Is the US justified in using these measures to fight terrorism?
No

Perhaps it is time that the Belgians stepped in and disarmed the United States, as has been suggested.

No, no, no, yes and no!

The USA does not want to recognise the international war-crime tribunal in order to be able to continue this kind of warcrimes.

Im sorry, has the US ever been particularly worried about that?

"Im sorry, has the US ever been particularly worried about that?"

No. Not really. Mainly because the international community has been less then volcal in their opposition to such actions. I guess there may have been a stronger reaction if the action took place in Europe, say.

Exactly.
Hmmm
Im against a federalised Europe, but Im starting to believe it is necessary, as there needs to be a force to combat America who sees itself as King of the World.

Interesting letter into the paper the other day(not saying I agree with it or anything)

The UN ran a survey among all its members to try to find a solution to food shortages and world hunger. It involved sending a simple question out to every country. It was a disaster.
The question was:
What, in you honest opinion, is the solution to food shortages in the rest of the world?

The problem?
Western Europe didnt understand 'shortages'
Eatern Europe didnt understand 'honest'
Africa didnt understand 'food'
The Middle East didnt understand 'solution'
The Chinese didnt understand 'opinion'
And America didnt understand 'rest of the world'



Some valid points, some unqualified.

If the Americans can do this in Yemen, what's to stop them doing it anywhere else. Nobody is safe from them, and the nightmare scenario begins.
Incidentally, the guy in question is _not_ on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which _still_ seems to be composed entirely of Muslims.
Actually, I'm just having a look at this list, and it's quite interesting. They have a fact sheet on each person, including height and weight. Who wants to play International Terrorist Top Trumps?!

That's brilliant, Other Bob! I need to keep that one.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty" (or innocent until the papers come out in the morning, as it seems to be here at the moment).

I was intrigued that the Yemeni authorities found "traces of explosive and communications equipment" in the wreckage. You wouldn't expect to find them in a missile, by any chance, would you?

As for the US and Europe, I suspect that GWB is s**t scared of anything approaching a federal Europe because it would not only undermine the US' global position (and if the UK were part of it, much reduce the poodle nature of UK support for the White House) but would also run the risk of showing them how it could be done... well you never know!!

It seems that the heaviest of the Most Wanted Terrorists is Abdul Rahman Yasin at 180 lb, although there are a lot of unknowns and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is described as 'slightly overweight'.

" the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which _still_ seems to be composed entirely of Muslims."

Well ofcourse they couldn't risk putting an employee on the list (the onlt terrorist act in my country was perpetrated by french government agents).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,834409,00.html

A Muslim viewpoint on the crime that was committed and what it means.

So, the US blows up a car which it thinks might possibly copntain some of it's enemies.

And that isn't terrorism?

>And that isn't terrorism?<

"Terrorism, n:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Yup. That satisfies all of those criteria. Is this Bush's excuse for 'friendly-fire'?. Technically the US are terrorists and the US wage war or terror. QED.

Liam.

I seem to remember that somewhere on this siter I once described US action over the last year or so as something like this:

An organisation with a strong base in Country A bombs out of a major city in Country B, killing lots of civilians. Country B is quite rightly outraged, and responds by bombing out of Country A, killing lots of civilians, and then decides it may as well bomb out of country C as well, because didn't we have a war with them 10 years ago?

This is war, this is not law enforcement.

When you have information about someone who is trying to attack your nation, then you act. You can't airlift a marked CIA police car into Yemen and pull them over and ask them, politely to step out of the car.

Yemen isn't exactly an easy place for the US to operate. There are a lot of terrorists operating out of that nation. The population is doesn't like the United States. Crime is rampant.

I'm sure the CIA would have liked to have captured whoever it was in that car to interrogate them, but apparantly they didn't have the assets in place. So they did the next best thing, and they killed them.

As a cop, I act differently. It's easy for me to wait until another crimes is commited. If I have a burglary suspect, but insuffeicent evidence, I can catch him the next time. We saw what happens when terrorsits strike.

We pay a lot of money for our inteligence community, military and law enforcement. I expcet them to do their job, and kill or capture people who are trying to attack my nation or its interests.

Don't get me wrong - I fully condone that course of action. I wouldn't have thought twice given the chance. I was highlighting a nomenclature problem.

Liam.

I see your point. Just call them terrorists and have done with it. I've alwasy thought that wishy washy language was silly. Say what you think it is. That reminds me of something totally unrelated.