How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
Actual soldiers are acknowledging their participation by wearing uniforms. Al-Quaeda members are not doing this, so they more or less force the US to use equally shoddy tactics. I think that this is very dangerous, the terrorists are winning in the sense that they are dragging the US down to their level and thereby subverting democratic principles. The question is how you can do anything about it.
I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or shooting at you.
I can't believe no one looks at Guantanomo Bay and giving free reign to secretly killed supposedly accused people of crimes may/may not have committed without any recourse.
I think many here anyway can agree that Guantanomo Bay needs to be shutdown, but obviously won't be. What if later down the line we need to decide that the power has gotten out of control(if it hasn't already) and needs to be shut down. But can't because the terrorists win.
Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone is an al-Qaeda member) is tantamount to guilt.
Establishing the truth of such an accusation is the very objective of due process. Thus, your question is internally inconsistent and circular. It literally cannot be answered.
Right. So the difference is the "killable" status of suspected Al-Qaeda members must be established by due process, but for enemy soldiers the "due process" is simply the identification of their uniform.
Then what is the effective and ethical way of waging war against non-uniformed enemy? Arrest everyone then try them? What if it's not practical to do that?
We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
If you're at war, you should only target enemy fighters in uniform, not civilians, and try to minimise civilian casualties at all times.
If you're not at war, people should be tried in open court and found guilty of crimes if they have committed them, not assassinated on suspicion, along with civilians nearby.
If you're proclaiming total war against anyone who is on a secret list, and leaving the power to decide in the hands of Obama, you are proclaiming the US a dictatorship where life and death rests in the hands of one man, and there is no recourse to justice before or after the killing. In the wrong hands and combined with total information awareness this would be a terrible power.
> If the enemy refuses to wear a uniform? Do we just let them go?
The British policy on this, under which I grew up, was to treat such a scenario as a 'police action' wherein military presence was used to bring the situation to a point where the police could intervene.
Certainly troops operated checkpoints, patrolled streets and operated intelligence gathering, but all actions were in assistance to the constabulary. The ROE for line soldiers were extremely strict and even firing in self-defence was not automatically assured. A soldier could pin a suspect on the pavement but only a police officer could arrest him.
Ok, I was simplifying; diplomatic sanctions are an option, and, I think, the appropriate way to handle the case of "this country is generally ok apart from harbouring some international criminals.
If the enemy refuses to wear a uniform, and blends in with the civilian population, are we at war at all?
Terrorism is very difficult to counter, but I'd argue the way to do so is not to accept battle on the terrorists' terms - war amongst the people does not tend to end well for the government responsible.
