In the news today:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States on Monday used precision missiles to strike a "known terrorist target" in southern Somalia, a U.S. military official said.
The strike near Dhoobley, which is close to the Kenyan border, was aimed at a "facility where there were known terrorists" affiliated with East African al Qaeda operations, according to the official.
The strike destroyed two houses -- killing three women and three children, and wounding another 20 people -- Dhoobley's District Commissioner Ali Nur Ali Dherre told CNN. Dherre said the remains of the missiles were marked "US K."
The U.S. military official said the United States is still collecting post-strike information and is not yet able to confirm any casualties.
He described Monday's strike as "very deliberate" and said forces tried to use caution to avoid hitting civilians.
Villagers have fled in fear of another strike, Dherre said.
"We woke up with a loud and big bang and when we came out we found our neighbor's house completely obliterated as if no house existed here," Fatuma Abdullahi, a resident of the town, told The Associated Press. "We are taking shelter under trees. Three planes were flying over our heads."
Clan elder Ahmed Nur Dalab told AP that said a senior Islamic official, Hassan Turki, was in town Sunday to mediate between his fighters and a militia loyal to the government. Turki's forces took over Dhoobley last week, AP reported.
Dherre told CNN he did not know of any Islamist extremists in the village.
The United States conducted similar strikes in southern Somalia in January 2007 against al Qaeda targets, hoping to kill some of the militants suspected in the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
======
What I'm wondering is, how the hell do we have permission to choose to drop a bomb in Somalia? It's not mentioned in the article. Has the gov't of Somalia said it's okay for us to conduct bombing raids?
Or are we just beyond laws here in the US?
And, if they knew there were terrorists there, why not go in and arrest them instead of bombing children "by accident"? Or is it that we don't have permission to arrest and so we'll bomb instead?
What the hell?! (And I mean that quite literally.)
28 comments:
"What I'm wondering is, how the hell do we have permission to choose to drop a bomb in Somalia?"
I share your bewilderment and disgust.
"Or are we just beyond laws here in the US?" Apparently; google
'US defies International Law' and
see about 147,000 examples. What a way to 'win hearts and minds'...
Thanks for the disheartening news, bb (I'd be happy if we would even obey just our OWN laws!) and for the support, Eric.
I would not rush to believe any death count given by Somalia. Al Qaeda is famous for distorting the figures to manipulate the "useful idiots" on the left.
I don’t think international law as you see it exists. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Unless I'm mistaken, one can't bomb a village in another nation (or in our own) based on a hunch that some bad guys might be there.
Doing so violates US law as well as international law.
Where am I mistaken?
We "useful idiots" who would insist that our nation not violate our own laws especially when innocent bystanders may be killed tire of those useful idiots who would defend such action.
Drood said:
I would not rush to believe any death count given by Somalia. Al Qaeda is famous for distorting the figures...
The person who said that innocents were killed was "Dhoobley's District Commissioner Ali Nur Ali Dherre." What evidence do you have that Dherre is associated with Al Qaeda? Or was that just a statement made in ignorance (ie, not knowing the facts)?
I will bet you cannot name a specific International law. This attack did not violate the Geneva Convention or the United States' Laws of Armed Conflict(LOAC) My point is "International Law" is survival of the fittest.
Do we have a treaty with Somalia? Even if we did all this act does is give Somalia the right to declare war . Will they, no because of our overwhelming military?
We are not a one world government so ergo international law does not exist.
I don't know how else to say it:
"Its a dog eat dog world"
"International law is the law of the jungle"
"the golden rule, he who has the gold (or guns) makes the rules"
Military operations are not supposed to give you a warm fuzzy, but sometimes they have to be done. I doubt we dropped a million+ dollar missile on only a hunch.
If you think Al Qaeda does not hide amongst woman and children then it is you who is ignorance.
google: al qaeda human shield
I think you are experiencing "enemy of your enemy is your friend" where you project empathy towards our enemies as you see George Bush as your enemy.
How else can we explain your wiliness to trust officials of foreign governments over your own.
International law pretty much pertains to trade, we didn't charge them for the missile, and delivery was free ;)
"What evidence do you have that Dherre is associated with Al Qaeda?"
What evidence do you have that Ali Nur Ali Dherre is a credible witness? I'm not disputing his testimony, only pointing out your willingness to believe the testimony of anyone who provides you fodder enough to continue despising Bush, the U.S., or whatever petty hatred du jour is on the menu. You're willing to believe the worst about your own country and the best of every other. You have only reports. No evidence. But that doesn't stop you from vilifying your own country.
Now, I DO share your bewilderment and disgust, based solely on the news presented. But I'm not about to go one step further without concrete evidence. This is exactly how the marines in Haditha ended up on trial for murder. The charges against them have been shown to be all but baseless. If you want to stand up like John Murtha and spout convictions without any evidence to support it, I can't stop you. This is your forum. All I ask is that you have decency enough to reserve judgment until something other than the word of Ali Nur Ali Dherre presents itself, and that such testimony have far more substance than that held against the aforementioned Marines. There is still such thing as the presumption of innocence in this country.
Yes, it is terrible that children are killed in war. Even in Dhoobley, Somalia. But consider this: a society that that allows its religious hatred and intolerance to convince and train men, women and children to kill themselves in the name of a dead god... such a society is diseased. And when it comes to convicting our nation for war crimes, forgive me if I'd like more than the word of a single Muslim... or a dozen.
"If you think Al Qaeda does not hide amongst woman and children then..."
Ditto what he said.
Right. So Al Qaeda could be anywhere. Maybe next door to Drood's or Eric's family. Let's bomb there!
Why the hell not!?
Sweet, right? I mean, if we get them, Great! If not, well it's just a dog eat dog world and the dog with the biggest bombs is the best bastard on the block and we can all just kiss his ass.
You have a groovy worldview there, fellas.
God bless we merry gentleman,
let's blast the enemy to hell.
And if we get his children,
I guess it's just as well,
cuz they won't grow up to kill us first cuz we killed them firstest
Oh, tidings of bombings and joy
bombings and joy
Oh, tidings of bombings and joy.
You're welcome to that kingdom. I'll pass.
a society that that allows its religious hatred and intolerance to convince and train men, women and children to kill themselves in the name of a dead god... such a society is diseased.
Yes. It is.
Drood ignorantly claimed:
I will bet you cannot name a specific International law. This attack did not violate the Geneva Convention or the United States' Laws of Armed Conflict(LOAC) My point is "International Law" is survival of the fittest.
That would be a bet you'd lose. This attack almost certain violated Geneva Convention and International Law is NOT survival of the fittest. We are a civilized people who live by rules to avoid that sort of anarchy, might-makes-right hellhole of a world.
According to the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), to which we're a signatory and which has the power of law for the USA:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Additionally, only Congress can declare war and Congress has NOT declared War on Somalia.
Bush should be tried and placed in jail. And those who support such actions should be held in contempt and banned from polite society.
What evidence do you have that Ali Nur Ali Dherre is a credible witness? I'm not disputing his testimony, only pointing out your willingness to believe the testimony of anyone who provides you fodder enough to continue despising Bush... You're willing to believe the worst about your own country and the best of every other.
No one is disputing that we just bombed a home in Somalia. In the story, the military admitted to doing the bombing. So yes, Eric, I am willing to believe our own military when they said they bombed a home in Somalia. Do you suspect that our military commanders lied when they said they bombed Somalia?
Now my question was: Do we have any legal ability to do so? I don't believe we do, but I am not thoroughly versed in military law.
I just know that if Somalia were to bomb a home in Alabama, we would consider it an act of war and a crime, and rightly so.
So Eric, don't try to twist my words to say something that I didn't say. I LOVE my country and because I love my country, I WILL NOT ABIDE by my country committing war crimes.
This has NOTHING to do with "hating Bush" and that is a method that weak-minded arguers use to try to spin facts when there is no good defense. You are not a weak-minded thinker, Eric, so don't go there.
So, if it turns out that our military was telling the truth when THEY SAID they bombed Somalia and if it turns out they did not have permission to do so, THEN will you join me and call for investigations and trials to take place to hold those responsible accountable?
"International law pretty much pertains to trade," Sure, we wouldn't like Japanese harpooning
whales in San Francisco bay. The attitude 'might makes right' works
as long as you possess the might;
at some point, it catches up
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm
The ONLY thing that stops other nations from bombing our soil is the knowlege that it will bring death and destruction to themselves.
If you think international law is protecting you then ask those six human shields how it worked for them.
Hague Conventions was included into the Geneva Conventions; this attack was not violating the Geneva conventions as Geneva only pertains to Declared War as you have pointed out Congress has not declared war. Sort of a loop-hole I will admit but it gets the job done and backs up my point about the absence of International Law.
As far as American law go the only thing that needs to be said is S.J.Res. 23.
So in conclusion it was not a nice thing to do, but legal none the less.
I believe you are totally incorrect, Drood.
If I'm not mistaken, Bush now has to get Congress to declare war or face impeachment for crimes against humanity. Bush can't just bomb nations on a whim. It's against the law. Bush does not get to decide who to wage war against, that's Congress' job.
IF there is an immediate threat, the president can take immediate action, BUT then he must approach Congress and get approval. He can't just bomb Somalia today, China tomorrow, Cleveland the next day. There are rules in place.
Bush is a menace to society.
And if you are correct (which I don't believe to be the case) - that there's a loophole that let's us bomb nations on a whim - then that is a loophole that needs to be closed. It is a threat to our national security to trust any president with that kind of unchecked power. It is an evil to just attack a nation based on the hunch that maybe there are some bad guys.
If we attacked to specifically target a specific al Qaeda operative, that is an assassination attempt and THAT I know to be illegal.
As far as I can tell, Somalia should charge the US with war crimes for an unprovoked attack.
Dan if you are correct then why is Bush a free man? Logically there are only two possibilities:
1. Bush is being protected by all of his friends in Congress and the media.
2. You are incorrect.
Ummm, I’m going with number 2
Look Bush 41 bombed Somalia, Clinton bombed Somalia, Bush 43 is bombing Somalia probably as we speak and our next President will bomb Somalia too. In all four cases no laws are broken. I’m sorry you hate Bush so much but he is not breaking any laws. If you don’t believe me refer the beginning of this post.
2
And S.J. Res. 23 was a badly written piece of legislation and not intended to give Bush carte blanche to bomb the world at will, war without end.
WE, THE PEOPLE, WILL NOT ABIDE BY THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOR.
whatever it is still legal
That remains to be seen.
In the meantime, here's hoping you have no Al Qaeda members (or suspected Al Qaeda members, or people who LOOK like they might be Al Qaeda members) move in next door to you, you blind, military-worshiping, fearful pup.
Lord have mercy on your soul.
Keeping in mind, "No one is prosecuting" is not the same as "legal." And most certainly not the same as moral or advisable.
If Somalia can't keep its territory free of terrorists who are trying to kill us, then the U.S. is completely within its rights to kill them.
It cuts both ways, too. When the U.S. harbored Canadian revolutionaries in upstate New York and allowed them to base their operations out of the U.S., the British attacked rebel forces in U.S. territory in 1837. And the British had every right to do so.
So, was Cuba within its rights to attack us when we hesitated in releasing a kidnapped child?
Are Britain and other nations within their rights to attack us because we're holding/have held some of their citizens in prison without trial?
When the CIA mined the harbor at Corinto in Nicaragua or supported the Contra terrorists, or trained them at Ft Benning, GA, should Nica have lobbed some bombs, would they have been within their legal rights to bomb Georgia?
That's insane and immoral as hell.
Dan have you ever sided with the United States on anything?
I AM siding with the US. I'm siding with our laws against assassination. I'm siding with what leads to more security for us. I'm siding with our laws against bombing innocent people.
I'm siding with our laws and against criminality.
You?
So, was Cuba within its rights to attack us when we hesitated in releasing a kidnapped child?
It was the custodial parent who brought the child to America, so there was no kidnapping.
Are Britain and other nations within their rights to attack us because we're holding/have held some of their citizens in prison without trial?
If we're just grabbing Britons and locking them up, yes. If we're seizing terrorists on the battlefield who have British citizenship, then no. And for the same reason why the British were right to attack rebel forces based in New York.
When the CIA mined the harbor at Corinto in Nicaragua or supported the Contra terrorists, or trained them at Ft Benning, GA, should Nica have lobbed some bombs, would they have been within their legal rights to bomb Georgia?
If the horror stories about the School of the Americas are true, then yes, those nations would have been within their rights to attack the U.S. homeland.
Not to change the topic or anything. Just really enjoyed the raindrop photo.
My take on things? There are good and bad with nearly everything. The language we use, however, is aimed at dividing people.
Post a Comment