Well, he jolly well should be pleased because those 72 virgins he's been yearning for just took a big step closer towards him! His boss, Hakimullah Mehsud, who has real cause to be 'hacked off', just got zapped by a US drone so (yet another) sudden vacancy has occurred at the top of the Pakistan Taliban and thus young Khan Said now has the chance 'to pull on the No. 9 shirt'. Well, actually, it doesn't have a No. 9 printed on it, just a big target symbol! Well, good luck with that, then, Mr. Khan!
Of course, it raises the question of the inherent rights and wrongs of the USA zapping foreign nationals, and sometimes their own citizens, in foreign lands with whom they have, ostensibly, diplomatic relations. It is, I think, one of those questions not susceptible to an absolute over-arching law but more a question of taking each decision on a case-by-case basis. If someone is hiding in the Pashtun hills and plotting a mass killing in America and the host government is incapable, or unwilling, to do anything about it then there is no case to answer from a legal/moral perspective. However, no action in the world of strategy and politics stands alone. There are always and everwhere - ramifications! As outsiders, we can never know the full story, sometimes not even when the history books are written. In our democracies, we voted the rascals in and we must trust them as far as we can until we get our due chance to turf them out.
In the meantime, Mr. Khan, congratulations and, er, enjoy!
Seems a shame to let this go by without a single comment. So here goes......
True to its English origins, the USA is a country based on the rule of law. Or is it? Murdering other people's citizens is illegal. Flying in other people's airspace without permission is illegal. If you want to do these things, you should declare war and face the consequences. Just wait till Chinese drones start taking out people in California. You won't be able to hear yourself think for the squealing!
Posted by: backofanenvelope | Sunday, 03 November 2013 at 15:30
Well, BOE, hence my reservations although I do not rule such action out altogether. I repeat, if, as a head of state I learn that some group is plotting a mass killing of my fellow subjects/citizens then I would be derelict inmy duty not to take some action against them. However, of course, the ramifications must be weighed in the balance. Who's be a president or prime minister?
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 03 November 2013 at 16:01
You understand, BoE, we are at the point of simply stopping Occupy Resolute Desk from drone striking American citizens. We believe in the Rule of Law, ORD does not.
The Resolute Desk matter reminds me of another legal conundrum. When the US and UK outlawed the slave trade, they declared that anyone captured on the high seas on a slave ship, other than the actual slaves, could be executed. Most of these ships flew foreign flags, of nations with whom neither country was at war. What to do? Similarly, sort of, are terrorists, flying no flag of any nation-state but clearly at war with us, even though we can not declare war on Islam, or terror, no matter what Mr Bush might say. Except for the Somali pirates, they are on land, but we are still all at sea. I am thoroughly appalled at the drone strikes, but law, well, it has not yet been written.
Posted by: Michael Adams | Wednesday, 06 November 2013 at 22:23