special forces of the US against Terror

ANTI-TERROR FIGHT THE USA
Collateral damage, a macho
 KARL GROSS

U.S. President Barack Obama.
The "war on terror" calls on Obama not so many victims. But as George W. Bush, he ignores international law and brazenly goes to Parliament.

Barack Obama has more power is delivered when the U.S. Constitution permits. It is war, because he can do it, and the reference to the fact that he has adopted some of its direct predecessor, George W. Bush, can be seen as a usurper held him clearly as macho. In the election year benefit das. It is not about the person of the U.S. president and his campaign, but for the office. The fact that martial law and international law are likely to bend to the point of being unrecognizable, now has the highest causes of these issues specialized UN official to a request. A mild reaction, but still.

At risk is the law of the United States. About the use of combat drones and special forces has the U.S. Congress that is never found, although for him first article of the Constitution assigns to the sole authority to declare war and war funding. Currently the president makes decisions alone, being based on decisions of his predecessor. He lifts his office from the constitutionally defined framework.

"War on terror"

The stakes are alleged terrorists whose activities might threaten the security of the United States. The means of evaluation of photographs, intercepted telephone conversations and occasionally by spies at the site data provided, however, represent no evidence - at least not usually - but only circumstantial evidence. On this basis, the President will decide personally who is usually by means of unmanned aircraft ("drones") should be killed.



The Fifth Amendment guarantees, however, that no one "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law and deprived" may. The trial is now being replaced by internal consultation - in the circle of accusers who have processed the data, together with the President, who passes the sentence, with no or only defense counsel. A largely undisclosed opinion of the Supreme Court allows U.S. das. The judges have capitulated to the executive. The president's accusers and judges, the separation of powers, the core of all democratic systems, is repealed. So even with the targeted killing of radical cleric Awlaki, a resident in Yemen U.S. citizen.



Under international law, the questionable practice of targeted killings ordered by the President in the "war on terror" is. The executors of the presidential decision to ignore the territorial integrity of Pakistan while in two ways: it aims to bomb Pakistan and use air force bases (and secret) Note on Pakistani territory without its state sovereignty. The war of the drones and special forces eroded the already questionable become democratic order in Pakistan continues. This kind of "global war on terror" makes Barack Obama, at least in terms of killings using drones, yet intense lead than his predecessor Bush.

Cyber ​​war, the next step


An unmanned Predator drone of the U.S. Air Force.
Photo: DAPD
From the perspective of Washington, he is successful. It was liquidated almost all of Al-Qaeda representatives and representatives of many Taliban groups. Significantly fewer U.S. soldiers were killed. On the other hand, the number of civilian victims of the slain militants, far in excess and what is hidden. Men of military age, lose the "collateral damage as a" life will be considered on a case as the perpetrator. As to the "kill list" also falls, who has moved suspiciously ("signature strikes" in the jargon means), without name, marital status and other biographical details of the round are known to the President, is not to continue.

These precedents give rise to fears of evil. And another Kriegsart obviously comes through without objection, the cyber war. Computer viruses like Stuxnet and Flame, used against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities are civilian weapons. The U.S. and Israel have developed them and use them purposefully. After the paragraph is not tangible, and there is simply no jurisdiction in international law. Consequently, say the powers that be allowed, and they threaten but a potential perpetrator state, the same does of retaliation by rockets. The avenger is the culprit similar.

These are all answers to - but brutal - acts of terrorism and responses to the suggestion that the Iranian leadership should lie, if it's own nuclear program exclusively civilian call. The counter-measures if they want to call it that set, but in the nature of their planning and execution of the essential components of values ​​overridden. Barack Obama, who consciously accepts responsibility, is a highly qualified lawyer. It is bad enough. What is, however, questioned the intellectual journal The New Yorker, when a villain is his successor? At the latest at the memory of Richard Nixon and some (abgeschmetterten) Republican presidential candidates go to warning signs.