[iakobos]

I just watched it today. I've been a Star Trek fan for about 30 years. With respect to Libertarianism, there is certainly a lot about Star Trek to criticize, including even in the current movie. As a Star Trek fan the movie was great, exceeding my expectations.

But one of the central plots of Star Trek Into Darkness is unquestionably a critique of American foreign policy with respect to drone strikes against American citizens and/or against people who have had no opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. I thought it was pretty interesting. I believe the movie should prove useful to engage interventionists, neo-cons and warmongers in a discussion of the reasons for and responses to terrorism, collateral damage and the immorality of drone strikes etc. In fact I did just that with a friend I took to see the movie (not knowing about this plot point) and pointed out the connection and the truth to him afterwards. Thankfully, the movie, in the context of the Star Trek universe, takes the high road in solving the problem. I also applaud JJ Abrams for having the courage to make such a contentious issue a central theme of a Summer blockbuster movie.

[Poelmo]

Social commentary has always been part of Star Trek, without that it would just be another mediocre western in space. I haven't seen the new movie yet but I've seen pretty much everything else with the name "Star Trek" attached to it and they've always had a recurring theme of commentary through parabels with the Federation not always being perfect (like their prime directive that allows them to conveniently look away when a rival empire conquers a weaker world) because it has to deal with the practical concern of being one of the big boys but not so big they can take on everyone else at the same time and all of that in a situation where conventional warfare is a very real threat (there is no MAD and no economic interdependence), reminiscent of the situation of the late British Empire.

The issue of sanctioned assassinations is one that I do not think will be solved even by the 23rd century because the real world refuses to give a sh*t about our desire to pour everything into neat laws. The line between organized crime and a military threats will always be blurry and arbitrary. The biggest issue I take away from recent controversies (for example the deaths of Gaddaffi and Bin Laden) is that everyone, including the human rights advocates, only cares about the big names. They would favor a bloody ground battle between soldiers and the evil genius's army of conscripted henchmen ending in the capture of the evil genius to just dropping a missile on the evil genius. Nobody complains when the soldiers use deadly force instead of trying to arrest each one of the henchmen. Apparently the lives of soldiers and henchmen don't count. A good leader takes the lives of the soldiers and henchmen into account and acts accordingly, regardless of what armchair critics may think of it. An assassination of Saddam (who was also the official supreme commander of Iraq's military and therefore an actual military target) before March 2003 would have saved the lives of 30.000 Iraqi soldiers, but no one seems to realize that.

[Potemkin]

They would favor a bloody ground battle between soldiers and the evil genius's army of conscripted henchmen ending in the capture of the evil genius to just dropping a missile on the evil genius. Nobody complains when the soldiers use deadly force instead of trying to arrest each one of the henchmen.

In theory, all human lives are equally valuable. In practice, some people are simply more important than others. Assassinating a head of state has certain geo-political implications which, say, killing a sergeant-major does not have.

[Poelmo]

In theory, all human lives are equally valuable. In practice, some people are simply more important than others. Assassinating a head of state has certain geo-political implications which, say, killing a sergeant-major does not have.

Of course, but when the enemy leader is not a head of state, or is the unpopular head of state of a country you are at war with (via an official declaration of war) it shouldn't really change the outcome, except that a lot more soldiers/henchmen will get to return to their families in one piece. It is my opinion that you cannot accept supreme command of the military (which gives you a military rank) and a government without accepting that this makes you a legitimate target. The only situation where hiding behind your soldiers is acceptable is when you have the voluntary support of your soldiers and the people because you and they stand for something bigger and there's a reasonable chance you will prevail. Besides, I don't think the people who questioned the deaths of Bin Laden and Gadaffi did so because they certain feared geo-political implications. It's just asinine how people consider bombing of ~10 conscripted soldiers to be a legitimate signal and policy option while they consider bombing a single madman with lots of blood on his hands to be murder. The distinction between legitimate, uniformed targets and "troublesome" civilians which can only be captured is, has always been and always will be, arbitrary and in conflict with reality.

[Potemkin]

Of course, but when the enemy leader is not a head of state, or is the unpopular head of state of a country you are at war with (via an official declaration of war) it shouldn't really change the outcome, except that a lot more soldiers/henchmen will get to return to their families in one piece.

Non-state actors who are at 'war' with us are, by definition, terrorists and are therefore legitimate targets. However, if a head of state has not attacked us or declared war against us, then assassinating him, even as part of a war started by us, is problematic, both legally and geo-politically.

It is my opinion that you cannot accept supreme command of the military (which gives you a military rank) and a government without accepting that this makes you a legitimate target. The only situation where hiding behind your soldiers is acceptable is when you have the voluntary support of your soldiers and the people because you and they stand for something bigger and there's a reasonable chance you will prevail.

But doesn't every head of state at war believe that?

Besides, I don't think the people who questioned the deaths of Bin Laden and Gadaffi did so because they certain feared geo-political implications. It's just asinine how people consider bombing of ~10 conscripted soldiers to be a legitimate signal and policy option while they consider bombing a single madman with lots of blood on his hands to be murder.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't oppose the killing of Gaddafi or the execution of Saddam Hussein because I feel sorry for them, but because I am concerned by the legal and geo-political implications - to paraphrase Talleyrand, killing them was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.

The distinction between legitimate, uniformed targets and "troublesome" civilians which can only be captured is, has always been and always will be, arbitrary and in conflict with reality.

All laws are, at root, arbitrary. Nevertheless, we must obey them.

[Poelmo]

Non-state actors who are at 'war' with us are, by definition, terrorists and are therefore legitimate targets. However, if a head of state has not attacked us or declared war against us, then assassinating him, even as part of a war started by us, is problematic, both legally and geo-politically.

How do you determine if terrorists are "at war" with you? They are not states or uniformed rebel armies that can issue official deckarations of war and they are unlikely to have a command structure that can force a ceasefire after reasonable negotiations. I don't see the problem with assassinating heads of states who you declared war on because if you did it on a whim you risk an all-out war if the military and people of the other country supported the head of state, if you are not bothered by this you could have attacked on a whim even without assassinating the enemy head of state right away.

But doesn't every head of state at war believe that?

Gaddaffi knew he stood no chance of winning, just like Saddam, they just used human shields to buy themselves time to escape. If you are a dictator your people probably don't support you, whether the military supports you should be evident when you give the soldiers permission to go home unless they volunteer to fight for you.

Besides, I don't think the people who questioned the deaths of Bin Laden and Gadaffi did so because they certain feared geo-political implications. It's just asinine how people consider bombing of ~10 conscripted soldiers to be a legitimate signal and policy option while they consider bombing a single madman with lots of blood on his hands to be murder.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't oppose the killing of Gaddafi or the execution of Saddam Hussein because I feel sorry for them, but because I am concerned by the legal and geo-political implications - to paraphrase Talleyrand, killing them was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.

All laws are, at root, arbitrary. Nevertheless, we must obey them.

Some are more arbitrary than others. In any case we should not be lulled into some false belief that every problem imaginable can be solved by internally consistent laws. There are rare instances where a sanctioned assassination can save countless lives or save your nation from destruction, that is even more true for the United Federation of Planets (which faces multiple continuing existential threats) than it is for countries today.

[Potemkin]

Gaddaffi knew he stood no chance of winning, just like Saddam, they just used human shields to buy themselves time to escape.

Neither Saddam nor Gaddafi tried to escape - Saddam was in hiding in Iraq, hoping to organise a guerilla war, and Gaddafi intended to make a last stand in his home town.

If you are a dictator your people probably don't support you

Not even a dictator can rule without some support. This is the mistake the neo-cons made when they invaded Iraq in 2003 - they assumed that almost everyone in Iraq would welcome them with open arms.

whether the military supports you should be evident when you give the soldiers permission to go home unless they volunteer to fight for you.

Not even Churchill in WWII was crazy enough to do that. In fact, any nation's leader would be failing in his or her duty to the state if they gave such an order.

[Poelmo]

Neither Saddam nor Gaddafi tried to escape - Saddam was in hiding in Iraq, hoping to organise a guerilla war, and Gaddafi intended to make a last stand in his home town.

Gaddaffi was trying to escape to another country (he was traveling in a convoy) and both Saddam and Gaddaffi had used their soldiers as human shields to buy time for their escape from their capital cities.

Not even a dictator can rule without some support. This is the mistake the neo-cons made when they invaded Iraq in 2003 - they assumed that almost everyone in Iraq would welcome them with open arms.

Right, but when you are a dictator the burden of proof is on you, of course you wouldn't be a dictator in the first place if you cared about such things, but the point is that we can use this information to make a judgment in hindsight to convince critics who denounce the killing of the dictator.

Not even Churchill in WWII was crazy enough to do that. In fact, any nation's leader would be failing in his or her duty to the state if they gave such an order.

Churchill was a democratic leader, the Germans weren't going after him specifically (unlike the Americans in Iraq going specifically after Saddam) and Great Britain had a reasonable chance of successfully defending itself (which is what happened in the end). Also, if there had ever been a successful German invasion of Great Britain I do not think Churchill would have sacrificed thousands of soldiers to ensure his own escape, instead he would have surrendered himself to allow his soldiers to escape and fight another day.

[Potemkin]

Gaddaffi was trying to escape to another country (he was traveling in a convoy)

My understanding is that his convoy was on its way to his home town; if he had wanted to escape abroad, why did he move north to Sirte rather than south, closer to the borders with other African nations? It makes no sense.

and both Saddam and Gaddaffi had used their soldiers as human shields to buy time for their escape from their capital cities.

They retreated from an indefensible position in order to regroup and rally their troops. Do you know nothing about war?

Churchill was a democratic leader

Not during WWII he wasn't.

the Germans weren't going after him specifically (unlike the Americans in Iraq going specifically after Saddam) and Great Britain had a reasonable chance of successfully defending itself (which is what happened in the end). Also, if there had ever been a successful German invasion of Great Britain I do not think Churchill would have sacrificed thousands of soldiers to ensure his own escape, instead he would have surrendered himself to allow his soldiers to escape and fight another day.

Actually, his plan was to make a last stand in London, fighting at the head of British paratroopers. Stalin had a similar plan when the Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow.

[Poelmo]

My understanding is that his convoy was on its way to his home town; if he had wanted to escape abroad, why did he move north to Sirte rather than south, closer to the borders with other African nations? It makes no sense.

Perhaps, but he would also have needed to marshall troops to break through to the south.

They retreated from an indefensible position in order to regroup and rally their troops. Do you know nothing about war?

They let their soldiers fight on long after it was clear those positions were indefensible, then they escaped and after that they let the defense disintegrate. All evidence points to them using soldier's lives to save their own skin.

Actually, his plan was to make a last stand in London, fighting at the head of British paratroopers. Stalin had a similar plan when the Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow.

Stay and fight is also honorable, in any case I doubt he'd let the paratroopers fight to cover his own escape to Canada. He would have died fighting or surrendered (so his men could go underground). Stalin is a different story, the bastard would have sacrificed a million men, women and children to buy himself an escape route.

[Potemkin]

They let their soldiers fight on long after it was clear those positions were indefensible, then they escaped and after that they let the defense disintegrate. All evidence points to them using soldier's lives to save their own skin.

The same accusation could be levelled at Churchill during WWII.

Stay and fight is also honorable, in any case I doubt he'd let the paratroopers fight to cover his own escape to Canada. He would have died fighting or surrendered (so his men could go underground). Stalin is a different story, the bastard would have sacrificed a million men, women and children to buy himself an escape route.

Nonsense. Stalin stayed in Moscow. A train was prepared to whisk him away to beyond the Urals, but he sent it away and stayed in Moscow. Legend has it that he spent all night pacing up and down the railway platform, trying to decide whether to stay or flee, before finally deciding to stay. Rather comically, the train had to be hastily recalled to Moscow the next day, as it had departed carrying all of Stalin's personal belongings.

[Rothbardian]

Yes OP, I saw that too. I felt it was a portrayal of American empirialism as a whole.

Consider the federation, which is nothing more than an enormous military institution. They call themselves 'explorers' but every single person in the movie belongs to a military academy and this militant organization controls practically every aspect of life on Earth as far as I can tell. This is why the bad guy is so important. Rampant fascism, which is basically what the 'federation' is, doesn't make any sense without an imminent threat lurking out there somewhere.

[Decky]

Churchill was a democratic leader,

Is that Winston Churchill; the leader of the British Empire?

How many of the people he ruled were given the opportunity to vote for him I wonder. Did you even think about what you typed for one second?

[Poelmo]

Consider the federation, which is nothing more than an enormous military institution. They call themselves 'explorers' but every single person in the movie belongs to a military academy and this militant organization controls practically every aspect of life on Earth as far as I can tell. This is why the bad guy is so important. Rampant fascism, which is basically what the 'federation' is, doesn't make any sense without an imminent threat lurking out there somewhere.

No, the shows and movies only focus on the military. Starfleet is actually tiny compared to the Federation, a few thousand ships, each with a crew of a few hundred, defending a civilization of hundreds of billions. There is a democratic civilian government (at least there always was in any other Trek) and Federation worlds are wealthy paradises where you can play videogames all day long if you so please.

[layman]

Rampant fascism, which is basically what the 'federation'

Facism is basically about ultranationalism, anti englightenment and racialism.

The federation looks nothing like this from the movies I have seen. Its a post scarcity and fairly liberal looking organisation.

In fact it seems very anti facist in how it promotes diversity and peace.