If the CIA sends you a fax telling you they plan to bomb something, whatever you do, respond.
That’s the lesson from today’s defense of the Obama Administration’s massive drone strike program against Pakistan, which claims that the CIA has sent faxes saying they plan more drone strikes to someone within Pakistan’s ISI and never heard back.
That amounts to “tacit consent,” as far as the administration is concerned, and apparently a level of consent that trumps the many, many public complaints by the Pakistani government about such strikes violating their national sovereignty.
The claims reflect the administration’s ongoing belief that when Pakistan’s government publicly condemns the strikes they don’t really mean it, and are only doing so for political gain because the strikes are so hugely unpopular domestically.
The US has struggle to find a legal justification for the strikes, and has often just blown off the direct questions about the program by claim its “classified.” The fax machine defense may be a really difficult sell however, and may prompt Pakistan’s ISI to check their incoming lines more often.
It must be a send-only fax machine.
Wonder if the CIA considered making a phone call or send an email?
The US gov seems to be invoking the principle "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" (or more simply "Qui tacit consentire" – silence implies consent).
I like this as a precedent, and here's why: I sent a letter to my government in 1995 telling them that I
* despised everything that every politician and bureaucrat stood for;
* rejected the political means as parasitic in nature and 'unfit for purpose';
* did not feel bound by any law they promulgated (those that were consistent with Natural Rights were unnecessary);
* rejected any obligation to vote (voting is "compulsory" in my jurisdiction);
* submitted that tests of my assertions in any court or tribunal where the sitting judge was paid by the government were a fortiori biased;
* rejected the notion of a 'social contract' that could be varied by one side without notice or redress; and
* asserted that, to the extent that a 'social contract' was held to exist, that government failed to fulfil their side of the bargain – and that since the State asserts that the social contract is synallagmatic (involves ongoing and simultaneous bilateral obligations), they were in breach and I therefore exercised the exceptio non adimplenti contractus.
I pretty much wanted to make it clear that they did not have my consent to rule me, and that I no longer accepted any obligation to pay for them to interfere with people's lives.
There was a clause in there somewhere saying something to the effect that to the extent that I was forced to pay indirect taxes and/or to remit other taxes under duress, I noted that actus me invito factus non est meus actus (in short, duress invalidates consent), and reserved the right to obtain goods and services, and/or do damage to government, to the value of the taxes I could not avoid.
They never responded. I guess that's that then: they can't complain.
Frangenti fidem, fides frangatur eidem.
Hugely Unpopular with the Domestic Public! lol Id laugh but this aint the Onion newspaper its real life Satire!
Unpopular domestically with the Pakistani Public. Drone Strikes. They send email and say this area will be bombed. If they dont hear back who the fuck gives a fuck.