Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Iirc, Assage is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, and more importantly, according to statements from WikiLeaks has the final say as to whether or not a document is published. ( Source ) To me, this justifies him for an espionage charge.

We don't know how WikiLeaks actually works. I know he's been called the "editor in chief" and the "director" but whether or not he actually is, or if he's simply the most public face that the media has thus nominated as the editor in chief is open to interpretation. He himself says he's on the advisory board.

ChrisWWII wrote:
He did create it, and apparently remains deeply involved in its functinons. (See above source)

Sure, but that's not proof of ownership or control.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I would contest that, in that they are not leaking the reports, but are instead merely reporting on the existence of the leak. There is a major difference between saying that 'such a such file' has been leaked, but not showing the file as with the DoD report on locations vital to US interests, and actually publishing the classified document itself for public consumption.

Sure, but that's where we get into whether or not linking to a website that holds classified information is tacit to transmitting classified information. Its a grey area as far I know, simply because the law and the internet are strange bedfellows at the moment.

You cant quote US law when trying to charge this guy, how do you think pirate bay escaped prosecution in the US for so long?

This happed in a foreign country on foreign servers this crime was not committed in the United States, to try him on this you would need evidence that a crime was committed inside of the US directly related to him (him specifically asking for those documents which as far as i know never happened).

The only other option is laws in countrys where the servers are held / wikileaks based or international law

Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.

dogma wrote:We don't know how WikiLeaks actually works. I know he's been called the "editor in chief" and the "director" but whether or not he actually is, or if he's simply the most public face that the media has thus nominated as the editor in chief is open to interpretation. He himself says he's on the advisory board.

The source cited above seems to implicate that every article released by WikiLeaks has his personal seal of approval. Whether or not he actually owns the server, WikiLeaks statements say that he still has a hand in determinging what is leaked. To me, that makes the situation worse. He's looked at all these documents, realized what they could mean, or who they could hurt, and released them anyway.

Sure, but that's where we get into whether or not linking to a website that holds classified information is tacit to transmitting classified information. Its a grey area as far I know, simply because the law and the internet are strange bedfellows at the moment.

I agree with you there, and it is a grey area...but that's what a trial is for.

Gibbsey wrote:You cant quote US law when trying to charge this guy, how do you think pirate bay escaped prosecution in the US for so long?

This happed in a foreign country on foreign servers this crime was not committed in the United States, to try him on this you would need evidence that a crime was committed inside of the US directly related to him (him specifically asking for those documents which as far as i know never happened).

Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things

It's true, but I never said Assange should be tried for treason. You're right, there's no way in hell he could be prosecuted for treason since he's not an American citizen. However, arguably he has comitted crimes against the United States with his publishization of these documents. In the past, the US had indeed extradited drug lords from South America and Latin America to the US to face trial, and the US has succesfully prosecuted terrorist masterminds for their plots against the United States.

Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?

Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?

Don't think they could, unless he'd been in the US at the time he'd aquired them. Now the US could express an interest in talking to him about how he got the files, but they would have to follow our laws.

Don't forget in the 70's & 80's we had a hell of a job getting known, active IRA terrorists back to the UK, even though they had actually committed terrorist acts on UK soil. In that light I would say that the US could take a running jump.

ChrisWWII wrote:
It's true, but I never said Assange should be tried for treason. You're right, there's no way in hell he could be prosecuted for treason since he's not an American citizen. However, arguably he has comitted crimes against the United States with his publishization of these documents. In the past, the US had indeed extradited drug lords from South America and Latin America to the US to face trial, and the US has succesfully prosecuted terrorist masterminds for their plots against the United States.

Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?

South American Drug lords have commited crimes in the US and can be extradited, personally or not they are responsable for their subordinates actions and through those actions are in violation of US law on US soil. Assange has done none of this in the US so can only be charged under international law and im not sure how far journalist privilages go (personaly journalists should be responsible for what they publish and who it affects, an unbiased view wouldent hurt either).

Drug dealers in the Netherlands could only be extradited if they were responsable for crimes in the UK, this includes ordering a subordinate to do their dirty work for them

Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.

In order to be prosecuted under any country's law, you have to have broken that country's law. That's really all there is to it, there isn't a magic law fairy that puts location restrictions on laws. Most laws only apply within the country, but there is no general requirement that laws do, and there is plenty of precedent against your idea. Extradition is a separate issue from prosecution, they're two completely different concepts. Extradition requires the country that you're in to work with the country that you've allegedly broken a law in, and a country refusing to extradite you does not require them to say that you didn't break any law. For example, a number of european countries won't extradite a murderer to the US unless the US agrees to not seek the death penalty.

Treason is a specific crime that has citizenship as one of its requirements, bringing it up is really a red herring.

The 'on US soil' requirement is also pretty shaky in this case, since the information both came from and is being distributed to people on US soil.

Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents.

You say 'crimes against the US' as if it holds some sort of legal definition. It doesn't. Either one is subject to US law, or one is not. There's no in between. If the accused is an American, or the supposed crime took place on US soil, then the US government has a say in the affair. If either of those criteria are not met, the US government has no jurisdiction. They can apply to extradite, but if the offence for which the Americans wish to prosecute is legal in the country involved, then it has virtually no chance of success, as the defendant can simply argue that they broke no laws of the country involved. It's hard to arrest someone when they've legally done nothing wrong.

Otherwise we'd be in the process of extraditing half the American populace for owning firearms, ne?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.

In order to be prosecuted under any country's law, you have to have broken that country's law. That's really all there is to it, there isn't a magic law fairy that puts location restrictions on laws. Most laws only apply within the country, but there is no general requirement that laws do, and there is plenty of precedent against your idea. Extradition is a separate issue from prosecution, they're two completely different concepts. Extradition requires the country that you're in to work with the country that you've allegedly broken a law in, and a country refusing to extradite you does not require them to say that you didn't break any law. For example, a number of european countries won't extradite a murderer to the US unless the US agrees to not seek the death penalty.

Treason is a specific crime that has citizenship as one of its requirements, bringing it up is really a red herring.

The 'on US soil' requirement is also pretty shaky in this case, since the information both came from and is being distributed to people on US soil.

Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.

You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US. And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US

I'm detecting a double standard.

If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.

If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Past and planned attacks on US soil? Internationally recognized terror organization? many detainees captured in war zones or "police actions" as americans call them?

Plus there is really no doubt that the organizations they are part of have broken international law

The crazy thing is he's not even getting in trouble for leaking this info, but for rape.

Don't piss off the banks.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.

If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them? When we did do something about it, ie Gibraltar, the poor buggers end up being dragged into court having to defend themselves. You lot get to kidnap "suspected" terrorists left right and centre and have a hissy fit when we dare question your right to do this.

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

i think you missed the point that the US seams to be a lot less controlled when it comes to these kinds of actions, just because the US regularly does illegal things does not make it justified

So now it's illegal to defend our country when we suspect an attack is coming?

Like Monster Rain said, it's not the US's fault that the British government didn't allow preemptive strikes on the IRA....they should have done so. No need to cry foul that we're doing something you didn't.

ChrisWWII wrote:So now it's illegal to defend our country when we suspect an attack is coming?

Like Monster Rain said, it's not the US's fault that the British government didn't allow preemptive strikes on the IRA....they should have done so. No need to cry foul that we're doing something you didn't.

So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.

Now excuse me while i step out of these pulpy remains that was once a dead horse

I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.

Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.

The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?

I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.

Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.

Generally when somebody starts a sentence with "So your saying..." i know they will talk absolute gak.

How did the bloke saying "They had to watch known terrorists cross the border"

become

"so your saying they should have CARPET BOMBED Irish towns"?!



Regards the rest.. i kinda agree with MR. The thing is.. its a difficult one. I think we should use more stick and less carrot with regards terrorism, im a right leaning military man.

But still.. we need to know where to draw the line. I can see both sides of the story, and i certainly dont want any country using a machine gun when a stick is all thats required.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.

The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?

I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.

Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.

Yeah but you buggers were one of the worse culprits for stopping us from getting justice when it came to the IRA. Can't imagine the FBI / Police would of been too happy if th SAS had popped across the Canadian border and slotted / kidnapped the scum.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.

The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?

I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.

Im not sure i can even dignify that obnoxious image with a response, i was taking about the US violation of International Laws

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

Yes unwillingness to break International Law was what i was responding to, last time i checked carpet bombing towns where suspected terrorists live was a crime. Anyway What would have been the difference between that and invading a country to capture or kill suspected terrorists? Surprizingly terrorists normally do not want to be taken alive, so strolling on over and capturing them is out of the question.

Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?

So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?

To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.

As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.

Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.

The entire point before was America is not the "World Police" sure you can take steps to defend yourself but there is a limit, also "" is not a valid political position or response let alone a well reasoned argument

Gibbsey wrote:"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

It also relates to making a caricature of someone's argument to make it easy to strike down, like when you made arresting terrorists akin to carpet bombing Ireland which everyone would agree is crazy talk.

But since we're now arguing semantics I see that there's not much point in continuing talking to you.

Haven't read the whole thread but espionage is probably what I would charge him with. In Canada if you are caught spying you are subject to our laws, more specifically our military ones.

Leaked cables about what the US thinks of France's President is one thing. Leaked information that reveals strategic and vulnerable defenses as well as informants, partisans and so on makes you an enemy of the state.

Frankly I could care less if they arrested him for jay walking, he's put lives at risk and he himself dismisses that as collateral damage in the name of freedom of information. He wanted to take on the big boys now the big boys are tired of getting pecked at so they take him out with a left hook. No problem with that.

I really think he turned himself in because he's probably safer in custody. He announced he had stuff on Russia. And those guys don't put up with that kind of stuff for long...

Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.

If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?

It is a different legal situation.

Guantanamo is a leasehold property of the US government, therefore US law operates on that soil.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

It also relates to making a caricature of someone's argument to make it easy to strike down, like when you made arresting terrorists akin to carpet bombing Ireland which everyone would agree is crazy talk.

But since we're now arguing semantics I see that there's not much point in continuing talking to you.

Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists? Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell unless you wanted SAS squads running about the place. (and yes carpet bombing was probebly a bad example, but what options are there? carpet bomb, missile/air strike, ground team all these options violate international law and result in civilian loss of life)

Also Unless Assange has been convicted of terrorism isnt this discussion kind of pointless to begin with, the entire point being unless you can show Assange has broked some International law or violated a US law (Under US juristriction) then you cant extradite him. And no i dont agree with what he is doing, he's going for damage rather than actual whistleblowing.

Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.

Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda

You're misrepresenting again.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.

Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda

You're misrepresenting again.

Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/

killing 41 local residents, including 14 women, 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qaeda members.

I think that was a cluster bomb though but same point

Gibbsey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?

I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.

Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.

You really shouldn't be if you read what I said.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda

You're misrepresenting again.

Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable

Considering that I wasn't the only person who drew that conclusion from your statements, I don't see how I misrepresented anything. I do see that you're gearing up for some more semantic discussion in this vein but I'm profoundly uninterested in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/

killing 41 local residents, including 14 women, 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qaeda members.

I think that was a cluster bomb though but same point

You have a very different definition of "Carpet Bombing" than most people. It isn't remotely the same point.