Do You Support Assassination or "Targeted Killing?"

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Sadly. the real world feeds on decent peoples who think the law will be the end all. Remember Auschwitz?

Yes, sometimes behaving in a civilized manner is a luxury that we cannot afford based on who we are dealing with.

I think that in this particular case it was a luxury that we could have afforded--and it diminishes us that we failed to do so.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[DanG 1]

Quote

But what has the target done? Apparently, the only definitive thing they have on him is that he's made YouTube videos calling for jihad and the killing of Americans. Yep, bad stuff. Inciting others to do bad stuff. Maybe even suggesting ways to do it.

For that matter, what did bin Laden do? He didn't fly the planes into the towers, he didn't plant any roadside bombs, or blow up the USS Cole, or really much of anything beside ask other people to do those things, and maybe suggest ways to do them?

Is your objection to his targeting the fact that Al Alaqui was a US citizen? If we can't arrest US citizens during battle, does that mean we can't shoot at them? Hell, if I had a prroblem wwith the US, does that mean I can attack the US with impunity, as long as I avoid arrest?

I think that convicting him of treason in abstentia would have been the best route, but it sounds like you would not allow us to kill him even after such a conviction.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Except what he was doing was more than simply voicing unpopular ideology. He was an admitted terrorist leader.

Yep. So we go get him. We secure Yemen's consent, go get him, bring him back, and try him.

Or, we help Yemen do the deed (Yemen didn't like him much, either).

I just have a serious problem with a President of the US acting as judge, jury and executioner.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

For that matter, what did bin Laden do? He didn't fly the planes into the towers, he didn't plant any roadside bombs, or blow up the USS Cole, or really much of anything beside ask other people to do those things, and maybe suggest ways to do them?

I thought that bin Laden was wealthy and financed these attacks--I thought that was the main thing he was seen as doing.

Is there any evidence that al-Awlaki had access to the same kind of financial resources that bin Laden did? Since 9/11 I've seen no evidence that any terrorist leader has had the necessary resources to direct a network of terrorists within the USA. All we've seen is this solo 12/25 bomber who didn't even make it to US soil before his plot fell apart.

We have quite a number of tools in place that we didn't have before 9/11. We have increased security at airports. Immigration, especially from nations with known terrorist tendencies, is more strictly controlled. We have the Patriot Act which makes it harder to transfer money into the country from unknown sources.

I'm not suggesting we roll back all these changes. What I AM suggesting is that with all these tools in place to defend ourselves domestically, do these guys really pose the kind of threat to us that they did before 9/11? Do we really need to go around killing these people these days to protect ourselves?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

Quote

Quote

Except what he was doing was more than simply voicing unpopular ideology. He was an admitted terrorist leader.

Yep. So we go get him. We secure Yemen's consent, go get him, bring him back, and try him.

Or, we help Yemen do the deed (Yemen didn't like him much, either).

I just have a serious problem with a President of the US acting as judge, jury and executioner.

I understand where you are coming from, but what you state above is fantasy.

My understanding it that he was under a "Capture or Kill" order. Kind of a "Wanted Dead or Alive" deal.
The chances of actually arresting him were near zero. The logistics of it are nearly impossible.

He was an avowed enemy of the US. He was directly involved in the Ft Hood shooting and the "Underwear Bomber" case.

He knew he was under this "Capture or Kill" order. There was a lawsuit filed over it (His father maybe?)

He chose to continue to fight against the US instead of surrendering or publicly announcing his decision to quit (either of which probably would have stopped the C or K).

It is a slippery slope, but I don't see us descending too far down it yet. I don't see a whole lot of difference in the situation just because he was a US citizen.

These drone attacks have done a pretty fair job of taking out the leadership of AQ. Of course there are up-and-comers, but they don't have the experience and will be easier to target. Which will make the future up-and-comers a little less enthusiastic.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[BoogeyMan 0]

OK, then.......!
Who was going to go and arrest him? My son? You? Nope. Would Al Awacky go quietly? Nope. How would you deal with his enablers? The ones with AK's??
Oh wait....! I forgot about extradition from Yemen. A country in chaos. But OK... Getting into a court room would be a breeze. Getting a judge to sign off on his extradition would also be no sweat. And while the world waits on the Yemeni judicial process to grind, how many more terror acts would he plan and place in operation? I believe the risk to innocent lives, American, and European, is way too great to wait on some stiff with a briefcase.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If we can't arrest US citizens during battle, does that mean we can't shoot at them?

Um... we have. Don't you remember "Sulayman al-Faris?" aka John Walker Lindh? The US has a well-established and well-known racket for "extraordinary rendition." We've decided that kidnapping terrorists is not as fun?

See where it's going? From kidnapping them and holding them without charges (denying due process) to just killing them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

understand where you are coming from, but what you state above is fantasy.

Translation: the US lost the balls to do it the way it always has. It's easier to kill him than to capture him.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

Quote

Quote

understand where you are coming from, but what you state above is fantasy.

Translation: the US lost the balls to do it the way it always has. It's easier to kill him than to capture him.

Not really. It's a lot easier to kill him with a drone strike because having a team on permanent standby, close enough to swoop in and capture him during the very brief window of opportunity that he was vulnerable is logistically impossible.

Having the Yemeni goverment capture him is impossible because what little government that exists is way too busy fighting for survival and is way too corrupt.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

Quote

If we can't arrest US citizens during battle, does that mean we can't shoot at them?

Allow me to rephrase: If we are unable to arrest US citizens abroad (such as them being in an area prohibited to US law enforcement), are we not allowed to shoot at them? If a US citizen is standing one foot over the Pakistani border, plotting with his comrades to detonate bombs aboard US airliners, we aren't legally allowed to take action against him? That's what your vision of Constitutional law would lead to. "Nanny-nanny boo-boo, I stepped over the border."

- Dan G

[BoogeyMan 0]

John Walker Lind...? Bad example. That turd was only discovered to be an American after he was wounded and over one or two hundred killed in an Afghan prison uprising. Walker only 'fessed up to get medical treatment, and his butt out of Afghanistan, as US citizen.
Really bad example.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If a US citizen is standing one foot over the Pakistani border, plotting with his comrades to detonate bombs aboard US airliners, we aren't legally allowed to take action against him?

Yeah. Ever hear of people going down to Mexico to evade capture? That's the way it's been for eons. Robin Hood going to Sherwood Forest because Sheriff of Nottingham lacked jurisdiction to get him there.

Even between our own states we have this concept. Look up "extradition."

But I guess your vision of Team America World Police is the popular version of the world. "Hey. There's a terrorist in Trashcanistan. Yeah, on the corner of 88th and 12th. Cool. We've got a Predator? He is setting up a buy of opium from the Taliban. Yep. He's part of the Westside Crips but it's terrorist activity. Cleared to engage? Roger."

I happen to be one of those weirdos that would actually be willing to risk myself in this world and be free to do so than live in the sanitized planet of the dreams of so many.

What are your thoughts on, say, Palestinians doing "targeted strikes" on US soil? You approve of the tactics. Or do you think it's pussy chickenshit that we don't allow other countries to do that?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nanook 1]

He was a U.S. Citizen once. Is he legally a Yemeni citizen now? Did he ever evoke his U.S citizenship?

Also, what is the law have to say to police snipers that have to take the shot? The person has not been arrested yet.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Also, what is the law have to say to police snipers that have to take the shot? The person has not been arrested yet.

I trust that you understand the whole "immediate threat" thing. Police snipers also don't shoot first. They are there to shoot if the perp attempts to do something bad.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Of course I support targeted killing, isn't that why gun sights were invented?

But seriously, are we sure this guy was an American citizen? He was after he was born here, but are you sure he didn't renounce it & change his citizenship when he moved to Yemen?

I would think that a guy who launches bomb attacks targetting US planes and spreads propaganda exhorting Muslims to attack America pretty much says to me that he has renounced his US citizenship, so, fire away.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'd be concerned if we were sending hitmen out into other countries to kill off people saying unpopular stuff. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this guy was a lead player - a general or colonel type - of Al Queda.

This appears to me to be contradictory. We sent out a hit man to to another country to nail him. The weapon of choice was a missile. Are you basing your statement on what his role or his rank was?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Also, what is the law have to say to police snipers that have to take the shot? The person has not been arrested yet.

I trust that you understand the whole "immediate threat" thing. Police snipers also don't shoot first. They are there to shoot if the perp attempts to do something bad.

I do know the immediate threat when it comes to public safety. But sometimes they have to take the shot. I believe you see an ability for our forces to make a calculated arrest and extradition. Given resources plus immediate threat he poses; he inspires and promotes acts of violence that have been attempted, this is just not possible. We don't have this luxury. Just as the police don't have with the sniper scenario. Differences of lag times between the two is consequence of the situation, not the ability to make an arrest.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'd be concerned if we were sending hitmen out into other countries to kill off people saying unpopular stuff. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this guy was a lead player - a general or colonel type - of Al Queda.

This appears to me to be contradictory. We sent out a hit man to to another country to nail him. The weapon of choice was a missile. Are you basing your statement on what his role or his rank was?

He wasn't merely "saying unpopular stuff." Wikileaks man Julian Assange would be an example of that.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

There is no shortage of apes and plenty of shit in partisan politics.

Love it, quote of the month.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[sundevil777 94]

We're effectively at war, with a guy that declared war on us. Lots of American citizens have been so "targeted" - many tens of thousands.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Notice the similarities between the arguments against due process and the arguments against the Second Amendment? That it's just not convenient, that it's too dangerous, etc.

It's why there isn't a damned bit of difference between the left and the right. Hell, the left and the right agree on this issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Even between our own states we have this concept. Look up "extradition."

Do we have an extradition treaty with Yemen? I'm not sure, but let's say we don't. At what point are we allowed to do something about a US citizen in Yemen who is actively waging war on our country? In your world, we would never be able to respond to a US citizen waging war from foreign soil. Can't you see how ridiculous that world would be? We would just have to sit there and take it. Let's say we go to war with Yemen. All they would have to do is recruit a few US citizens so we couldn't bomb them. "Sir, we can't fire missles at that SAM site, there is a US citizen manning the controls, and he must be arrested and tried."

Do you support the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan?

- Dan G

[BoogeyMan 0]

Al Awacky was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. An anchor baby, in a fashion. His parents repatriated to Yemen some years later. I agree that Al renounced his membership as a member of civilized humanity. Ergo, the Hellfire missile is dandy by me. Two would have been better. Especially since he was targeting American citizens, everywhere. Alleged reports from the ground indicate that the three bodies were scorched totally.
The US is at War. This Neville Chamberlain attitude about legalities seems simplistic and childish to me. It's easy to ramble on about "them" or "they" when you are not personally one of the "they" or "them" who is put at risk carrying out the task of capturing or killing terrorists abroad. More Drones, and Hellfires get my vote.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Sir, we can't fire missles at that SAM site, there is a US citizen manning the controls, and he must be arrested and tried."

Once again, you are comparing an immediate threat to a non-immediate threat. An entirely different situation. You are talking about self-defense there. Versus preemptive offense.

Quote

n your world, we would never be able to respond to a US citizen waging war from foreign soil.

Sure we would. Go get him and bring him back. or her. In your world, it is "Kill the bastard or let him kill thousands." I disagree. We've got some people in Gitmo who weren't killed.

Quote

Do you support the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan?

I'm glad the fucker is dead. I also think that it appears that those SEALs did what they could to take him alive. They could have dropped some munitions and martyred him that way, but instead they tried to take him alive. He resisted, posed a threat, and was killed.

I have a much higher view of that that simply putting a hit out. While I still have some problems with it, I do think that there was an effort to take him alive. the OBL situation is much more like the self-defense issue you discussed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Once again, you are comparing an immediate threat to a non-immediate threat. An entirely different situation. You are talking about self-defense there. Versus preemptive offense.

Okay, so at the start of the first Gulf War, no shots have been fired, there is no immediate threat. Do we have to avoid targeting a SAM site for the first wave of bombing when we learn that a US citizen is at the controls?

Quote

Sure we would. Go get him and bring him back. or her.

So you're okay with breaking some laws, just not others? It's okay to break international treaties, which are essentially part of the Constitution once enacted, but we must follow the letter of the law when it comes to treason?

Quote

the OBL situation is much more like the self-defense issue you discussed.

How? He wasn't posing any more of an immediate threat than Al Alaqui. The only difference I see between the two is that Al Alaqui was supposedly a US citizen by birth.

- Dan G