US govt "debates" more extrajudicial murders of own citizens

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

I have a real issue with the Executive Branch making and executing these decisions without Judicial review. The potential for abuse is enormous.

+1

This is morally indefensible. We are supposed to be 'the good guys'. I know it puts more lives at risk, but it makes more sense to kidnap the American Citizen "terrorist" and bringing him back for trial. We didn't put a bullet in Noriega's head. We 'extradited him' with military force, gave him a fair trial, and put him in the federal pen.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[skypuppy 1]

Skyrad

Quote

U.S. debating targeted killing of American terror suspect overseas

The main problem I have with this is the word 'suspect'. If you are a suspect then you haven't been found guilty of anything. Extra judicial killings are wrong.

Also its stupid to lump everyone fighting overseas into a big homogenous AQ grouping. There are Americans fighting in Syria, some will have AQ aspirations and others just want to go and fight against a dictator who's killing his own people and have no aim of bringing home what they learnt to use on US soil. These British 'Jihadists' are a point in case.

http://news.sky.com/story/1183820/syria-sky-news-gains-access-to-uk-jihadists

Better to keep them under observation and gather more information on their intent than jump to conclusions.

Sort of like they kept the Tsarnaev brothers under surveillance in Boston, eh>?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kelpdiver 2]

skypuppy

Sort of like they kept the Tsarnaev brothers under surveillance in Boston, eh>?

if they had enough cause to shoot them on sight, then they probably could have just arrested them.

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***
Sort of like they kept the Tsarnaev brothers under surveillance in Boston, eh>?

if they had enough cause to shoot them on sight, then they probably could have just arrested them.

So, lemme ask you this little hypothetical.

You're sitting in your den and you hear some shots outside. Looking at your security system, you can see a guy off your property aiming a rifle at your home. You can clearly see the guy and can identify him as one of your relatives. Let's call him Cousin Joey. Cousin Joey isn't fooling around. He's clearly looking to kill your family.

You pull your self defense weapon out.

You certainly have, "enough cause to shoot" him "on sight."

Do you cut him some slack because he's family or do you stop him? Does the guy get a free pass? Does it matter one way or another? Or is the ONLY thing that matters is that he's actively attempting to kill your family?

I say it doesn't matter one fricken bit. You stop him.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

So, lemme ask you this little hypothetical.

Not a fucking chance. You still haven't shown me the judicial review process. So no bullshit hypotheticals.

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***
So, lemme ask you this little hypothetical.

Not a fucking chance. You still haven't shown me the judicial review process. So no bullshit hypotheticals.

Bang! One more immediate family member dead in your house.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sfzombie13 307]

after reading this thread, i have to say that your thought process is scary. i am really glad that it is not your decision. as had been mentioned before, all the founding fathers would have been called terrorists, not rebels, had the term been in vogue at the time. the way things are going, it looks like it may come down to it again. i know i would be there, on the side of the constitution. it is a good document, not perfect , but close enough.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[quade 3]

sfzombie13

as had been mentioned before, all the founding fathers would have been called terrorists, not rebels, had the term been in vogue at the time.

From the point of view of the King of England, they were terrorists. That's precisely why he hired mercenaries to come to the US to kill them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,400]

quade

******
So, lemme ask you this little hypothetical.

Not a fucking chance. You still haven't shown me the judicial review process. So no bullshit hypotheticals.

Bang! One more immediate family member dead in your house.

And that family member most likely died of heart disease:http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

...most likely died of heart disease:

Well, sure. But that's precisely the way we'd want it to be; no?

Or would you rather the number one killer in the US be terrorism?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,400]

quade

***...most likely died of heart disease:

Well, sure. But that's precisely the way we'd want it to be; no?

Or would you rather the number one killer in the US be terrorism?

I'd like money to be spent on preventing death in proportion to the risk:
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/

And I'd like to see an end to running around the planet killing people, and creating new enemies.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

And I'd like to see an end to running around the planet killing people, and creating new enemies.

As would I. I think in some cases though, you do have to address an immediate threat.

Understand though what the people against my position have been saying though and how furious they are over the killing of a "US citizen" terrorist compared to the literally hundreds upon hundreds if not thousand upon thousands of non-US citizen terrorists.

Where was their generic outrage? Pretty much zero.

Oh, but suddenly "Obama" (actually a panel from the military but let's blame it on Obama anyway) wants to take some guy who can somehow be traced back to 'Merica and it's an outrage.

Riiight.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

As would I. I think in some cases though, you do have to address an immediate threat.

You're struggling to understand what an immediate threat is.

A person on the lawn waving a gun is an immediate threat. But since the kill order on that guy was issued in April 2010, and then there was time to blow off a lawsuit challenging the order in August, and then succeed in killing him in September, clearly the threat was not "immediate."

So you're not going to even pretend there's a judicial review, no?

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

So you're not going to even pretend there's a judicial review, no?

The entire program is subject to judicial review and has been looked at multiple times.

I believe this is the latest.

http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

sfzombie13

after reading this thread, i have to say that your thought process is scary. i am really glad that it is not your decision.

So is he, and that's the particularly scary part of his thought process.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***And I'd like to see an end to running around the planet killing people, and creating new enemies.

As would I. I think in some cases though, you do have to address an immediate threat.

Understand though what the people against my position have been saying though and how furious they are over the killing of a "US citizen" terrorist compared to the literally hundreds upon hundreds if not thousand upon thousands of non-US citizen terrorists.

Where was their generic outrage? Pretty much zero.

Oh, but suddenly "Obama" (actually a panel from the military but let's blame it on Obama anyway) wants to take some guy who can somehow be traced back to 'Merica and it's an outrage.

Riiight.

I seem to recall plenty of people made as hell about all of these assassinations. Whether it be American or otherwise. I even had a problem with the hit on bin Laden. Not just a hit but an act of war.

Our admin bragged about it. Our population cheered. Use of force like that against an unpopular figure. Call the person a terrorist and all rules are off.

I despise that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[grue 1]

quade

***And I'd like to see an end to running around the planet killing people, and creating new enemies.

As would I. I think in some cases though, you do have to address an immediate threat.

Understand though what the people against my position have been saying though and how furious they are over the killing of a "US citizen" terrorist compared to the literally hundreds upon hundreds if not thousand upon thousands of non-US citizen terrorists.

Where was their generic outrage? Pretty much zero.

Oh, but suddenly "Obama" (actually a panel from the military but let's blame it on Obama anyway) wants to take some guy who can somehow be traced back to 'Merica and it's an outrage.

Riiight.

No. I've been angry about us using drones and violating the sovereignty of other nations for quite a while now. I don't care what passport someone holds, WE are acting like terrorists when we do this shit.

cavete terrae.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

I seem to recall plenty of people made as hell ...

In Pakistan, maybe. Sure as hell not in the US unless you mean a handful of protesters (some of which are professionals who will protest for anything you want to pay them to show up to) across the street in Lafayette Square.

The US has been by and large silent about drone strikes except to score political pundit points.

But I'll let you show me the volumes and volumes of Speakers Corner posts speaking out about drone strikes before Obama took office. Go for it. I'll wait.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grue 1]

quade

***So you're not going to even pretend there's a judicial review, no?

The entire program is subject to judicial review and has been looked at multiple times.

I believe this is the latest.

http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf



Yeah the government can definitely be trusted to do the right thing:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

This woman got her situation unfucked after years of fighting. What recourse do the dead have?

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

***So you're not going to even pretend there's a judicial review, no?

The entire program is subject to judicial review and has been looked at multiple times.

I believe this is the latest.

http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf

So here you have a letter from Holder to Pat Leahy in the Senate, detailing that yes, this was a bad man, that appropriate Senate committees were informed of the intent to kill, that DoJ believes it legal, and that he has a classified document with a process for this in the future.

Constitutionally speaking, judicial review would entail actual federal judges, not lawyers from the DoJ. In the prior administration, one of those lawyers wrote the argument to support torture. And as for disclosure to Congress or us, we already have a lot of evidence from Snowden about how forthcoming those have been. And a lot of evidence that shows Holder is the latest in a decades long string of shitty AGs.

Color me underwhelmed. Like with the no-fly list, there needs to be means to know you're on the list and to be able to contest it.

[quade 3]

grue

What recourse do the dead have?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you want to call reliable evidence.

So far we haven't seen much against this particular guy, but in the last US citizen case (apparently the only kind we care about), he admitted he was a terrorist on YouTube.

Recourse? For an admitted terrorist? Really?

Oh wait, special circumstance we're carving out so if it's a US citizen that somehow changes things. Riiight.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grue 1]

quade

***What recourse do the dead have?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you want to call reliable evidence.

So far we haven't seen much against this particular guy, but in the last US citizen case (apparently the only kind we care about), he admitted he was a terrorist on YouTube.

Recourse? For an admitted terrorist? Really?

Oh wait, special circumstance we're carving out so if it's a US citizen that somehow changes things. Riiight.

I care just as much about the Pakis and Yemenis and the other poor schmucks that we're obliterating as I do the Americans. Perhaps more, actually, since they're not choosing to be over there.

However, from the perspective of "wow that's fucked up" I find it a lot crazier that we're killing our own completely outside of a sane justice system. If they're willing to kill other Americans for not being a fan of the US government, there's nothing to stop them from doing it to me. All they have to do is make a case that the person is a "terrorist", and then they get to go kill them and the population will either look the other way, or jump in the air and cheer them on. If they could get the "terrorists" to wear a star and crescent on their sleeve and then throw 'em into boxcars, there's not much doubt in my mind they'd give it a shot. But thanks to technology, they can bring the death to the people they're demonizing instead of bringing the demonized people to their death.

Like I said: "first they came for the 'terrorists'…"

As for the ones they have already killed, and whatshisface being an "admitted terrorist"… it's almost like we have this existing justice system where people can have a trial, and a jury of their peers (yes, they're still humans with peers), and checks and balances and the ability to have one's day in court with defenses.

cavete terrae.

[quade 3]

grue

If they're willing to kill other Americans for not being a fan of the US government, there's nothing to stop them from doing it to me.

1. He's more than simply not, "a fan." So that's, false equivalence.

2. Reductio ad absurdum.

If you truly believe taking out a terrorist in some terrorist friendly country via drone strike, US citizen or not, means you are next in line with the substitution of a few simple words, then you are either admitting you're a terrorist yourself or you're unwilling to admit you're delusional.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grue 1]

quade

***If they're willing to kill other Americans for not being a fan of the US government, there's nothing to stop them from doing it to me.

1. He's more than simply not, "a fan." So that's, false equivalence.

2. Reductio ad absurdum.

If you truly believe taking out a terrorist in some terrorist friendly country via drone strike, US citizen or not, means you are next in line with the substitution of a few simple words, then you are either admitting you're a terrorist yourself or you're unwilling to admit you're delusional.

I'm thinking more along the lines of boiling a frog, and parallels to the Nazis. You can call it a reductio ad absurdum, I'll point out that less than a century ago, a hell of a lot of people were reductio ad ashes and air pollution via a path that is disturbingly close to the one our nation is walking.

I'm gonna start calling out bullshit behavior from the government at the start, in hopes it doesn't escalate into something even more evil.

All it takes for evil to triumph, etc.

cavete terrae.

[quade 3]

grue

I'm gonna start calling out bullshit behavior from the government at the start, in hopes it doesn't escalate into something even more evil.

Well, you better get a time machine because you sure as hell isn't doing this "at the start" in this case and because of that it certainly does appear as if the reason you're doing it has little to do with the actual act itself, but rather who in particular you'd like to blame for it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver