This is tinfoil hat terroritory here.
Meh -- keep your friends close and your enemies closer. An attempt at drawing in a potential enemy and converting him into an ally is SOP in most forms of strategic warfare. Pulling someone in and trying to bring them aboard isn't a crazy idea, and can be a great way of showing, "see we aren't so bad, this guy says horrible things but we are willing to talk and try and find some solution beyond bombs and bullets."
So as a strategy I'm not very surprised at all.
Besides it's not like it is uncommon for people to be friends at one time and then enemies later -- Easiest example? Robert E. Lee who was offered command of the entire Union Army right before he declined and joined the Confederacy against his own wishes to support his state.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
-- Justice John Paul Stevens
I must be missing the connection to 'tools of tyrants'.
I must be missing the connection to 'tools of tyrants'.
Execution without trial would be the suggestion -- the question though is exactly what approach is to be taken?
Is he 'simply a criminal' or is he an 'enemy combatant' or a more simple form of 'traitor' -- heck is he honestly a USA citizen and does it (or should it) matter either way?
If we really want to settle on the 'right' way of handling this then we must engage these other points first so that we may engage this specific case with more clarity.
Yet in warfighting people are 'executed without trial' quite frequently, and this is happening every day; every time one group of people open up with small arms fire on soldiers they are met with lethal force. How is this much different?
The people on the list ca at any point decide they want to be off the list be peacefully turning themselves over.
Just to be clear it isn't that I don't understand your position or even that I disagree with it -- but until we lay the ground work of how we expect this to be approached -- how we want it treated, tried, and so on there is no grounds for any objectivity in this conversation. As such there is no place for a 'value judgement' until there is at least a stated opinion of what is 'right' and if this is war or 'simply crime'.
Until we set the legal/moral ground work it's all simple posturing and grandstanding.
Until we set the legal/moral ground work it's all simple posturing and grandstanding.
As if legal and moral groundworks prevent posturing and grandstanding? People already have an idea of what they want to be true, and by and large will read any moral or legal framework to agree with them. Most legal/moral discussions come down to a thinly veiled "is not are too!" shouting match. The groundwork is just veneer.
Well the guy's father and various civil rights groups tried to bring the issue to trial. It didn't go anywhere. So I am not sure that (1)that doesn't count as "due process" and (2)if it isn't "due process" then truly what does that say about confidence in "due process" in the first place. At best it shows this was not a violation of the civil rights of the individual and at worst it shows that the courts are in collusion with the executive and legislative branches.
|
Of course you know why he did it...He intends to Kill anyone with Alquaeda Sympathies who has enough IQ points to realize that You could do more for Alquaeda by running for US President at the next election than resorting to a million acts of violence.
Take that kid who they arested for plotting to fly remote control planes filled with explosives. Had he decided to run for president with some public plan to cease millitary support for all arab states and Israel and gotten in the Middle East would descend over night into a hell of their own digging.
You telling me you wouldnt support the assassination of that guy without anything more than a rubber stamp signiature? You will betray your own children's future human rights to get that guy.
Of course you know why he did it...He intends to Kill anyone with Alquaeda Sympathies who has enough IQ points to realize that You could do more for Alquaeda by running for US President at the next election than resorting to a million acts of violence.
I thought Obama WAS the secret Muslim terrorist and a vote for him was a vote for the death of Israel?
We allow people to peacefully advocate pretty much any platform you want, yes including not sending Israel money, isolating ourselves from the rest of the planet, installing a communist government, releasing the aliens from area 51, turning half the country into a corridor for wildlife, and severe population control measures, NOT letting corporations overtly bribe our elected officials. You're allowed to say "hey, lets vote to change the law/constitution so X happens"
You're not allowed to advocate "lets kill people to get attention to our cause!" It would be nice if we could send police to this nutcases house, arrest him, try him, and THEN fry him. Unfortunately, other countries will put up with our drones flying overhead but they won't put up with the massive presence on the ground we'd have to maintain for that to be effective. So... sorry, its not an ideal solution, but i don't see a better one. He was getting innocent people killed just to say "HEY LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEE" and he needed to be stopped.
Ron Paul is just upset that a fellow anti-semite was killed.
..... what?
There seems to be this whole "But he's an American citizen" caper going on. Like that makes some huge difference.
There seems to be this whole "But he's an American citizen" caper going on. Like that makes some huge difference.
We're kind of used to blowing up other people's citizens without any due process. Doing it to one of our own is kind of new, and i think we want to look around and make sure it doesn't set a precedent we want to avoid.
|
"If this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
-- Justice John Paul Stevens
Well...
Here is the problem with our country and it's history.
We aren't exactly consistent, and a lot of what has made our country great has come from being jerks.
The Majority of our country was acquired thanks to us being more or less tyrants.
The intellectual right (the part I respect, not the Tea Party) will give you the following honest answer for why they believe what they believe and push the policy they believe.
"Might Makes Right."
When you combine low regulation with a strong military you create a framework where the person who will do whatever it takes will win. This is not a "good" person, or a "Good" country. But it is a powerful and prosperous one (for those who are willing to do "whatever it takes".)
They correctly view America as a place that was willing to commit genocide to expand, and view this not as a negative, but as a show that we won over an inferior and lesser culture.
If this sounds horrible, it is.
But it is also true.
As Jack Nicholson put it
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns."
Or more to the point later, I think most presidents would say the following.
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "
Now, I don't want Colonel Jessep to have absolute power. I want the president to believe that every decision he makes could end his presidency if he goes off the rails. I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
However, I am honest enough with myself and honest enough about our history as a nation not pretend than if we always did the "good" and "moral" thing we wouldn't currently exist as a nation. At least not living in they style for which we have grown accustomed.
So while I am generally a liberal, in this conversation I kind of want to say that this was a decision made by someone wearing grown up pants and understanding that we live in a less than ideal world.
And if you are president in that less than ideal world and someone in intelligence says "We have found the person who we know to have led terrorist attacks against our country and we are able to kill him if you give the order" you give the order.
That is your job. That is why you were elected.
So in this instance, I say "Thank you" and move on in this case.
On the other side, I am generally a liberal because I know if you follow the "intellectual" right you end up in Iraq, among other things...
And I know that the Hakani Network were once our friends.
So to sum up...it is a messy world full of grey decisions and bad guys winning. Sometimes we were those bad guys who won. Sometimes the "good" guys were cannibals....
I'm not losing any sleep because the President of the United States decided this particular person should be loosed from the mortal coil. I reserve the right to question other choices should the slippery slope become too slick.
And this is a completely ideologically consistent view as an American.
Until we set the legal/moral ground work it's all simple posturing and grandstanding.As if legal and moral groundworks prevent posturing and grandstanding? People already have an idea of what they want to be true, and by and large will read any moral or legal framework to agree with them. Most legal/moral discussions come down to a thinly veiled "is not are too!" shouting match. The groundwork is just veneer.
All I can offer is a, "if you say so" and move on. If you honestly can't tell the difference then there really isn't any point in conversing.
|
|
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
He was hiding in an area of Yemen known as the Triangle of Evil. It's an area where the government has really no say in what happens. It's the place that members from AQ go to when they escape from Yemeni jails. He was wanted "dead or alive" by the Yemeni court.
This man has gone on the record and said that killing americans is a duty that doesn't require a fatwa or jihad. Several countries, based on intel, as well as the U.N. have placed him high on the list of known terrorists.
He renounced his citizenship when he gave his full support to Al Qaeda.
At least under Australian Law we would have been required to tell him he was guilty of resisting arrest under charge of Treason before killing him. Making sure there was an actual Warrant for his arrest and another for his execution for failing to turn himself in.
He was hiding in an area of Yemen known as the Triangle of Evil. It's an area where the government has really no say in what happens. It's the place that members from AQ go to when they escape from Yemeni jails. He was wanted "dead or alive" by the Yemeni court.This man has gone on the record and said that killing americans is a duty that doesn't require a fatwa or jihad. Several countries, based on intel, as well as the U.N. have placed him high on the list of known terrorists.
He renounced his citizenship when he gave his full support to Al Qaeda.
Indeed. But, I sense a "but" coming...
...well thought out points...
I can't really argue with anything here.
When people say things like what early Americans did to the natives here was a dick move, I usually say "Yeah, it was. But it was par for the course back then. I'm sorry my ancestors were more technologicly advanced and had had generations of war experience, but them's the breaks. Can't take it back, so move on."
...well thought out points...I can't really argue with anything here.
When people say things like what early Americans did to the natives here was a dick move, I usually say "Yeah, it was. But it was par for the course back then. I'm sorry my ancestors were more technologicly advanced and had had generations of war experience, but them's the breaks. Can't take it back, so move on."
In my experience people are less upset by technological advances and more upset by genuine atrocities that occurred, commonplace though they were.
Just because something can't be taken back doesn't excuse it.
...well thought out points...I can't really argue with anything here.
When people say things like what early Americans did to the natives here was a dick move, I usually say "Yeah, it was. But it was par for the course back then. I'm sorry my ancestors were more technologicly advanced and had had generations of war experience, but them's the breaks. Can't take it back, so move on."In my experience people are less upset by technological advances and more upset by genuine atrocities that occurred, commonplace though they were.
Just because something can't be taken back doesn't excuse it.
The tchnological advantage was a big part in the ability to do those things. I'm not trying to excuse it, and I'm not apologizing for it either, or expecting modern folk to understand it. It is what it is.
|
|
...well thought out points...I can't really argue with anything here.
When people say things like what early Americans did to the natives here was a dick move, I usually say "Yeah, it was. But it was par for the course back then. I'm sorry my ancestors were more technologicly advanced and had had generations of war experience, but them's the breaks. Can't take it back, so move on."In my experience people are less upset by technological advances and more upset by genuine atrocities that occurred, commonplace though they were.
Just because something can't be taken back doesn't excuse it.
Or undo it. It appears that the Neanderthal may have lost to Homosapien in part because we were more aggressive.
A large part of the reason people argue for free market is that the weak will be removed without prejudice.
The long term goal is to become better people. But history shows that generally kindness isn't rewarded.
...well thought out points...I can't really argue with anything here.
When people say things like what early Americans did to the natives here was a dick move, I usually say "Yeah, it was. But it was par for the course back then. I'm sorry my ancestors were more technologicly advanced and had had generations of war experience, but them's the breaks. Can't take it back, so move on."In my experience people are less upset by technological advances and more upset by genuine atrocities that occurred, commonplace though they were.
Just because something can't be taken back doesn't excuse it.Or undo it. It appears that the Neanderthal may have lost to Homosapien in part because we were more aggressive.
A large part of the reason people argue for free market is that the weak will be removed without prejudice.
The long term goal is to become better people. But history shows that generally kindness isn't rewarded.
The inability of Neanderthals to communicate verbally and thereby communicate ideas also played a role, which may have played a role just as potent as increased aggression on homosapien's part. There's more the rise and fall of a species than simple viciousness. The free market has some easily exploited loopholes. Kindness is rarely rewarded directly, but being a jerk usually is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the Australians, a brief history of the united states.
---
Pilgrims: People should be right to worship god as they see fit!
Catholics: Yay!
Pilgrims: You're not people!
---
Settlers: People have the right to own land and live on it
Indians: Thank you. Now let us live on this land our tribe owns.
Settlers: You're not people!
----
Founding fathers: Taxation without representation is slavery and slavery cannot be endured! People shouldn't have to put up with this!
Actual slaves: Yay!
Founding fathers "You're only 3/5ths of a person
___
Founding fathers: People have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who impede those rights deserve to be rebelled against by force of arms if need be!
Haiti: Preach it! Lets revolt against france. Help us!
Founding fathers: we didn't mean all that for BLACK people!
-----
Monroe: European colonialism will not be endured!
South America: Preach it!
Monroe: I said EUROPEAN colonialism. All your base are belonging to us.
-----
America: People have a right to democratically elect the government of their choosing!
South america: We choose communism!
America: BLAM! *whistles innocently, hands gun to the chihuahua*
----
So saying one thing and doing another is kind of an American tradition. If you're expecting the country to live up to its ideals you're going to be sadly disappointed, but fool you once shame on us fool you ...." *counts fingers* a heck of a lot shame on you.
For the Australians, a brief history of the united states.
---
Pilgrims: People should be right to worship god as they see fit!Catholics: Yay!
Pilgrims: You're not people!
---
Settlers: People have the right to own land and live on itIndians: Thank you. Now let us live on this land our tribe owns.
Settlers: You're not people!
----
Founding fathers: Taxation without representation is slavery and slavery cannot be endured! People shouldn't have to put up with this!
Actual slaves: Yay!
Founding fathers "You're only 3/5ths of a person
___
Founding fathers: People have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who impede those rights deserve to be rebelled against by force of arms if need be!Haiti: Preach it! Lets revolt against france. Help us!
Founding fathers: we didn't mean all that for BLACK people!
-----
Monroe: European colonialism will not be endured!
South America: Preach it!
Monroe: I said EUROPEAN colonialism. All your base are belonging to us.
-----
America: People have a right to democratically elect the government of their choosing!
South america: We choose communism!
America: BLAM! *whistles innocently, hands gun to the chihuahua*
----
So saying one thing and doing another is kind of an American tradition. If you're expecting the country to live up to its ideals you're going to be sadly disappointed, but fool you once shame on us fool you ...." *counts fingers* a heck of a lot shame on you.
Hmm.. Humorous, but true. Thoughts on this, folks?
|
|
Hmm.. Humorous, but true. Thoughts on this, folks?For the Australians, a brief history of the united states.
---
Pilgrims: People should be right to worship god as they see fit!Catholics: Yay!
Pilgrims: You're not people!
---
Settlers: People have the right to own land and live on itIndians: Thank you. Now let us live on this land our tribe owns.
Settlers: You're not people!
----
Founding fathers: Taxation without representation is slavery and slavery cannot be endured! People shouldn't have to put up with this!
Actual slaves: Yay!
Founding fathers "You're only 3/5ths of a person
___
Founding fathers: People have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who impede those rights deserve to be rebelled against by force of arms if need be!Haiti: Preach it! Lets revolt against france. Help us!
Founding fathers: we didn't mean all that for BLACK people!
-----
Monroe: European colonialism will not be endured!
South America: Preach it!
Monroe: I said EUROPEAN colonialism. All your base are belonging to us.
-----
America: People have a right to democratically elect the government of their choosing!
South america: We choose communism!
America: BLAM! *whistles innocently, hands gun to the chihuahua*
----
So saying one thing and doing another is kind of an American tradition. If you're expecting the country to live up to its ideals you're going to be sadly disappointed, but fool you once shame on us fool you ...." *counts fingers* a heck of a lot shame on you.
He nailed it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So since we have always done this, we should always continue to do this?
So since we have always done this, we should always continue to do this?
Nope. Because we've always acted in our own best interests*, we're always going to act in our own best interests.
Is. Ought. Not the same thing.
*or at least the best interests of those in charge.
|
|
So since we have always done this, we should always continue to do this?
The question in all of these discussions, from either side of the aisle, is what is the alternative and is it better or worse.
In the same way people don't want to pay taxes but want roads...
People want sausage, the process is problematic.
I'm glad people are questioning these actions, as it is that accountability that keeps the knife edge balance in place.
That being said, the two guys that just got killed by drones were not exactly innocently minding their own business.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FIFY.So since we have always done this, we should always continue to do this?The question in all of these discussions, from either side of the aisle, is what is the alternative and is it better or worse.
In the same way people don't want to pay taxes but want roads...
People want sausage, the process is problematic.
I'm glad people are questioning these actions, as it is that accountability that keeps the knife edge balance in place.
That being said, the two guys that just got killed by drones were actively trying to overthrow the U.S. government and gave material support to our enemies. By their own words and actions they committed treason. An offense punishable by death.
...after being convicted. Of course, since we know that the government *never* lies or makes mistakes, I suppose we can dispense with the trial part. No more courts -- Brillant!
Hmm.. Humorous, but true. Thoughts on this, folks?For the Australians, a brief history of the united states.
---
Pilgrims: People should be right to worship god as they see fit!Catholics: Yay!
Pilgrims: You're not people!
---
Settlers: People have the right to own land and live on itIndians: Thank you. Now let us live on this land our tribe owns.
Settlers: You're not people!
----
Founding fathers: Taxation without representation is slavery and slavery cannot be endured! People shouldn't have to put up with this!
Actual slaves: Yay!
Founding fathers "You're only 3/5ths of a person
___
Founding fathers: People have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who impede those rights deserve to be rebelled against by force of arms if need be!Haiti: Preach it! Lets revolt against france. Help us!
Founding fathers: we didn't mean all that for BLACK people!
-----
Monroe: European colonialism will not be endured!
South America: Preach it!
Monroe: I said EUROPEAN colonialism. All your base are belonging to us.
-----
America: People have a right to democratically elect the government of their choosing!
South america: We choose communism!
America: BLAM! *whistles innocently, hands gun to the chihuahua*
----
So saying one thing and doing another is kind of an American tradition. If you're expecting the country to live up to its ideals you're going to be sadly disappointed, but fool you once shame on us fool you ...." *counts fingers* a heck of a lot shame on you.
He forgot women. Otherwise, I have nothing to add.
Hmm.. Humorous, but true. Thoughts on this, folks?For the Australians, a brief history of the united states.
---
Pilgrims: People should be right to worship god as they see fit!Catholics: Yay!
Pilgrims: You're not people!
---
Settlers: People have the right to own land and live on itIndians: Thank you. Now let us live on this land our tribe owns.
Settlers: You're not people!
----
Founding fathers: Taxation without representation is slavery and slavery cannot be endured! People shouldn't have to put up with this!
Actual slaves: Yay!
Founding fathers "You're only 3/5ths of a person
___
Founding fathers: People have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who impede those rights deserve to be rebelled against by force of arms if need be!Haiti: Preach it! Lets revolt against france. Help us!
Founding fathers: we didn't mean all that for BLACK people!
-----
Monroe: European colonialism will not be endured!
South America: Preach it!
Monroe: I said EUROPEAN colonialism. All your base are belonging to us.
-----
America: People have a right to democratically elect the government of their choosing!
South america: We choose communism!
America: BLAM! *whistles innocently, hands gun to the chihuahua*
----
So saying one thing and doing another is kind of an American tradition. If you're expecting the country to live up to its ideals you're going to be sadly disappointed, but fool you once shame on us fool you ...." *counts fingers* a heck of a lot shame on you.
As he said in the first sentence its history, the US corrected most of those discrepancies through slow and sometimes violent public action. The hypocritical history of civil rights in the US isn't any different than any other burgeoning democracy in the world but being the first we had work it out ourselves.
Senior Software Developer
|
Er, has anyone commented on the silliness of the thread title? Or does assassination usually involve more due process than 'zero'?
Yes.
Er, has anyone commented on the silliness of the thread title? Or does assassination usually involve more due process than 'zero'?Yes.
Yes, I made the title silly. I usually try to add a little humor into anything, even the most serious subjects. I didnt mean it to be fighty, Gary. If you think it would be for the better, feel free to change the thread title.
My apologies.
Some sort of open trial in abstentia would have been a nice compromise between the need to stop this guy and due process. The constitution specifies hanging for treason, but i think the intent is "death" and you can't exactly blame the founding fathers for not thinking of a remote control plane as a form of execution.
Franklin probably could have rigged up something with the kite though...
Some sort of open trial in abstentia would have been a nice compromise between the need to stop this guy and due process. The constitution specifies hanging for treason, but i think the intent is "death" and you can't exactly blame the founding fathers for not thinking of a remote control plane as a form of execution.
Franklin probably could have rigged up something with the kite though...
"Yes, yes, death to America, but can you do me a favor for a second. Hold this key."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...after being convicted. Of course, since we know that the government *never* lies or makes mistakes, I suppose we can dispense with the trial part. No more courts -- Brillant!Really? The GOVERNMENTS lied? I'd say check out his youtube stuff, but that's been pulled down for awhile. You're more than welcome to go check out the jihadi websites and stuff AQ has posted. According to the Constitution, you need at least two witnesses, but in this case, there's just too much video evidence of him propogating Death to America, that you don't need a fatwa or have a jihad issued in order to kill americans. You can probably still find his writings and rantings on the web. He fits the very defintion of treason to the letter. IF he were still an american citizen, so what? We're at "war" and he choose which side he was on. Had he been trying to surrender and they killed him, that's one thing, but he was running. Too damn bad.
Trial by YouTube.
I couldn't write this stuff if I tried.
Trial by YouTube.
I couldn't write this stuff if I tried.
You're objecting to video taped evidence?
Its like complaining about that newfangled camera thingy catching someone in the act.
If someone says "Overthrow the American government with violence! Kill as many innocent people as possible!" on the megaphone in yankees stadium they've just commited treason with 57,000 witnesses.
If someone says "Overthrow the American government with violence! Kill as many innocent people as possible!" and broadcasts it on TV well then they've just given 15 million people a look at what they are saying.
Why on earth is a video of someone caught in the act less valid because its on you tube?
|
Er, has anyone commented on the silliness of the thread title? Or does assassination usually involve more due process than 'zero'?Yes.
Well, not exactly like I meant. I just was bemused at '100% less of 0' since it's still...zero.
Trial by YouTube.
I couldn't write this stuff if I tried.
You're objecting to video taped evidence?
Its like complaining about that newfangled camera thingy catching someone in the act.
If someone says "Overthrow the American government with violence! Kill as many innocent people as possible!" on the megaphone in yankees stadium they've just commited treason with 57,000 witnesses.
If someone says "Overthrow the American government with violence! Kill as many innocent people as possible!" and broadcasts it on TV well then they've just given 15 million people a look at what they are saying.
Why on earth is a video of someone caught in the act less valid because its on you tube?
No...I'm objecting to THE LACK OF A TRIAL.
It doesn't matter how compelling you or I do or do not find a video on YouTube (or any other evidence). The entire question of guilt is totally irrelevant: A citizen is entitled to trial before the government deprives him of his life.
|
No...I'm objecting to THE LACK OF A TRIAL.
It doesn't matter how compelling you or I do or do not find a video on YouTube (or any other evidence). The entire question of guilt is totally irrelevant: A citizen is entitled to trial before the government deprives him of his life.
Yeah but this isn't always possible and it's not like we don't EVER kill people without a trial.
If you're armed, go in a 7-11 and take hostages and scream "Screw you coppers! I'm killing everyone!" I guarantee the SWAT sniper is going to deprive you of life without a trial, US citizen or not.
And yes, it's a question of "immediate danger". Was he an immediate danger in Yemen? Honestly, I don't know. I'm not privy to intel anymore. :)
DISCLAIMER: I'm not agreeing with one side or the other. I truly have mixed feelings on this. I'm glad another terrorist was taken out but I do NOT like the President (or anyone else) having the authority to kill a US citizen without a trial.