Am I the only one that sees a problem?

Am I the only one that sees a problem? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 11:55:06 AM)
quote: U.S. weighs lethal strike against American citizen The Obama administration is weighing whether to approve a lethal strike against a U.S. citizen who is accused of being part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network overseas and involved in ongoing plotting against American targets, U.S. officials said. The officials said that no decision has been reached on whether to add the alleged operative to the administration’s kill list, a step that would require Justice Department approval under new counterterrorism guidelines adopted by President Obama last year. U.S. officials have not revealed the identity of the alleged operative, or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent a possible drone strike. washington post story At first my thoughts were, a traitor dies a traitor's death. However, I have a few problems with part of this. 1) The change in procedure has at least on GOP member supporting it. 2) It makes sense on the surface, but there is still the "innocent till proven guilty" thing. A drone strike targeting one guy? If he is in a terrorist camp, how about reviving the old "Arclight" B52 missions from the Vietnam Era to take out the entire camp?

Moonhead -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 12:01:09 PM)
I'm not sure a drone strike can target just one guy: haven't there been a lot of complaints about collateral damage from drone strikes? (or was that your point?)

jlf1961 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 12:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not sure a drone strike can target just one guy: haven't there been a lot of complaints about collateral damage from drone strikes? (or was that your point?) Moonhead, I am a firm believer in the "Use the biggest damn hammer in the tool box short to get a job done right." In this case, if a drone strike equates to a tack hammer, then the Arclight type strike would be equal to a 10 pound sledge hammer. Of course considering the on going losses in Afghanistan, I also think pulling the troops out of the country and carpet bombing the non urban areas would serve two jobs, get the training camps and get rid of a shit ton of dumb bombs we have in the Air Force inventory.

FellowSlave -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 12:40:47 PM)
I see it as some kind of psy op with a purpose to comfort Americans with extrajudicial executions. Obama had no problems killing American citizens Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. Obama should be prosecuted for this as soon he leaves the office.

DomKen -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 12:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FellowSlave I see it as some kind of psy op with a purpose to comfort Americans with extrajudicial executions. Obama had no problems killing American citizens Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. Obama should be prosecuted for this as soon he leaves the office. Why? Exactly.

FellowSlave -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 1:01:49 PM)
quote: Why? Exactly. Who knows? Creating talking points and passing them to mainstream media is rather common propaganda procedure. Look at Hollywood garbage: all their terror propaganda pieces have a hidden agenda built in. There is no justice for these guys, major criminals walk around. My prosecution comment was just hypothetical.

Moonhead -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 1:04:56 PM)
Ah, that legendary left wing media bias.

Kana -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 1:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: U.S. weighs lethal strike against American citizen The Obama administration is weighing whether to approve a lethal strike against a U.S. citizen who is accused of being part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network overseas and involved in ongoing plotting against American targets, U.S. officials said. The officials said that no decision has been reached on whether to add the alleged operative to the administration’s kill list, a step that would require Justice Department approval under new counterterrorism guidelines adopted by President Obama last year. U.S. officials have not revealed the identity of the alleged operative, or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent a possible drone strike. washington post story At first my thoughts were, a traitor dies a traitor's death. However, I have a few problems with part of this. 1) The change in procedure has at least on GOP member supporting it. 2) It makes sense on the surface, but there is still the "innocent till proven guilty" thing. A drone strike targeting one guy? If he is in a terrorist camp, how about reviving the old "Arclight" B52 missions from the Vietnam Era to take out the entire camp? Ahhhhh, shouldn't we have a trial before we declare this cat a traitor? He's a US citizen.He has rights under our laws.One of which is that his government isn't allowed to murder him on a whim. Period. This shit should be non-negotiable. There are no loopholes here. Anything less is flat out terrifying

kdsub -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 2:37:28 PM)
I'm all for hunting this man down... with the cross hairs on his head I would get on a loud speaker and ask him if he would kindly raise his hands and get into the helicopter and come back for trial. If he gave me the finger I would blow his ass away. Say I am a suspected criminal on the run.... police have me cornered... they say stop running and get on the ground what do you do if I keep running? They shoot me as they should... same with this ass. If we ask him to come in for questioning and he says no then we have the right to kill him if he resists arrest. Butch

Owner59 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 2:43:17 PM)
`Very well put, Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 2:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Ahhhhh, shouldn't we have a trial before we declare this cat a traitor? He's a US citizen.He has rights under our laws.One of which is that his government isn't allowed to murder him on a whim. Period. This shit should be non-negotiable. There are no loopholes here. Anything less is flat out terrifying [sm=agree.gif]

sloguy02246 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 3:06:18 PM)
FR I believe the problem is that the "innocent until proven guilty" and "having your day in court" mindset has normally been applied to people living here who are accused of crimes committed here. If the crime in question is an ongoing one and is being committed against the United States but on foreign soil, what alternatives are there for the American justice system to be applied - and for the U.S. to do all it can to protect its citizens? I am reasonably sure whoever this individual is, he or she is not going to voluntarily surrender to U.S. authorities, nor is the country where this person currently resides going to agree to deport them back here to stand trial. So the U.S. just lets the alleged crime continue indefinitely, possibly resulting in eventual harm to American citizens? Maybe they send in trained operatives to extract the person to stand trial. Easier solution would be target the individual for a conventional assassination - or use a drone. Bottom line: this person will never voluntarily return here to answer charges filed against them, and therein lies the problem.

littlewonder -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 3:21:17 PM)
a drone for one single individual?? That makes no sense whatsoever unless he's holding a dirty bomb or something.

Politesub53 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 3:40:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FellowSlave quote: Why? Exactly. Who knows? Creating talking points and passing them to mainstream media is rather common propaganda procedure. Look at Hollywood garbage: all their terror propaganda pieces have a hidden agenda built in. There is no justice for these guys, major criminals walk around. My prosecution comment was just hypothetical. Sheesh........ "Who knows" is hardly an answer to "Why" I have said this before but I have no qualms about a terrorist known to be planning attacks, being taken out without a trial.

Politesub53 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 3:41:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 `Very well put, Butch +1

jlf1961 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 3:56:57 PM)
I have a suggestion. Have the CIA "leak" that this individual is actually an undercover agent and we dont have to worry about the problem anymore.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 4:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 FR I believe the problem is that the "innocent until proven guilty" and "having your day in court" mindset has normally been applied to people living here who are accused of crimes committed here. If the crime in question is an ongoing one and is being committed against the United States but on foreign soil, what alternatives are there for the American justice system to be applied - and for the U.S. to do all it can to protect its citizens? I am reasonably sure whoever this individual is, he or she is not going to voluntarily surrender to U.S. authorities, nor is the country where this person currently resides going to agree to deport them back here to stand trial. So the U.S. just lets the alleged crime continue indefinitely, possibly resulting in eventual harm to American citizens? Maybe they send in trained operatives to extract the person to stand trial. Easier solution would be target the individual for a conventional assassination - or use a drone. Bottom line: this person will never voluntarily return here to answer charges filed against them, and therein lies the problem. Military action against an US citizen on the battlefield is "allowed." That is, when an US citizen is actively fighting against other US citizens in an armed conflict, the US Military is allowed to kill that US Citizen. The CIA is not allowed, by law, to target US citizens. The country this guy currently inhabits doesn't allow US Military activity. If we send in a drone, that's either a CIA mission (not allowed by US law), or a US Military activity (not acceptable to the "host" country). If we knowingly violate the host country's borders with military action, wouldn't this be "an act of war?" It's a quandary. I think the US is stuck. We are stuck between needing to not infringe on the will of a sovereign nation, and US legislation. Diplomacy will have to win out on this one.

igor2003 -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 5:18:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I'm all for hunting this man down... with the cross hairs on his head I would get on a loud speaker and ask him if he would kindly raise his hands and get into the helicopter and come back for trial. If he gave me the finger I would blow his ass away. Say I am a suspected criminal on the run.... police have me cornered... they say stop running and get on the ground what do you do if I keep running? They shoot me as they should... same with this ass. If we ask him to come in for questioning and he says no then we have the right to kill him if he resists arrest. Butch This is my basic feeling as well. If an American "citizen" goes to a foreign county, and it can be shown that he (or she) is plotting to, has, or is harming other American citizens, then as far as I'm concerned he has renounced his citizenship and has no more special "rights" than any other foreigner that plots or acts to harm America. If a trial "must" be held, then let it be known in the country where that person is residing that a trial is going to take place on such-and-such a date and that he has the right to appear or to send representation. If he shows up, fine. If not, try him in absentia.

vincentML -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 5:33:11 PM)
Yep. Fuck him up good. I agree. But I also agree we should have all our troops and equipment out of there. Obama is reneging on his promise to disengage although he has done better than his predecessor. He killed Osama. Mission really accomplished. Go home.

Kana -> RE: Am I the only one that sees a problem? (2/10/2014 5:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 FR I believe the problem is that the "innocent until proven guilty" and "having your day in court" mindset has normally been applied to people living here who are accused of crimes committed here. If the crime in question is an ongoing one and is being committed against the United States but on foreign soil, what alternatives are there for the American justice system to be applied - and for the U.S. to do all it can to protect its citizens? I am reasonably sure whoever this individual is, he or she is not going to voluntarily surrender to U.S. authorities, nor is the country where this person currently resides going to agree to deport them back here to stand trial. So the U.S. just lets the alleged crime continue indefinitely, possibly resulting in eventual harm to American citizens? Maybe they send in trained operatives to extract the person to stand trial. Easier solution would be target the individual for a conventional assassination - or use a drone. Bottom line: this person will never voluntarily return here to answer charges filed against them, and therein lies the problem. Do what we do with any criminal-arrest em and take em to trial. Hell,we gave Saddam that right. We give it to Narco terrorists/traffickers. We're doing it with the Boston bomber. Fuck, we even gave the Blind Sheik a trial and he's not even a US Citizen. For cripes sakes, we even gave the Nazi's Nuremberg. We're a nation of laws. Despite what many people think (Including far to often this administration), they don't apply only when its convenient. The man has rights. Clear cut, written down, backed by 200 years of judicial precedent. What the government doesn't have is the right to trample them,especially just on their say so. Cuz you know, between WMD's in Iraq,you can keep your doctor, the NSA doesn't spy on citizens and god knows how many other lies, it ain't like the US government has a whole fuck load of credibility to rely on. Fuck, murdering citizens w/o a trial is what dictatorships do. It ain't exactly a huge step from that to Kristallnacht. Our way of life-we care so much about it that we'll jettison it (Along with all our morals, values and ethics) to defend it. That makes no fucking sense.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625