Another One Bites the Dust

[detlef]

No, that precedent was set when we violated Pakistan's right as a country to kill bin Laden. That was a far more gray area than this one is though, given the nature of Pakistan's involvement with bin Laden.

 

Let me ask you something. If this person were loose in the United States would we have unleashed the military to take down state governments in order to kill him off? I don't think so. The FBI and state law enforcement would have called to task to bring this person in. Yet because this is happening outside of our borders, we have cheerfully cast our military personnel in this role and let them loose upon the world.

 

This is not so far from the argument against places like Guantanamo Bay. Our government has placed ourselves into the role of the "Worlds Greatest Hypocrite", arguing for laws out of one side of their mouth and then blatantly disregarding them when they feel the need to expedite things.

Like I said, if Al Queda was handily packaged into a specific place on earth and had established themselves as a country, then this would not be a discussion. But, because they haven't done that, then they should be safe from this sort of thing?

 

The simple fact is, borders are becoming more and more random. They've basically been done away with entirely in Europe. Huge companies are essentially countries unto themselves, operating wherever it makes the most money, regardless of what country they technically associate with. So I think you're getting hung up on a detail that made a whole lot more sense a while ago than it does now.

 

We are at war with a very specific organization. It just so happens that group isn't a country, but a movement. But it's pretty damned official. There's a power structure, so it's not like we're at war with an idea and are ready to kill anyone who happens to agree with that idea. No, we're taking out guys who are officers in an army that doesn't happen to belong to a specific country but absolutely exists none the less. An army who attacked us and, thus far, has done nothing to imply that they're surrendering.

[Ursa Majoris]

Sorry folks, I'll disagree with all y'all. While this person was certain to be put on trial for treason, we cannot just indiscriminately violate the rights of people. We are a nation founded upon and governed by the rule of law. To violate the sovereignty of Yemen and to assassinate another person in the process, especially one of her own citizens, steps way over the line and the United States should be called to task for this action in the world courts.

 

Each and every individual of this country is protected from unreasonable search and seizure and must be afforded due process based on the laws laid down in our Constitution, regardless of the severity of the crime. Each individual is innocent until proven guilty and the accused is afforded the right to be confronted by his of her accuser. Each of those rights was violated in the "name" of safety and security. The United States overreached here. We are not in the assassination business and we should not be wantonly killing people because of any slight against us, real or imagined.

 

The Yemenese government was and is bending over backwards to help us here, they most certainly would have worked with us to arrest this man and bring him to trial. Instead, America is once again a thug willing to disregard the laws of any country it wants in pursuit of some policy that has been framed in back rooms and hidden from the light of day in the name of "National Security". I for one am ashamed of the behavior of this government and the officials that allowed this to happen. I am also somewhat disgusted by the cavalier attitude here with regard to the taking of another person's life.

That would pretty much make us completely powerless to retaliate against terrorism or to prevent it, IMO. In this particular case, we knocked off the #2 guy and the chief bomb maker as well as the "US citizen" (traitor). If it makes it any easier, we could always say that the targets were the first two and the American was collateral damage.

[Kid Cid]

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

 

Aren't you really simplifying the process for putting someone's name on the CIA's Kill or Capture list here? I don't know what the process is but I don't think someone winds up on that list unless they pose a credible threat to this country.

[detlef]

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

 

 

Aren't you really simplifying the process for putting someone's name on the CIA's Kill or Capture list here? I don't know what the process is but I don't think someone winds up on that list unless they pose a credible threat to this country.

Exactly, I do think there's a difference between taking out high ranking players in an group who has attacked us and has not since surrendered and the POTUS just randomly deciding to take someone out.

 

I mean, the way you make it sound "terrorist" is being loosely defined in terms of this guy. By whose opinion, other than that of someone who is an enemy of the US, is this guy not a "terrorist"?

 

Once again, it's not like we're running around and shooting anyone who's ever said anything bad about the US. We're taking out officers in a state-less army that has attacked us. The funny thing is, we've been taking dudes out for decades because their policies weren't friendly to US interests. Look at Central and South America and the number of times we've messed around down there. We didn't wait for these guys to attack us, we effed them up because they were bad for business. So, at least now we're just taking out dudes who are part of a group who is at war with us.

Edited October 4, 2011 by detlef

[i_am_the_swammi]

Like I said, if Al Queda was handily packaged into a specific place on earth and had established themselves as a country, then this would not be a discussion. But, because they haven't done that, then they should be safe from this sort of thing?

 

Well, that is what makes this "war" on Al Queda somewhat maddening: that we are not fighting a government in a specific geographical region, but instead an ideology. And one, I believe, won't go away.

 

To put it another way (for argument's sake), suppose we raged this war against another religion...say, Catholicism. We target the Pope, his Bishops, and other high-ranking members of the church. Would the religion go away, or would others rise up and assume the top spots?

 

I've said from the beginning....this fight won't end anytime soon. In our opinion, they started it with the acts of 9/11. And in their opinion, we started it long before by intervening in their politics. Nothing is going to change those opinions after the fact.

[nuke'em ttg]

" Die you gravy suckin pigs"

[detlef]

Well, that is what makes this "war" on Al Queda somewhat maddening: that we are not fighting a government in a specific geographical region, but instead an ideology. And one, I believe, won't go away.

 

To put it another way (for argument's sake), suppose we raged this war against another religion...say, Catholicism. We target the Pope, his Bishops, and other high-ranking members of the church. Would the religion go away, or would others rise up and assume the top spots?

 

I've said from the beginning....this fight won't end anytime soon. In our opinion, they started it with the acts of 9/11. And in their opinion, we started it long before by intervening in their politics. Nothing is going to change those opinions after the fact.

This is not a war on Islam. It is to some, but those people are about as effed in the head as the Islamic extremists who want to attack us. Just not effed enough to fly planes into buildings.

 

Regardless, what you're saying would also apply, and is applying to attacking a specific country. What makes us think that Iraq is going to be all hunky dory in a matter of time?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Sorry folks, I'll disagree with all y'all. While this person was certain to be put on trial for treason, we cannot just indiscriminately violate the rights of people. We are a nation founded upon and governed by the rule of law. To violate the sovereignty of Yemen and to assassinate another person in the process, especially one of her own citizens, steps way over the line and the United States should be called to task for this action in the world courts.

 

Each and every individual of this country is protected from unreasonable search and seizure and must be afforded due process based on the laws laid down in our Constitution, regardless of the severity of the crime. Each individual is innocent until proven guilty and the accused is afforded the right to be confronted by his of her accuser. Each of those rights was violated in the "name" of safety and security. The United States overreached here. We are not in the assassination business and we should not be wantonly killing people because of any slight against us, real or imagined.

 

The Yemenese government was and is bending over backwards to help us here, they most certainly would have worked with us to arrest this man and bring him to trial. Instead, America is once again a thug willing to disregard the laws of any country it wants in pursuit of some policy that has been framed in back rooms and hidden from the light of day in the name of "National Security". I for one am ashamed of the behavior of this government and the officials that allowed this to happen. I am also somewhat disgusted by the cavalier attitude here with regard to the taking of another person's life.

 

 

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

 

Finally a voice of reason in this thread.

[lkirc]

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

 

Don't kid yourself. Every President has had this power. We just never announced it to the public for PR purposes.

[gilthorp]

So we have now given our President the power to assassinate any individual deemed a "terrorist" and a threat to this country, regardless of where in the world they currently are. And you guys are happy with that. Perfect. Now think about Michele Bachman having this power.

 

This has happened, happened before this President, and Congress and the American People can't do a damn thing about it.

[Pope Flick]

That would pretty much make us completely powerless to retaliate against terrorism or to prevent it, IMO. In this particular case, we knocked off the #2 guy and the chief bomb maker as well as the "US citizen" (traitor). If it makes it any easier, we could always say that the targets were the first two and the American was collateral damage.

 

Even traitors are allowed their day in court and should be given their right of confronting their accusers. With Guantanamo you did agree with me when I said it want about them but about us. Same thing applies here no matter how unsavory.

[gilthorp]

I seriously doubt the decision to kill this guy is made at the level of the President any longer

 

Again, I urge people to watch Frontline's "America's Secret War"

 

 

The wheels are firmly in motion and there's no stopping it, and no stopping the spending. We are going down a path where it's hard for me to be optimistic about this country's future.

 

 

 

ETA: I guess the real question is: are you willing to accept this as is, if you know that when you get on a plane, you have a .000000000000000000000000001 % better chance of making your destination, instead of being blown to bits over Ohio?

Edited October 6, 2011 by gilthorp

[lkirc]

I seriously doubt the decision to kill this guy is made at the level of the President any longer

 

Again, I urge people to watch Frontline's "America's Secret War"

 

 

The wheels are firmly in motion and there's no stopping it, and no stopping the spending. We are going down a path where it's hard for me to be optimistic about this country's future.

 

 

 

ETA: I guess the real question is: are you willing to accept this as is, if you know that when you get on a plane, you have a .000000000000000000000000001 % better chance of making your destination, instead of being blown to bits over Ohio?

 

It is a tough question. The knee-jerk reaction is to say whatever we have to do to keep our homeland safe is worth it. I fear it is more about keeping the only real industry (defense) left in our contry cooking with gas.

 

I don't have a problem with killing bad dangerous people, but who is to stop someone from expanding the definition?

 

I am not naive. I think assassinations have always happened. I don't understand what we have to gain by telling everyone about it. The terrorists will know we are killing them. What else matters? Public approval? Votes? More defense spending?

 

I guess I am confused about the actual mission here.....

[Ursa Majoris]

Even traitors are allowed their day in court and should be given their right of confronting their accusers. With Guantanamo you did agree with me when I said it want about them but about us. Same thing applies here no matter how unsavory.

There's an argument that al-Awlaki had de facto renounced his US citizenship by his actions (and here's a case where there is no doubt since he'd recorded videos and radio broadcasts urging death to Americans) and therefore wasn't a citizen at all.

 

It is about us, you are without doubt correct. I still think Obama deserves credit for this action though, just as he did for the Bin Laden attack.

[Ursa Majoris]

Even traitors are allowed their day in court and should be given their right of confronting their accusers. With Guantanamo you did agree with me when I said it want about them but about us. Same thing applies here no matter how unsavory.

One other thing about this point you make. In Guantanamo, we have people that we HAVE captured and therefore we should use due process. Thousands more were not captured, they were killed. Are we to consider all their deaths wrong too? I don't think Guantanamo and this successful attack on a terrorist based in a foreign land are the same thing at all.