[quote]MaximusB wrote:
After seeing this, I never want to hear anyone oppose the Death Penalty ever again.[/quote]
It’s significantly cheaper and renders it impossible for the state to execute an innocent man or woman.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
After seeing this, I never want to hear anyone oppose the Death Penalty ever again.[/quote]
It’s significantly cheaper and renders it impossible for the state to execute an innocent man or woman.[/quote]
lol, yes because Bam screams out “guilty” before Holly-Joe pushes the ‘fire’ button on her Nintendo controller.
(Yes I’m being a smart ass.)
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
That sounds nice, but it has very little in common with the reality of American counter-terrorism strategy. [/quote]
Indeed, and in the case of AQ, they really are just a bunch of nails.[/quote]
I would go further and say that not only is killing an American UBL legally and morally acceptable, but not targeting him when you had the opportunity to do so to be a gross moral failing.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
In some ways I share your sentiment, in others I don’t. Personally, I’m more worried about what happens years down the road. While it may not be a drone strike I could see something like this extending the capture or kill missions used in Iraq and Afghanistan used against American citizens on American soil. With the relative success of those missions I’m sure they wouldn’t mind applying it to domestic terrorism, that’d eliminate a trial that American citizens are entitled to.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
After seeing this, I never want to hear anyone oppose the Death Penalty ever again.[/quote]
It’s significantly cheaper and renders it impossible for the state to execute an innocent man or woman.[/quote]
lol, yes because Bam screams out “guilty” before Holly-Joe pushes the ‘fire’ button on her Nintendo controller.
(Yes I’m being a smart ass.)[/quote]
The president isn’t designating these targets. That’s the role of the intelligence community and the administration’s counter-terrorism team, headed by John Brennan. They bring their case to him regarding why they deem this individual to be an imminent threat and why a targeted killing is the most prudent course of action. Obama merely reviews the evidence presented to him and makes a decision to sign off on it or not. There is no “kill them all let God sort them” mentality behind what is in reality a very analytical process.
Again, the title is theatrical but the content is solid.
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
In some ways I share your sentiment, in others I don’t. Personally, I’m more worried about what happens years down the road. While it may not be a drone strike I could see something like this extending the capture or kill missions used in Iraq and Afghanistan used against American citizens on American soil. With the relative success of those missions I’m sure they wouldn’t mind applying it to domestic terrorism, that’d eliminate a trial that American citizens are entitled to.[/quote]
Would not such domestic terrorism fall under the purview of the FBI, being responsible for domestic counter-terrorism and intelligence operations? Again, the operational environment would be drastically different if it fell within the United States.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
Not necessarily. The main problem with our foreign policy is politicians put their careers ahead of the defense of this nation. Radical Islam has been a threat since the 1970s, our elected officials have never been proactive about that threat even despite attacks on American targets. There’s too much political BS involved. Even with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan there have been Rules of Engagement changes that have crippled our troops, the only real goal of those ROE changes has been to try to quietly close out the wars then consider withdrawals a victory.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
In some ways I share your sentiment, in others I don’t. Personally, I’m more worried about what happens years down the road. While it may not be a drone strike I could see something like this extending the capture or kill missions used in Iraq and Afghanistan used against American citizens on American soil. With the relative success of those missions I’m sure they wouldn’t mind applying it to domestic terrorism, that’d eliminate a trial that American citizens are entitled to.[/quote]
Would not such domestic terrorism fall under the purview of the FBI, being responsible for domestic counter-terrorism and intelligence operations? Again, the operational environment would be drastically different if it fell within the United States.[/quote]
Yes, however I’m not speaking of our military conducting such an operation. The capabilities FBI, CIA and military are directly influenced politicians. It’s reasonable to suspect that those political figures can look at the success of things from the wars and want to implement such things domestically. Currently our military is doing somethings that aren’t necessarily legal and yet it’s been authorized by politicians, it’s possible for the FBI to as well. Apprehending a suspect to give that person a trial could no longer be a priority, it could only be an option. It’s something I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on.
Also, think of the Patriot Act and how it’s imposed upon us. Our best interest aren’t always taken into consideration.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
You really think this?[/quote]
Absolutely.
What to do with him? Maybe a trial or tribunal?
OK, let’s leave aside that particular hypothetical and go with another one; what if it were you? What if someone reported that you were building a bunker and stocking it with supplies and weapons, and the administration decided that you were a terrorist threat?
You are not building said bunker, but you’ve been accused. You have also now been deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation. Would you think that an anonymous assassination would be warranted? Guilty without the chance to prove innocence?
Or shall we go with the hallmark of American Justice and presume you innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I’m all for the death penalty, by the way, but only after due process has been served.
The fifth amendment does not say citizen. It says person. Unless they are carrying out an act of violence, nobody in this world should ever be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
Not necessarily. The main problem with our foreign policy is politicians put their careers ahead of the defense of this nation. Radical Islam has been a threat since the 1970s, our elected officials have never been proactive about that threat even despite attacks on American targets. There’s too much political BS involved. Even with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan there have been Rules of Engagement changes that have crippled our troops, the only real goal of those ROE changes has been to try to quietly close out the wars then consider withdrawals a victory.
[/quote]
You are right about that, and it’s a complicated issue to get into.
But take Saddam Hussein as the prime example of what I’m talking about. We captured him, brought him to justice and got his crimes against humanity out in open air for the world to see, convicted him, and hanged him.
As a result, nobody considers him a martyr. He was simply an evil murderous bastard, and the world knows it.
Obama pulled the trigger on bin Laden and then rubbed it in their faces on world TV. As a result, he’s their #1 martyr and we’ve spawned a whole new generation of radicals that our children will have to deal with.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
You really think this?[/quote]
Absolutely.
What to do with him? Maybe a trial or tribunal?[/quote]
Maybe that really was an option, and he just happened to have been killed in the raid. Or maybe it was really just a kill-order, to avoid the kind of clusterfuck that KSM has spawned. I don’t know. I don’t really care either, because in reality he’s foreign-born enemy and not a citizen.
[quote]
OK, let’s leave aside that particular hypothetical and go with another one; what if it were you? What if someone reported that you were building a bunker and stocking it with supplies and weapons, and the administration decided that you were a terrorist threat?[/quote]
I’d be an American citizen on American soil. I’d be owed a trial.
[quote]
You are not building said bunker, but you’ve been accused. You have also now been deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation. Would you think that an anonymous assassination would be warranted? Guilty without the chance to prove innocence? [/quote]
No.
[quote]
Or shall we go with the hallmark of American Justice and presume you innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? [/quote]
Yep.
[quote]
The fifth amendment does not say citizen. It says person. Unless they are carrying out an act of violence, nobody in this world should ever be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.[/quote]
If you intend for this to refer to Osama bin Laden as well as to your hypothetical scenario, think about how this philosophy–no killing of anybody not actively engaged in violence–would have impacted the outcome of WWII and then get back to me.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
You really think this?[/quote]
Absolutely.
What to do with him? Maybe a trial or tribunal?
OK, let’s leave aside that particular hypothetical and go with another one; what if it were you? What if someone reported that you were building a bunker and stocking it with supplies and weapons, and the administration decided that you were a terrorist threat?
You are not building said bunker, but you’ve been accused. You have also now been deemed a threat because of a wrongful accusation. Would you think that an anonymous assassination would be warranted? Guilty without the chance to prove innocence?
Or shall we go with the hallmark of American Justice and presume you innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I’m all for the death penalty, by the way, but only after due process has been served.
The fifth amendment does not say citizen. It says person. Unless they are carrying out an act of violence, nobody in this world should ever be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.[/quote]
In smh23’s hypothetical scenario, a capture/kill mission is not possible, making your “trial or tribunal” a pipe dream. Also, your proposed hypothetical is a Straw Man, considering that the intelligence community doesn’t make decisions regarding targeted killings with the incredulity of a middle school girl engaging in childish gossip. You are attempting to reconcile noble, but fundamentally naive and misinformed idealism with the realist realm of state security.
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
And begging your pardon, but we certainly did take prisoners in WWII. Hundreds of thousands of them.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
And begging your pardon, but we certainly did take prisoners in WWII. Hundreds of thousands of them.[/quote]
And again, the intelligence community actually utilizes evidence and the rational analytical process before terror suspects are added to the Disposition Matrix, a skill you are clearly lacking.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
In smh23’s hypothetical scenario, a capture/kill mission is not possible, making your “trial or tribunal” a pipe dream. Also, your proposed hypothetical is a Straw Man, considering that the intelligence community doesn’t make decisions regarding targeted killings with the incredulity of a middle school girl engaging in childish gossip. You are attempting to reconcile noble, but fundamentally naive and misinformed idealism with the realist realm of state security.[/quote]
A scenario where a kill/capture mission is impossible does not exist, and is therefore the real strawman in the debate.
It doesn’t matter how carefully the intelligence community considers their decisions. They are world-renowned for being wrong. The American ideal of Justice involves a trial by jury, and no less.
Don’t even pretend to call me naive while justifying the appointment of the CIA as judge, jury and executioner. I’ll take noble idealism over foolish authoritarianism any day.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
Not necessarily. The main problem with our foreign policy is politicians put their careers ahead of the defense of this nation. Radical Islam has been a threat since the 1970s, our elected officials have never been proactive about that threat even despite attacks on American targets. There’s too much political BS involved. Even with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan there have been Rules of Engagement changes that have crippled our troops, the only real goal of those ROE changes has been to try to quietly close out the wars then consider withdrawals a victory.
[/quote]
You are right about that, and it’s a complicated issue to get into.
But take Saddam Hussein as the prime example of what I’m talking about. We captured him, brought him to justice and got his crimes against humanity out in open air for the world to see, convicted him, and hanged him.
As a result, nobody considers him a martyr. He was simply an evil murderous bastard, and the world knows it.
Obama pulled the trigger on bin Laden and then rubbed it in their faces on world TV. As a result, he’s their #1 martyr and we’ve spawned a whole new generation of radicals that our children will have to deal with.
[/quote]
You are uniquely unqualified to participate in this discussion. Saddam Hussein was a sadistic despot and a secular head of state. UBL was a non-state actor and a religious extremist leading an asymmetrical terrorist organization. The fact the you are trying to relate the two in this regard is so laughable that I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought we were leaving the “American Citizen” hypothetical behind? Think about it again, but this time you’re not an American on American soil.
[/quote]
Then the question is essentially, “can we kill terrorists in targeted strikes overseas?”
My answer is yes, using a rigorous and exhaustive set of criteria which includes the existence of overwhelming positive evidence (which would hopefully exonerate your hypothetical innocent) and outside review (which needs to be implemented).
The alternative is impotence in the face of the greatest immediate threat to our national security and/or a needless and avoidable uptick in the number of our soldiers we’re forced to bury.
[quote]
And begging your pardon, but we certainly did take prisoners in WWII. Hundreds of thousands of them.[/quote]
Indeed we did, and yet we also visited violence upon an immeasurable number of other combatants, many of whom were not actively engaged in violence themselves (this is what a B-17 did).
It’s a pretty slippery slope between an American abroad and an American in the USA.
Indeed, no legal difference, at all, under the Constitution.
Taken to the logical extreme, if Obama decides you are a threat under whatever bullshit he cooks up, he can send a drone and kill you — judge, jury, and executioner, all in one.
That’s tryanny.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You are right about that, and it’s a complicated issue to get into.
But take Saddam Hussein as the prime example of what I’m talking about. We captured him, brought him to justice and got his crimes against humanity out in open air for the world to see, convicted him, and hanged him.
As a result, nobody considers him a martyr. He was simply an evil murderous bastard, and the world knows it.
Obama pulled the trigger on bin Laden and then rubbed it in their faces on world TV. As a result, he’s their #1 martyr and we’ve spawned a whole new generation of radicals that our children will have to deal with.
[/quote]
You are uniquely unqualified to participate in this discussion. Saddam Hussein was a sadistic despot and a secular head of state. UBL was a non-state actor and a religious extremist leading an asymmetrical terrorist organization. The fact the you are trying to relate the two in this regard is so laughable that I don’t even know where to begin.[/quote]
All hail the mighty Legionary, Conversational Disqualifier of Unbelievers in Authoritarianism.
One was a religious extremist and the other was a religious extremist. Both were declared enemies of the U.S… One happened to be a state dictator, and that changes everything, right?
GTFOOHK, GAT
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
Not necessarily. The main problem with our foreign policy is politicians put their careers ahead of the defense of this nation. Radical Islam has been a threat since the 1970s, our elected officials have never been proactive about that threat even despite attacks on American targets. There’s too much political BS involved. Even with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan there have been Rules of Engagement changes that have crippled our troops, the only real goal of those ROE changes has been to try to quietly close out the wars then consider withdrawals a victory.
[/quote]
You are right about that, and it’s a complicated issue to get into.
But take Saddam Hussein as the prime example of what I’m talking about. We captured him, brought him to justice and got his crimes against humanity out in open air for the world to see, convicted him, and hanged him.
As a result, nobody considers him a martyr. He was simply an evil murderous bastard, and the world knows it.
Obama pulled the trigger on bin Laden and then rubbed it in their faces on world TV. As a result, he’s their #1 martyr and we’ve spawned a whole new generation of radicals that our children will have to deal with.
[/quote]
We’re in a no-win situation and have been for quite some time. The threats to us just didn’t receive much publicity and our elected officials let them grow powerful because it’s easy to be weak. In Saudi Arabia there are young men that take up arms against us for no other reason than a government[most desirable job in Saudi Arabia] isn’t available to them and they would rather fight than take a job that’s below them. That’s just because they belong to a certain tribe. Since the wars are coming to a close our SOF units will just be fighting them in the shadows, where the fight should be, instead of in the spotlight.