- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
"John" killed in Yemen by drone strike
- Thread starter winos5
- Start date
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
If he was involved in a battle and got killed, that's on him. This was an assassination that is the difference. Same difference if we sent guys in to get him, if he refused to surrender and got killed that's on him. There was no attempt at capture, he was targeted for death and killed.
I don't say this to protect scum bags that deserve it, I say it to protect people that don't. Now we are ok with this, then were ok with that, and so on and so on.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Sorry but I get tired of the PC bullshit when it comes to situations like this and you can throw the ACLU and any other organization that has a similiar opinion, if they feel that this situation broke "precedence". Terms like "slippery slope" are also a bunch of crap and a term that uses generalities to appease their point of view.
Let me recap this situation, at least from my perspsective;
The United States is in a declared war against a foreign threat. Raising through the ranks of those considered the enemy are a U.S. citizen. This same citizen has become a leader of the forces that we oppose and he has also declared war publicly against the U.S.
During the course of the war this same leader is tracked down and fired upon by U.S. forces. The individual is killed in the attack.
End of story.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
This has nothing to do with PC bullshit. It has everything to do with that constitution bullshit. You know that thing people whine about wanting to follow only when someone violates something that affects them, but when they don't agree with it, **** it.
My point is we shouldn't just adhere to the constitution and bill of rights when we feel like it, no matter the situation, it then calls in to question the whole thing when we do that no matter who it is in regard to.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Okay, fair enough. Since I do not have a degree in Constitutional Law, maybe you can explain to me in the situation described above where that law comes into play in a foreign land with a self-declared enemy combatant during a war.
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
It was more complicated than that. I don't have any evidence in front of me so I will take it on faith that they caught Alwalaki planning, providing funding, and maybe even coroberating on the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, and failed NY car bomber incidents. We do know that he was their immam and got them to do these things.
So it begs the question; aren't those acts of war just as dangerous, violent, and aggressive as say an enemy combatant shooting an AK at a US soldier in Afghanistan?
That is precisely the argument that DoDs JAG will make to any legal group that challenges our decision to 'assasinate' him.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Thing is, you don't even have to go those extremes to be deemed "suspicious" or be red flagged as a "potential terrorist". You can just be a returning veteran. You can be someone who talks about the Constitution a lot, you can own certain literature, be a Fundamentalist Christian, etc, etc. All of the above have now been reason enough to deem a person a potential terrorist threat.
Ever notice that there have always been terrorists? That the WTC had already been attacked before? And short of some kind of Pearl Harbor-type event, it would have been difficult to get people to go along with all these executive powers the government has claimed and used over the past decade.
That's what this perpetual "War on Terror" has brought us. That even though it's ALWAYS existed, we only now, just recently in our history, have an ever present invisible enemy, that can be anyone, anywhere. And that's all the reason we need. The only thing needed to justify an action involving that is a press conference with the word "terrorist" said. When it became okay and accepted to do whatever it takes to "stop terrorism", we already lost that war, and that's IF it's even really being fought for that reason in the first place.
Like TSD said, it's the precedent being set, the precedents that have already been set, that should be what people are looking at in this.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,802
- Liked Posts:
- 0
How often have we seen this "extreme" being taken?
I think it is more of the fear of the "precedent" being set, but really through out the history of the US the precedent had already been set for those considered enemies of the state. The thing is, it has never really been wantonly used. Sure there is the cloak and dagger situations, but really isn't that like on like action?
One is allowed to speak their mind, within the laws of the US, but it is the actions you take that will be a deciding factor.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Why do you think you have strangers fondling your genitals when you board a plane?
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
Because you refused to go through the scanner/x-ray or were acting like a jack-ass? I've flown 1-2 times nearly every year since 9-11 and never once have I been patted down.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Go through the x-ray machine, get patted down, you know what I'm getting at. It's not even the best example, but it's just one of the more visible ones.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
eh eh eh...if I PLAN a robbery for someone and send them on their way to commit the crime, I am now just as guilty as the guy who walked into the bank and asked for the cash. There is a precedent of convictions for that already. I don't know what the actual law is though and I am sure it is different in each state. Regardless, you are more than just an accessory. Take UBL for instance, he planned and financed everything, but was he on one of the planes? No. Still guilty though.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
I have to laugh at where there this thread is headed with all the "conspiracy" and "slippery slope" discussion.
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
I wouldn't call Variable's post a conspiracy theory. He's just not respecting the rule of 'need to know'. The US government is not going to make every tidbit of information about "John the terrorist" known to the public for fear that it could expose our methods of collection.
"That's what this perpetual "War on Terror" has brought us. That even though it's ALWAYS existed, we only now, just recently in our history, have an ever present invisible enemy, that can be anyone, anywhere. And that's all the reason we need. The only thing needed to justify an action involving that is a press conference with the word "terrorist" said. When it became okay and accepted to do whatever it takes to "stop terrorism", we already lost that war, and that's IF it's even really being fought for that reason in the first place."
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
I'm not even really talking about the specific person in this incident or any kind of whatever conspiracy you want to make out about him, whether he was or wasn't a terrorist or whatever IHF thinks I'm inferring about him isn't the point. I'm talking the actions being taken by the government by the power of a WORD that should have people's attention.It's acceptable to a lot of them, because it was a "terrorist" or because "terrorists" are in that country so let's invade it or because the Sec. of Defense says:
“This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans. There’s no question that the authority and the ability to go after a terrorist is there.”
Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. All they need to say to excuse anything. Killed couple dozen kids in a bombing run? Well, terrorist activity was suspected in the area.
“This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans. There’s no question that the authority and the ability to go after a terrorist is there.”
Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. All they need to say to excuse anything. Killed couple dozen kids in a bombing run? Well, terrorist activity was suspected in the area.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
No, it is a war.
We have a declared enemy and the individual killed was an enemy combatant who has organized war tactics against our troops and our nation. THE ONLY difference is that we are fighting a war against a gutless enemy who will not put a uniform on to fight us.
You need to differentiate between a terrorist and a war combatant.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 17,853
- Liked Posts:
- 2,553
I'm curious as to what "John" would think about this. If he hated the US so much as to give up everything and go to the other side... if he were captured instead of killed... would he continue with his terrorist beliefs and not not acknowledge any of his US rights, or would he again forsake his beliefs and give up any of his US rights? US citizen or not, he probably got exactly what it is he believed in. Dropping a bomb on him is probably about what the justice would be in the world he now believes in.
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
Fair enough, but just because you weren't told about it, does not mean that there is not a mountain of evidence against this guy.
We don't just pick targets at random and fire away.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Ugh, yes IHF, we are in a war. The war on terror. A war that hopefully we can at least agree that it will never end (in any of our lifetimes anyway) because terrorism in the world as it is today won't ever end. And in which the enemy could be ANYONE, foreign or domestic. It could be me, it could be you, your neighbor, anybody. So when the enemy could be anyone, and the "rules" for going after a terrorist involved in this war are that are really are no rules as long as you "stop terrorism", you don't see the potential for the massive abuse of that power? You put your trust in that kind of executive power in the hands of people and/or Presidents that we all acknowledge, to one degree or another, that they've looked us straight in the eye and lied effortlessly to us about what they want or plan to do or have done?