Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.

Eh. That's not really relevant. I'd rather talk about where we'd like to be instead of how we got here.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.

Actually you could probably make a strong argument that the British Empire is responsible. You could make an argument that the Soviets were responsible. You could even make an argument that Bush Sr was responsible. That region had already degraded into sectarian and extremist war before Bush Jr got into office and no country on earth wouldn't respond militarily after a terrorist attack the scale of 9/11. Anwar allowed himself to become radicalized after knowing what an upper class American life was like. He doesn't even have the cover of "not knowing any better" or "growing up around conflict".

d-usa wrote:Underwear bomber is foreign national who got better treatment than a citizen of this great nation.

Underwear bomber was able to be apprehended and wasn't constantly moving in and out of enemy occupied areas overseas. He was also one guy with one bomb, whereas Al-Awlaki was the Charles Manson terrorist, generating propoganda, raising funds, and encouraging people to put on underwear bombs to kill the citizens of this great nation. Taking down a flunkie is easy, taking down Al Capone is not. Capturing him is no easy feat, assuming it is even possible.

Just saying he was a citizen and using that to end the conversation is disingenuous. He was also an enemy leader of a terrorist group engaged in war on the United States, and other countries. We have the right to target enemies in war, but generally shy away from killing citizens, but what happens when the citizen is an enemy leader? It was a tough call and certainly is something to be talked about, but I for one think they made the right call.

d-usa wrote:16 year old citizen gets killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong day, but that is okay too.

Being in the wrong place at the wrong day is how a lot of people die, like those in the Twin Towers.

Ahtman wrote: We have the right to target enemies in war, but generally shy away from killing citizens, but what happens when the citizen is an enemy leader? It was a tough call and certainly is something to be talked about, but I for one think they made the right call.

I'm happy with the result; just not how we got there. al-Awlawki desperately needed a bullet in the head; but the lack of meaningful oversight is what bothers me about that. I don't know what the right answer is exactly though either.

There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.

Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.

The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.

Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.

sebster wrote:There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.

Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.

The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.

It also helps that drone strikes are typically made in hostile territories where more traditional means would be difficult to place. We also don't have the good relations with Pakistan or most North African countries needed for such endeavors. We still dissapear dudes in less explodey regions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.

We attempted several assassinations of communist political and movement leaders in south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA assassinates people. It's what it does. At least this kill list has presidential oversight rather than plausible deniability.

ShumaGorath wrote:We attempted several assassinations of communist political and movement leaders in south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA assassinates people. It's what it does. At least this kill list has presidential oversight rather than plausible deniability.

South American isn't the United States of America, which is kind of my point. In this day and age, the fear that the government is going to turn around and start popping of US citizens for arbitrary reasons on a regular basis is unwarranted. The CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US, and I'm unaware of the FBI having an assassination program (not that I really follow the FBI).

LordofHats wrote:The CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US, and I'm unaware of the FBI having an assassination program (not that I really follow the FBI).

That would make for a very badass reboot of X-files and Millenium

We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable

LordofHats wrote:We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable

Just keep the sickeningly sweet child actors out, and I'll watch it.

LordofHats wrote:We can pitch it to Viacom. We'll have a spunky female sidekick, a nerdy protagonist who likes her, and we'll throw in an ex-husband for mellow drama. Oh well need a gay supporting character. Gotta stay fashionable

God no, this is the X-files and Millenium we're talking about, the greatest shows of my childhood (along SeaQuest)...

... Some things are sacred, even to an atheist...

So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

Kovnik Obama wrote:God no, this is the X-files and Millenium we're talking about, the greatest shows of my childhood (along SeaQuest)...

... Some things are sacred, even to an atheist...

I don't know, I smell a spoof coming on!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

d-usa wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

LordofHats wrote:Part of this I think is that people take the assassination list too far. Its a wonderful way to effectively eliminate people like terrorist leaders, who once removed typically see their organization collapse in on itself. But that's about all its good for. Its a horrible weapon to use against a state entity, or even a domestic crime organization for various reasons. The idea that the government would turn the assassination list on US citizens in the US is what scares people but its a fear that isn't really warranted.

I think you're probably right that people are ultimately only concerned about such weapons being turned on themselves. Which, frankly, speaks volumes about how gakky people are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:It also helps that drone strikes are typically made in hostile territories where more traditional means would be difficult to place. We also don't have the good relations with Pakistan or most North African countries needed for such endeavors. We still dissapear dudes in less explodey regions.

True. So that can be added as a third reason why this kind of thing has become so much more common now. The biggest one really is capability, though, drones allow you to kill specific people in a way that's way cheaper and easier than what was available before, and without the risk of an operation going wrong and getting your own people killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, but pretending those are the only two options is stupid. You can improve your capability to capture other people (by improving your relations with the country in question). You can limit the effectiveness of the individual without killing/capturing him - shut down bank accounts, make it impossible for him to leave the country/province in which he is safe.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

So we are now taking away citizenships as well?

Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.


Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution... which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.

sebster wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.


Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution...

Which is actually an argument that was made by a few founding fathers who didn't like the idea of the Bill of Rights.

which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.

It has been a creep that has been happening for a while in regards to how we treat terrorists

Originally it was "the Constitution only applies to people in the USA" while we were fighting them.

Then when they were in prison on US land it became "the Constitution only applies to US Citizens and not to everybody in the US".

Not it is "it only applies if you behave yourself". We don't suspend the constitution for people that assasinate presidents. We didn't suspend the constitutional rights for McVeigh after he blew up the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Your constitutional rights are your constitutional rights, even if you hate the USA.

sebster wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

You don't just get to make up what you'd like the constitution to say.


Also, as much as I admire the US for its strong belief in its constitution, it seems to have led to a very strange mindset in which the only rights are those in the constitution... which is a big problem when it leads to the unstated conclusion that people who aren't American, and therefore not granted the rights of the constitution, seem to have no rights at all. As if blowing someone up without a trial is only a problem if they deserve US legal protection.

What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...

Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...

Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.


I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.

It's always been that way, every single wartime president has suspended the right of habeas corpus. Also we most certainly suspended the rights of presidential assassins, the military tribunal following Lincolns assassination was one of the worst examples of a kangaroo court in US history. Honestly the constitution is really not an effective mean of guaranteeing your rights as every administration has violated some part or another( some being worse then other)

Ouze wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...

Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.


I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.

Comment removed. See rule #1.
reds8n

Since we've moved on from logical discourse to namecalling, I'm notching myself 1 victory point and moving on.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...

Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.


I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.

Argumentation =/= legal argumentation, which should somehow be expected on a Wargaming forum. But then it's so much easier to make stupid comments like yours.

Except that you seem to making the argument that the US is allowed to do these things, under our own laws were not. You were using legal term and rules that have definitions, you can't then decide that you weren't being serious just because you lose an argument. (im sure there's some fancy latin term to describe it)

youbedead wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:[What's this with the Constitution? As far as I'm concerned the question is one of Rules of Engagment. The person in question swears allegiance to an organisation which then declares war on a State. The person in question takes up arm, and trains in it's use. Therefore, the person in question is no longer a civilian, but an illegal combatant. It shouldn't even be hard to argue that you cannot be both at war with a country and protected under it's Constitution...

Well, so long as you accept that the ideas you espoused above have absolutely no actual basis in US law and are wholly your opinion, then there is no problem here.


I think people who sit in the front row of a movie and text on their phones should be dragged out of the theater and shot in the mouth by the police; but I'm not saying the police legally can actually do that. Although they should.

Argumentation =/= legal argumentation, which should somehow be expected on a Wargaming forum. But then it's so much easier to make stupid comments like yours.

Except that you seem to making the argument that the US is allowed to do these things, under our own laws were not. You were using legal term and rules that have definitions, you can't then decide that you weren't being serious just because you lose an argument. (im sure there's some fancy latin term to describe it)

Well, if every argument basing itself on terms that have a legal equivalance should end up in front of a court, we wouldn't ever get things done. Is your pharmacists giving you a legal advice when he gives you a prescription? Because that's a legal term... things can be sooo confusing sometimes...

Several posts removed or edited. If you can't post without insulting other users then don't post.

Can people be tried in absentia?