Terror Suspect killed - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #76 10-01-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Would you have been uncomfortale killing Hitler after he toasted 6,000,000 Jews and another 500,000 non-Jews?

Is that a fair comparison in your mind?

How about this: Would it have been ok to kill Hitler in 1935 if you thought he might be a bad guy in 1939? What about if he had't exterminated Jews and other undesirables?

strelnik · #77 10-01-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is that a fair comparison in your mind?

How about this: Would it have been ok to kill Hitler in 1935 if you thought he might be a bad guy in 1939?

>>>>>See sjh's answer

What about if he had't exterminated Jews and other undesirables?

>>>> In that case, what would he have been guilty of? war against us? Then the usual conventions would apply.

Notice we never tried to kill Ho Chi Minh.

But actually since all of this relates to al Aulaki: a man who renounced US citizenship, went to live in a different country after pledging 3rd degree loyalty ( loyalty to the death) to UBL (yes, UBL had degrees of loyalty to which you were privileged to ascend (or descend) and agreeing to do his best to conspire to kill US citizens or their allies anywhere in the world.

No longer US citizen, pledged to kill all Americans, inspires and supports others who conduct violence, ok, he's on the list.

BTW whenever the President orders the kind of dead-or-alive handling of someone, he reports it to the Gang of Eight in Congress as well as the Attorney general.

There is a procedure listed in the executive orders, they are public domain so you can read them for yourself.

Botnst · #78 10-01-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

How about this: Would it have been ok to kill Hitler in 1935 if you thought he might be a bad guy in 1939?

>>>>>See sjh's answer

What about if he had't exterminated Jews and other undesirables?

>>>> In that case, what would he have been guilty of? war against us? Then the usual conventions would apply.

Notice we never tried to kill Ho Chi Minh.

I don't know that we didn't try to kill that ol' Ho. I'll bet every USAF pilot who dropped a bomb hoped he'd have the million-dollar ticket.

Would you say that we did or did not specifically target Hussein when we attacked Iraq? I think we did, but we used the figleaf of "command and control targets".

Actually, I have less compunction about targeting an enemy head of state than I do targeting an American citizen accused of a crime. That particular argument seems to have been pulled from my grasp in that he is reported to have renounced his citizenship.

Strangely, I don't feel reassured to know that the executive and legislative branches collude in the targeting and killing of unindicted citizens.

chilcutt · #79 10-02-2011, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I don't know that we didn't try to kill that ol' Ho. I'll bet every USAF pilot who dropped a bomb hoped he'd have the million-dollar ticket.

Would you say that we did or did not specifically target Hussein when we attacked Iraq? I think we did, but we used the figleaf of "command and control targets".

Actually, I have less compunction about targeting an enemy head of state than I do targeting an American citizen accused of a crime. That particular argument seems to have been pulled from my grasp in that he is reported to have renounced his citizenship.

Strangely, I don't feel reassured to know that the executive and legislative branches collude in the targeting and killing of unindicted citizens.

Anwar Al-Alwaki wasnt your average Joe-6-pack citizen, who merely ran afoul of the law, and was accused of say 'Income tax evasion'.
He took a vow to kill westeners..so in effect he vowed to kill me.

With that being said, I have absolutely no problem with the Executive branch of the U.S. Government targeting, and neutralising Mr. Al-Alwaki,and his maniac freinds.

Once again Bot, if Al-Alwaki had of felt that he was 'in way over his head', he could have surrendered.
That he felt his life was not worth as much as his cause , in my opinion, justifys his killing.
Just like a mad dog has to be put down.

Botnst · #80 10-02-2011, 01:21 PM

The idea that the executive and legislative branch provide the evidence from behind a national security screen and then pass judgement on it without judicial review makes me a tad uncomfortable. I know it's quaint, but I like the whole, "Jury of his peers" thing when an American citizen is involved.

chilcutt · #81 10-02-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The idea that the executive and legislative branch provide the evidence from behind a national security screen and then pass judgement on it without judicial review makes me a tad uncomfortable. I know it's quaint, but I like the whole, "Jury of his peers" thing when an American citizen is involved.

But..uh..he declared war on the States.
Shouldnt that be dealt with militarily, instead of in a court of law?

pj67coll · #82 10-02-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The idea that the executive and legislative branch provide the evidence from behind a national security screen and then pass judgement on it without judicial review makes me a tad uncomfortable. I know it's quaint, but I like the whole, "Jury of his peers" thing when an American citizen is involved.

He renounced his US citizenship, therefore he is not a US citizen. Way to much intellectual energy being expended on this clown.

- Peter.

MS Fowler · #83 10-02-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

But..uh..he declared war on the States.
Shouldnt that be dealt with militarily, instead of in a court of law?

That would be true if we were at war, but since when did the US stop to declare war?

Botnst · #84 10-02-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

He renounced his US citizenship, therefore he is not a US citizen. Way to much intellectual energy being expended on this clown.

- Peter.

Yeah, you're right. Guess I'm playing, "Jus' seepose...".

See, the mechanism is in-place and there has never been a suggestion that the mechanism excludes American citizens.

panZZer · #85 10-02-2011, 04:40 PM

The DEA office in El paso needs to be flyin some drones over messyco raining lightning down on some targets.

sjh · #86 10-02-2011, 05:48 PM

The combatants the West and US and to use an archaic term Christendom encounter in the current battle with world-wide islamo-terror (Chilcutt may inform there is a preferable term, that's fine, I'll consider it, but it is terrorism and it claims to be motivated by Islam) falls outside the bounds of conventional warfare.

The 'norms' and protocols of earlier times are challenged. While many ridicule the term we are in a war with islamo-terror. During war it's pretty common for the 'rules' of normal government are bypassed.

Heck, just watching the passage of the HealthCare act we got to watch the 'rules' of normal government being bypassed.

strelnik · #87 10-02-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Strangely, I don't feel reassured to know that the executive and legislative branches collude in the targeting and killing of unindicted citizens.

Understood. two things
Consider also that al Aulaki is on record with multiple postings and other messages as helping to plan and encouraging death and destruction in the US. This includes the unsuccessful propane filled van in NYC, the car bomb in Stockholm Sweden, (yep, he took credit for encouraging that one), the underwear bomber in detroit, and the killings by MAJ Hasan at Fort Hood, TX.

chilcutt · #88 10-02-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

That would be true if we were at war, but since when did the US stop to declare war?

Not in referance to Iraq/Afghanistan.
In referance to Bush/Cheney..'Global War on Terror/Axis of Evil'. "Either you are with us, or your'e agin us".

chilcutt · #89 10-02-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

The combatants the West and US and to use an archaic term Christendom encounter in the current battle with world-wide islamo-terror (Chilcutt may inform there is a preferable term, that's fine, I'll consider it, but it is terrorism and it claims to be motivated by Islam) falls outside the bounds of conventional warfare.

The 'norms' and protocols of earlier times are challenged. While many ridicule the term we are in a war with islamo-terror. During war it's pretty common for the 'rules' of normal government are bypassed.

Heck, just watching the passage of the HealthCare act we got to watch the 'rules' of normal government being bypassed.

Negative>"Claims to be motivated by Islam". I refer you to post #71. In which is described that once a group or individual goes outside of true Quranic teachings, they are denounced by mainstream Islam (The Imans that have the authority to issue Fatwa's), and thusly stand alone/apart from everyone else.
If need be, I will provide more evidance, but I feel you are intelligant/open-minded enough to free your current mis-conception that has been feuled by media propaganda.
I really do not wish to be drawn into a discussion about this, but the bottom line is that the Terrorist's are not using religion as a base for their cause.
Their beef is with Western foriegn policy's.

Botnst · #90 10-02-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Understood. two things
Consider also that al Aulaki is on record with multiple postings and other messages as helping to plan and encouraging death and destruction in the US. This includes the unsuccessful propane filled van in NYC, the car bomb in Stockholm Sweden, (yep, he took credit for encouraging that one), the underwear bomber in detroit, and the killings by MAJ Hasan at Fort Hood, TX.

Would you order the execution of an American citizen based solely on the prosecution evidence with no rebuttal from the defense? Take for instance all of the death row inmates in Texas. Why did we bother providing those guilty bastards with defense representation?