They have proof, it says so in the article.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US officials struggle with possible drone strike on American citizen
- Thread starter dripdripsplash
- Start date
- Status
They have proof, it says so in the article.
dripdripsplash
Member
What is the foundation of the very fabric of our society, our bloodlust or our principles and laws ?
Some of you disgust me.
Do you have a functioning link, I want to share that!
Some of you disgust me.
Do you have a functioning link, I want to share that!
Tell me, if a man was holding a gun to someone's head, and the cops shot the person holding the gun and saved the life of the hostage, would you be upset? Would you consider that "bloodlust"?
He ain't lie
Everybody suddenly becomes Liam Neeson from Taken when they hear that the government finds someone who might be a terrorist, based on evidence no one who's not in the military has seen. I'm not saying these people are necessarily innocent, or not planning an attack on US soil, but to back the claims of the US army so wholeheartedly in spite of not knowing anything about this guy, while also having previous knowledge of the government's "shaky" categorization of who is and isn't a terrorist (as well as disturbing accounts of civilians being "accidentally targeted" at functions like weddings, or "sitting peacefully") is extremely unsettling, and really indicative of the blinding patriotism that informs our perception of and our actions against terrorism.
In fact, the only reason we're talking about this is because he's an American. They don't write an article every time we drone strike someone who's brown and male. It's been a fact of life for a good long time that as a country, we don't care about people who ain't us. This thread is just the latest iteration of that fact.
Also, while I recognize that 9/11 was a horrific event that destroyed a great many lives, I don't think it would be unreasonable to consider the possibility that our 12 year war has terrorized and damaged the civilian populace over there many many times more. Considering the vengeful fervor with which Americans respond to reports of potential terrorism, wouldn't it then figure that in the minds of civilians living in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as those not colored by their allegiance to their flag worldwide) "the overwhelming majority" of Americans plotting to do bad stuff "reside in US military bases"?
Valnen said:
Valnen said:
This is what I'm talking about. Sure, it's possible this guy isn't nice, but when it comes to his murder, why not just let the government handle it? The way they've been handling it all this time without any resistance or questioning by the American people. Instead, you make up your mind that he's gotta go, based on information that no one has seen.
Instead of just saying "I don't know whether or not the information is accurate, like everyone else in this conversation, so I'm going to reserve my judgment until I know more of the facts," you immediately take the army at their word, based on what is, quite literally, nothing.
To whom?
As for this strike ........ where is the proof of what he is doing.
American Intelligence is untrustworthy, anyone ever find a WMD in Iraq?
Innocent people are blown to smithereens by American drones regularly ........ there concerns over this one guy and procedure is fucking laughable, here is a good procedure to follow .... stop blowing up innocent men, women and children.
You really expect them to compromise their intelligence and release such information publicly?
dripdripsplash
Member
Your situation has nothing in common with the case in the article.
There is no proof, he has not been in court or anything.
It's bloodlust. Just admit it.
EDIT: We already know that the way US finds "bad guys" is dubious at best. I don't trust 'em.
How about touching on the rest of the post.
It's bloodlust to want to take out a terrorist actively planning to attack us? No, you're insane if you believe that and need help.
Broder Salsa
Banned
Yeah that's totally the same thing, good comparison.
This guy is literally planning to kill Americans (or possibly other innocent people) as we speak. It's basically the same thing.
empty vessel
Member
Courts exist to test proof, in an adversarial setting.
Says the president. Do you think every person the State says has committed a crime is guilty just because they say so?
dripdripsplash
Member
Where have you gotten this information from ? Do you have evidence for this ? How do you know he is planning to kill Americans ?
LOL. Critical thinking, you need some.
EDIT: And let them present it in court then.
Cool, then they can present it at his trial.
What if I'm planning to kill you? Do I deserve a preemptive strike without a trial?
Broder Salsa
Banned
Ain't nobody got time for that. Ready the drones.
Yeah, and while we're waiting for that he bombs and kills innocent people. Is that what you want?
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Mt Heart Attack
Member
Just like you knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is that right?
Also, going by your logic, I suppose Saddam had all the rights to send all of his powerful nuclear bombers and blow up the White House? Bush was planning against his country and citizens after all.
C'mon. Either declare war on the country where the guy resides or keep your drones out of there.
Holding a gun to somebody's head is not the same at all as "we think this guy might be a terrorist".
Is he?
Proof?
What the CIA says is not trustworthy, neither is the US administration or military in general.
Anyone over the age of 13 and male in the tribal regions of Pakistan or in Yemen or Somalia etc is a combatant ........ whether they are or not ......... according to the trustworthy and bearer of standards and the truth that is the US intelligence service and military.
Those drone pilots must be planning some heinous shit when they go to work, all those innocent men, women and children .......... certainly killed more civilians than Al Qaeda has killed American citizens.
If it's a certainty that you are doing so, absolutely.
Since you are completely convinced of his crime(?), do you think he has the capabilities to pull it off?
empty vessel
Member
Who decides whether it is a certainty?
If there is no trial, we can't say anything with legal certainty.
You really want to put innocent people's lives on the line? How can you have a trial when the intelligence is likely classified anyway?
Necromanti
Member
The problem with this is that it would be highly subject to abuse. If there's no accountability needed for the integrity of the evidence--having to take the word of people who purport that evidence may or may not exist--there's a lot more flexibility for choosing targets on a basis that may not be entirely justified.
Because this could be used in defense of the target, too.
Why are you convinced of their innocence? They might be terrorists.
You're actively cheering on the people who are plotting to kill other people far away in a foreign land. As we speak!
Others are cheering on the taliban who (allegedly) tries to do the same thing.
I'm not american so no, i don't see any discernable difference in attitude.
dripdripsplash
Member
empty vessel
Member
This argument can justify the extrajudicial arrest, detention, or killing of anybody labeled a threat.
You might consider that constitution explicitly provides more process for people accused of treason, precisely because of the political nature and severity of the allegation. It is the only crime that requires special process by constitutional mandate.
This is not necessarily my opinion, just the answer I came up with for a memo I wrote for an intelligence law class.
If the US citizen is a enemy combatant, on hostile territory, and the military actions of the US are legal then it's likely that a drone strike on that citizen is legal.
Think about it this way, in WW2 if an American was fighting for the Nazis would you have to stop and give him due process before shooting him? No, of course you wouldn't.
The reason this particular scenario is sticky is because of the poor and broad definition of enemy combatant by both Bush and Obama administrations, the seemingly endless bounds of hostile territory, and the legality of the president to wage perpetual war.
However, from what I know based on the law, I think it would be legal even with those issues. That doesn't mean it's right or should be legal, I just think it is regardless of how I feel about it.
If the US citizen is a enemy combatant, on hostile territory, and the military actions of the US are legal then it's likely that a drone strike on that citizen is legal.
Think about it this way, in WW2 if an American was fighting for the Nazis would you have to stop and give him due process before shooting him? No, of course you wouldn't.
The reason this particular scenario is sticky is because of the poor and broad definition of enemy combatant by both Bush and Obama administrations, the seemingly endless bounds of hostile territory, and the legality of the president to wage perpetual war.
However, from what I know based on the law, I think it would be legal even with those issues. That doesn't mean it's right or should be legal, I just think it is regardless of how I feel about it.
Broder Salsa
Banned
and I assume there's no possible way that this guy might be innocent? Then you are the one putting the innocent lives on the line... But never mind, you have already convicted him as per usual when you argue things.
The proof is what decides. You don't need a trial for the military to determine the validity of the proof. If we waited for a trial for every single military action, we'd be crippled as a country.
So according to you, the US military and government's actions are so goddamned bulletproof (like the time they found those weapons of mass destruction, or we crashed that terrorist wedding) that you don't mind granting them unlimited agency when it comes to their decisions, even though this "enemy combatant" might actually be one of those "innocent people's lives" you're talking about?
empty vessel
Member
You are making an argument for martial law.
I find this a somewhat bizarre complaint. Is there any country that doesn't have special treatment for their own citizens? France isn't going to invade the Ivory Coast because of British citizens trapped there.
Governments exist to serve their citizens.
captainnapalm
Member
I guess it all boils down to how much you trust the American government, and whether you believe its constant interference in the Middle East over the last decade is really all about fighting terrorism. Could it possibly just be about good old fashioned money, power and control?
In Syria, for example, the US seems surprisingly pro-terrorism.
In Syria, for example, the US seems surprisingly pro-terrorism.
dripdripsplash
Member
So you want martial law ?
I know where you're getting at: For example if a soldier saw a terrorist hiding in the bushes, sure as hell he wouldn't go call up his commander and ask for a trial, he would shoot him.
But the problem is that this case isn't the same. There is no proof. Nobody has seen him do anything. CIA intelligence has determined that he is actively plotting an attack. But we both know how bulletproof that is.
The guests in that wedding was also planning stuff allegedly.
It is all about the power, money and control. US hasn't supported any terrorist groups in Syria. (If you're one of those who thinks that all the opposition groups are foreign terrorists then that's an entirely other case though)
I can't fully get behind either 'side' of this; there's too many things I don't know about it for me to form a solid opinion. I understand the arguments, but they seem to be relying on too many assumptions and appeals to emotion for me to take seriously. Also, the OP really should link to the actual AP article instead of the ridiculously truncated version from The Verge.
dripdripsplash
Member
Thank you my man. I will copy/paste that in OP and link it.
The issue here isn't with the amount of consideration offered to the American citizen, it's with the complete lack of consideration, and wanton disdain afforded for those who aren't American. Theoretically, as human beings we should be concerned and repentant every time an innocent civilian is murdered as a result of our "actions against terrorism," clearly we don't give a fuck
Yeah, like proof that Sadam actually had weapons of mass destruction. The government said he had him, so he must have. So let's just go to war, and forget about the proof.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If he was doing the same thing in service of another country, if he was working for a foreign government then it would be a straightforward case of treason that I bet almost no-one in here would have a problem with.
Father and son weren't killed in the same strike. His son was killed after in a drone strike on another suspected terrorist. Kid was at a Cafe shop nearby and had nothing to do with any of it. The U. S Govn't even sorta went "eh, oops..." after.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Not go around bombing people based on unreliable 'evidence' just because they can?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked