Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

No, no, no, no, no.

Planning a murder and committing a murder are not the same thing, and the government can't kill a person (without first obtaining a conviction) simply because he is planning one or more murders. How certain the government is that such planning is going on makes no difference to the rights of the accused.

Plotting murders in service of and under the protection of a hostile power in a region that will not allow the US to use military force to recover or eliminate him. Its not a nice, clean situation. Should we just ignore the nation then and send troops to get him, risking sparking an even messier conflict? Should we just ignore the situation entirely and wait for the actual terrorist attack?

I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the current information is accurate, something I recognize has quite a bit of uncertainty to it, because I want to know what, if we knew with 100% certainty that he was plotting something deadly and feasible, what course of action you think we should take.

 

[BoboBrazil]

I think I've uncovered a pic

 

[Dany]

I was under the impression that the story was about someone in ANOTHER country where apprehension or a more conventional method of assassination would be difficult.

If (s)he was in this country we wouldn't have to use drones and they probably actually would get a trial (re: Richard Reid)

yikes, i completly misread. woops

 

[lednerg]

I extensively studied national security in law school.

Long story short, this is a sticky situation. There are also no such thing as advisory opinions from the Hague about citizens who purposefully avail themselves to the benefits/warm embrace of terrorist organizations.

COA 1 is you kill him - as a member of Al Qaeda in a foreign land during a common article 2 non-international armed conflict, according to the Geneva Conventions, he is an unprivileged belligerent and is not afforded the same rights as an American citizen on US soil.

COA 2 is you get someone else to do it.

COA 3 is just leave it alone, because he's non-essential anyway, and hope you capture his ass at some point and bring him home to face the music.

Appreciate the info.

Like I said before, I'm hesitant to weigh in on this. We don't know what this guy is actually being accused of doing, how reliable the intel is, or anything really (and for good reason). I will say that I don't see drone strikes as being a black or white issue - there's a ton of contradictory stats and rhetoric on that topic.

 

[Jenenser]

They have proof, it says so in the article.

just like they had proof for WMD's....
you shouldn't blind yourself because your scared.
the "guy points a weapon on your head" thing doesn't work...

the government shouldn't have that much power without a trial.

 

[Jenenser]

A drone strike.

i couldn't help but laugh hard, thx for that comment

sry for doublepost :/

 

[Monocle]

The strike looks justifiable as an isolated circumstance, but against the background context of the US's questionable drone use, and the potential legal and political implications, killing this guy might cause more trouble than leaving him alive.

I'm not especially well informed about all of the important factors here, though.

 

[lednerg]

just like they had proof for WMD's....
you shouldn't blind yourself because your scared.
the "guy points a weapon on your head" thing doesn't work...

the government shouldn't have that much power without a trial.

Careful with your "they's". The group who came up with the 'proof' for WMDs were from the Office of Special Plans, an invention of the neocons which lasted from '02 to '03. They had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA, who is in charge of this case.

 

[empty vessel]

Plotting murders in service of and under the protection of a hostile power in a region that will not allow the US to use military force to recover or eliminate him. Its not a nice, clean situation. Should we just ignore the nation then and send troops to get him, risking sparking an even messier conflict? Should we just ignore the situation entirely and wait for the actual terrorist attack?

I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the current information is accurate, something I recognize has quite a bit of uncertainty to it, because I want to know what, if we knew with 100% certainty that he was plotting something deadly and feasible, what course of action you think we should take.

Work with local authorities to arrest him based on alleged criminal conduct. There are procedures for how to deal with allegations of criminal conduct between countries. This is how the US has always handled these matters. We don't need to consider your hypothetical, because it cannot happen in the real world. That's the entire reason why due process exists. Not even after process is afforded can we know with 100% certainty the truth of the matter. But we can at least say it was the result of a particular process that we deem more or less reliable for ascertaining truth. That process never includes unilateral judgment by executives, because history has shown it to be unreliable.

Careful with your "they's". The group who came up with the 'proof' for WMDs were from the Office of Special Plans, an invention of the neocons which lasted from '02 to '03. They had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA, who is in charge of this case.

The CIA was complicit in pre- and post-action propaganda.

 

[xbhaskarx]

How is this even a debate, Pradator drone this motherfucker.

 

[The Technomancer]

Work with local authorities to arrest him based on alleged criminal conduct. There are procedures for how to deal with allegations of criminal conduct between countries. This is how the US has always handled these matters. We don't need to consider your hypothetical, because it cannot happen in the real world. That's the entire reason why due process exists. Not even after process is afforded can we know with 100% certainty the truth of the matter. But we can at least say it was the result of a particular process that we deem more or less reliable for ascertaining truth. That process never includes unilateral judgment by executives, because history has shown it to be unreliable.

What I personally get hung up on is why due process is such a concern with US citizens but seems to get thrown out the window when it comes to non-citizens. I know that you personally don't approve of the majority of military action taken against terrorism in the last decade or so, but I don't think that everyone crying "due process" here feels that every person who has died as a result of the conflict over terrorism deserved the same thing. That every member of Al Qaeda who wasn't American also deserved a trial. And that bothers me.

I don't like citizenship as a magic shield. If there are circumstances where a non-American does not require a trial then there are circumstances where an American doesn't require a trial. Anything else feels like a contradiction in human rights.

 

[lednerg]

...
The CIA was complicit in pre- and post-action propaganda.

Yeah, and how'd that work out for Tenet?

 

[Jenenser]

Careful with your "they's". The group who came up with the 'proof' for WMDs were from the Office of Special Plans, an invention of the neocons which lasted from '02 to '03. They had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA, who is in charge of this case.

i didn't try to blame the CIA, i tried to tell him he should ask more questions and don't believe everything blindly. (CIA didn't try to validate these facts either, or did they?)
if it came out wrong than sry. not my motherlanguage and all :>

critical thinking lack's in this young padawan, more to learn he has.
(not you but valnen, atleast that's my opinion)

 

[Metaphoreus]

Should we just ignore the nation then and send troops to get him, risking sparking an even messier conflict? Should we just ignore the situation entirely and wait for the actual terrorist attack?

I don't know what would be the proper course of action, though I'd lean towards empty vessel's suggestion. The purpose of my post was to refute Valnen's equivalence of planning an act and committing the act.

I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the current information is accurate, something I recognize has quite a bit of uncertainty to it, because I want to know what, if we knew with 100% certainty that he was plotting something deadly and feasible, what course of action you think we should take.

Even if (1) the dude's actually planning feasible attacks against the U.S. and (2) the government is 100% certain of that fact, I wouldn't change my position. This is so for two reasons: first, a threat must be imminent to justify the use of lethal force. 100% certainty of plotting and feasibility is not a substitute for this requirement. Second, there is value in the government following the formalities of a trial rather than offing whomever it pleases by executive fiat, even if, through certainty, we eliminate the risk of killing an innocent person.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Work with local authorities to arrest him based on alleged criminal conduct.

Local authorities are working with the Taliban or will have to enter the area they are operating in as part of a massive military operation. Pretending like a squad car can just drive to his address and put the cuffs on him is completely misrepresenting the situation on the ground.

 

[Oersted]

Local authorities are working with the Taliban or will have to enter the area they are operating in as part of a massive military operation. Pretending like a squad car can just drive to his address and put the cuffs on him is completely misrepresenting the situation on the ground.

They do?

 

[Coriolanus]

Local authorities are working with the Taliban or will have to enter the area they are operating in as part of a massive military operation. Pretending like a squad car can just drive to his address and put the cuffs on him is completely misrepresenting the situation on the ground.

You do know that the US has worked with the taliban before, and that even Karzai thinks you won't find a solution to afghanistan without involving them, right? And Karzai is the US's guy.

Seriously, negotiating with people opposed to your ideologies is nothing new.

 

[Synth_floyd]

I love the idea that because he happened to be born in America then he deserves a trial, but if he's a dirty foreigner then we can just kill him willy-nilly.

 

[Valnen]

This is so for two reasons: first, a threat must be imminent to justify the use of lethal force.

I couldn't disagree more with this. You're essentially saying innocent people should be put in unnecessary danger for no good reason.

 

[Ethranes]

Dear America,

Stop killing everything.

Sincerely,
Everyone.

 

[Oersted]

I couldn't disagree more with this. You're essentially saying innocent people should be put in unnecessary danger for no good reason.

They are in danger? Based on what?

 

[Valnen]

They are in danger? Based on what?

Based on the fact that he's planning on killing them? Why are you people being so dense?

 

[Oersted]

Based on the fact that he's planning on killing them? Why are you people being so dense?

And that automatically means danger? A threat that only can be dealt with the death of the plotter?

 

[Valnen]

And that automatically means danger? A threat that only can be dealt with the death of the plotter?

Yes and yes. Death is what he deserves to planning to attack and kill innocent people.

 

[Coriolanus]

Based on the fact that he's planning on killing them? Why are you people being so dense?

Because words have meaning. Namely, "facts".
Also when wanting to preemptively kill someone, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[SpyGuy239]

I know this is still impossible to achieve but people shouldn't be even killing people in the first place.

Citizenship should NOT matter. Everyone should get a trial I believe that is a HUMAN right.

I'm so disappointed with the U.S. I used to look up to America (being a non-american living in other parts of the world) but things have really taken a turn for the worse since 9/11

 

[Oersted]

Yes and yes. Death is what he deserves to planning to attack and kill innocent people.

Should have Vietnamese /South Korean/ Iraqi and many more preemptively killed Americans to save their lives? Should it be a standard to kill potential murderers before they commit a crime preemptively?

 

[Valnen]

Should it be a standard to kill potential murderers before they commit a crime preemptively?

If you have proof that they're planning it and they're enemy combatants, absolutely.

 

[Woz]

US could accidentally leave a folder with the strike's coordinates an the keys of the drone on the Brit's table at the next NATO meeting.

 

[Oersted]

If you have proof that they're planning it and they're enemy combatants, absolutely.

Nice skipping. So martial law?

 

[Valnen]

Nice skipping. So martial law?

We already arrest people for planning crimes and we're not in martial law.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

If you have proof that they're planning it and they're enemy combatants, absolutely.

You can never be 100% sure. The death penality in the US clearly shows this, because several, completely innocent persons were killed.

Additionally the US demonstrated that they are incapable of avoiding casualties in the civilian population while executing drone strikes, which makes these acts of terrorism. If you support these actions, you are a supporter of terrorism.

We already arrest people for planning crimes and we're not in martial law.

Those people are arrested by the police who have to conduct transparent investigations and who have to respect the law. The people who commit these drone strikes act in secret and do not abide the law.

 

[Valnen]

You can never be 100% sure. The death penality in the US clearly shows this, because several, completely innocent persons were killed.

Additionally the US demonstrated that they are incapable of avoiding casualties in the civilian population while executing drone strikes, which makes these acts of terrorism. If you support these actions, you are a supporter of terrorism.

And if you don't support these strikes, you support terrorist strikes against your own people if you live in the US. Because if we leave these people unchecked, you can bet they'll kill us given the chance.

 

[Oersted]

And if you don't support these strikes, you support terrorist strikes against your own people if you live in the US. Because if we leave these people unchecked, you can bet they'll kill us given the chance.

How do they have a chance?

 

[Valnen]

How do they have a chance?

I don't know, ask the victims of 9/11. Or any other terrorist attack for that matter.

 

[Oersted]

I don't know, ask the victims of 9/11.

The air defense learned nothing?

And yes, you don't know.

 

[SpyGuy239]

And if you don't support these strikes, you support terrorist strikes against your own people if you live in the US. Because if we leave these people unchecked, you can bet they'll kill us given the chance.

really? Even this is abit of a stretch. America did finr before 9/11 without so much drone killing.

 

[Valnen]

really? Even this is abit of a stretch. America did finr before 9/11 without so much drone killing.

And you'd be perfectly content with just letting them plan and possibly execute something else?

 

[Oersted]

And you'd be perfectly content with just letting them plan and possibly execute something else?

Is that another strawman?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

And if you don't support these strikes, you support terrorist strikes against your own people if you live in the US. Because if we leave these people unchecked, you can bet they'll kill us given the chance.

What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, it isn't even sure if those people are as much of a threat for the US population like the US government says. Second, I did not say that the governments on this planets should do nothing against alleged terrorists. And third, you honestly believe committing terrorist attacks against the innocent civilian population of a foreign country is necessary and wise in order to protect the US population?

 

[Valnen]

What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, it isn't even sure if those people are as much of a threat for the US population like the US government says. Second, I did not say that the governments on this planets should do nothing against alleged terrorists. And third, you honestly believe committing terrorist attacks against the innocent civilian population of a foreign country is necessary and wise in order to protect the US population?

What other alternative would there be to killing this monster?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

What other alternative would there be to killing this monster?

I am getting really furious right now. Innocent men, women and children in foreign countries are NO MONSTERS. You are supporting TERRORIST ATTACKS against innocent civilians and you dare speaking of monsters?!

Also, the US government has a military budget of 1,000,000,000,000 US Dollars. Every year. You want to honestly tell me they don't have the ability to capture those people unharmed, without the loss of innocent, civilian life? Because they absolutely can. They just don't want to.

 

[Oersted]

What other alternative would there be to killing this monster?

Dehumanizing humans makes you what again?

Regardless, USA has a rich history of kidnapping, torturing and murdering people. Shouldn't the latter slowly become the least option?

 

[Valnen]

I am getting really furious right now. Innocent men, women and children in foreign countries are NO MONSTERS. You are supporting TERRORIST ATTACKS against innocent civilians and you dare speaking of monsters?!

Also, the US government has a military budget of 1,000,000,000,000 US Dollars. Every year. You want to honestly tell me they don't have the ability to capture those people unharmed, without the loss of innocent, civilian life? Because they absolutely can. They just don't want to.

I'm pretty mad too, people are suggesting just leaving this guy be and letting him plot attacks on innocent people. How do you suggest we get people on the ground in a country that refuses our presence anyway?

 

[MisterFalcon]

Also, the US government has a military budget of 1,000,000,000,000 US Dollars. Every year. You want to honestly tell me they don't have the ability to capture those people unharmed, without the loss of innocent, civilian life? Because they absolutely can. They just don't want to.

What is your plan for capturing someone in Taliban territory that has no risk of innocent civilians being killed ? Note that no one there wears a uniform.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I'm pretty mad too, people are suggesting just leaving this guy be and letting him plot attacks on innocent people.

And why are you telling me this? I did not say this.

What is your plan for capturing someone in Taliban territory that has no risk of innocent civilians being killed ? Note that no one there wears a uniform.

You can't be serious. If you have those ressources, if you have 1,000,000,000,000 US Dollars every year, you can do (almost) everything. But you must also have the will to do this.

 

[Oersted]

What is your plan for capturing someone in Taliban territory that has no risk of innocent civilians being killed ? Note that no one there wears a uniform.

How exactly is he a threat in that territory? To whom? Taliban?

 

[Vagabundo]

Yes and yes. Death is what he deserves to planning to attack and kill innocent people.

Then should Obama get death? He must be approaching mass murder status at this point.

Being generous I'd commit him to life without parole, not being a fan of the death penalty myself.

 

[Coriolanus]

Valnen,let's maybe try to make you see things through a different prism.

Assume your mother was accused by the US military of planning terrorist strikes against the US population. And that they said they have proof of such plans.

Would you be fine with them drone striking her house then and there? Even if you never saw the evidence? Even if it was never brought to trial? Even if your father might still be living there and is completely oblivious to the whole thing?

 

[Valnen]

Valnen,let's maybe try to make you see things through a different prism.

Assume your mother was accused by the US military of planning terrorist strikes against the US population. And that they said they have proof of such plans.

Would you be fine with them drone striking her house then and there? Even if you never saw the evidence? Even if it was never brought to trial? Even if your father might still be living there and is completely oblivious to the whole thing?

My own judgment would not be reliable in such a scenario and thus would be irrelevant. People look out for their own no matter what they're guilty of.