Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 88
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by habsheaven View Post
    I have confidence in your government (and many other governments also) when I say, I am sure they put a lot of deliberate consultation and thought into each opportunity to take out an enemy combatant. I have NO FEAR that a method of combat like drones will be abused.
    I don't think they would either, but I'm just not sure I like that they can.

    By the way, don't have too much faith. This administration is more careful than prior ones, but I'll just say that deliberation and thoughtfulness are not the government's forte. I got to talk to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke for a while, and what he had to say in this regard definitely helped to shape my view of government action.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  2. #32
    For what it's worth.......

    I have tried 3 times in my life to enter Afghanistan as a traveller from a neutral country at the time, with a valid Passport, visas were not required. On all 3 visits, I was declined entry. First time in the 70's when they were starting to have trouble with the Russians, 1st entry attempted from the West, from Iran. The other 2 times in the 80's, entry attempted from Pakistan at the Khyber Pass.

    If, and I say if there are any Americans in Afghanistan, they are not, nor have they been allowed entry on their own, they have not been permitted to enter as Tourists, Travellers, etc. it's for one reason, they have gained entry illegally, or been a part of an organization that ferries Taliban and expats through areas of access where there is no government involvement.

    Because of the difficulties of getting into this country for the last 35 years, you just don't walk into the place willy-nilly, then have somebody at home ask, "Why is Billy Jones" in Afghanistan?

    He's there because he is against the Imperialist West, no other reason. He may not have a rifle or an AK in his hands, but his ideology has both feet in the camp of the Taliban. That's just the way it is. Any American citizen, that is there and not in support of the Allied initiative, or the US Army, Rangers etc, is there for NEFARIOUS reasons.

    There should be no questions asked about innocent lives of Americans in Afghanistan of their own volition, because they simply aren't innocent, they have chosen their side, long ago.
    Last edited by centrehice; 02-12-2013 at 05:36 PM.

  3. #33
    Drones would be fine in a limited capacity. But to use to spy on or kill americans isnt cool. In all honesty though they probably have satellites that can do both fairly easily.

  4. #34
    I'm glad to see such a lively discussion about a very important issue...

    I think the fact that if one is born in the U.S you are automatically treated in a special manner compared to a "foreigner" is not something I can fully agree with, but at the same time our constitution is set up that way.

    These people (REGARDLESS of what they did) have protections and are supposed to be given due process.

    The U.S is basically saying that as long as you're an "enemy" on a foreign country.....they can BOMB you out of existence!

    That does NOT sit well with me.

    Also, consider this.....

    Have you guys heard about this Chris Dorner person?

    Well....the LAPD is in a MASSIVE manhunt for him and are even using unarmed drones to search for him!

    How long until another Timothy McVeigh comes along and the U.S government considers him an "enemy of the state" and too "risky" to simply catch......yes, I am using a "slippery slope", but that's because the slippery slope has been happening ever since 9/11!

    The U.S has violated so many international laws, and basically go unchecked.

    Does anyone stand up to the U.S government? NO!

    Bush and the majority of his administration were WAR CRIMINALS! And they should go to TRAIL for their horrific crimes against humanity!

    ....and Now Obama (and I hate to say this) is following suit by violating our constitution and violating international law.

    I'm sorry, but this is simply unacceptable.....I constantly criticized Bush and many GOP members during the better part of 2004-2008.

    I can't turn my back and ignore what is going on simply because Obama is not a republican.
    Logic and Reason is all you need.

  5. #35
    How can you give due process to an American citizen in Afghanistan who's ideology is to kill every human from the West? Is a war to stop, just to have a Sit-Down and say to the Taliban or al-Queda or whom ever the terrorist organization is oh, by the way, Billy Jones whom we saw operating a grenade-launcher the other day. You have to hand him over or we cannot fight with you any more.

    Stop being so bloody precious. If you're there to get a job done, get it done. Remember in a country like Afghanistan, if not attached to the Allied Initiative in some way, shape or form, or if not attached to helping resurrect an infrastructure, wearing a beard and hiding out in the hills, you are NOT an innocent American.

    End of.

  6. #36


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,853
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    All men are created equal, I do believe that. However, not all men are American, and American law does not apply to a Saudi terrorist. It does apply to an American citizen. I get you here, an enemy is an enemy. I'm just not comfortable that the US can up and kill a citizen because they deem him to be an "enemy". You start getting into definitions and interpretation, which can be troublesome.

    Timothy McVeigh got a trial before he was executed. Shouldn't we have at least tried to detain al-Aulaqi, rather than subject him to it right away?

    And I should stress this, I don't like the targeting of America's "enemies", foreign or domestic (I often think it simply fosters more hatred). My point is solely that up until this point in the War on Terror, American citizens still had their rights. Now I'm not so sure.

    Edit: Also, civil war in both of the senses you have used it is kind of irrelevant. Just because one schmuck who was born here hates the US doesn't mean there are "elements of a civil war", it just means al-Aulaqi sucks. The American Civil War simply isn't a comparison to what is going on now. It's apples and oranges. This was two sides fighting against each other in an organized and declared fashion. Yes, this is part of the "War on Terror", but that's a war with no boundaries whatsoever, and is similar to the Civil War in one way: they have "war" in the title. That's where the likenesses end.
    "Innocent until proven guilty\' isn't always true. It's really "innocent until proven guilty or, if you're a threat, shot.
    Remember the dude who shot his boss at the Empire State building. He was chased down and shot dead, with 9 casualties left in the wake. He was considered a threat, so no one said two words about that. I don't even remember anyone but me even going so far as to say NYPD needs better target practice.

    But you're saying this is wrong. That guy didn't get a trial because he was considered a threat. A threat to whom? No one knew, but they knew he was enough of a threat to someone to shoot him dead, and the nine wounded innocents are just the price to pay for justice.
    In this case you have people who are a bigger threat to a specific group; all Americans. Their threat isn't limited to a gun, grenade or bomb like the Empire shooter, their threat goes much deeper and the effects last much longer. They don't just take lives, they take minds hearts and souls too.

    I get the slippery slope thing, I do. I just don't see why Americans who have waged war on all of America and everything it stands for deserve a trial, but 1 American kills one other American and not only does is he shot and killed but 9 others are shot, and that's ok. That makes no sense to me.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    "Innocent until proven guilty\' isn't always true. It's really "innocent until proven guilty or, if you're a threat, shot.
    Remember the dude who shot his boss at the Empire State building. He was chased down and shot dead, with 9 casualties left in the wake. He was considered a threat, so no one said two words about that. I don't even remember anyone but me even going so far as to say NYPD needs better target practice.

    But you're saying this is wrong. That guy didn't get a trial because he was considered a threat. A threat to whom? No one knew, but they knew he was enough of a threat to someone to shoot him dead, and the nine wounded innocents are just the price to pay for justice.
    In this case you have people who are a bigger threat to a specific group; all Americans. Their threat isn't limited to a gun, grenade or bomb like the Empire shooter, their threat goes much deeper and the effects last much longer. They don't just take lives, they take minds hearts and souls too.

    I get the slippery slope thing, I do. I just don't see why Americans who have waged war on all of America and everything it stands for deserve a trial, but 1 American kills one other American and not only does is he shot and killed but 9 others are shot, and that's ok. That makes no sense to me.
    Bingo !!


    Half a dozen innocents get shot and killed by police and the perpetrator, but the conclusion also results in perp's death, all is forgiven, yet the foreign affairs department gets a communique that there are 5 American citizens that are hiding in the hills in Afghanistan, how dare we drone bomb that camp?

    Stay away from mirrors.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by centrehice View Post
    How can you give due process to an American citizen in Afghanistan who's ideology is to kill every human from the West?
    OK....then why give Chris Doner any due process when he is clearly intent on killing anyone he deems and has no regard for innocent life?

    Why give any due process to any serial killer?

    Why even follow the laws if you're just going to break it the second it's convenient for you to do so?
    Logic and Reason is all you need.

  9. #39


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,853
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    OK....then why give Chris Doner any due process when he is clearly intent on killing anyone he deems and has no regard for innocent life?

    Why give any due process to any serial killer?

    Why even follow the laws if you're just going to break it the second it's convenient for you to do so?
    Again, I'll point to the Empire shooter.
    Where was his due process? Where was the outrage at the 9 innocents wounded?

    There was none. But a guy who wants you and all of your fellow countrymen to convert or die (preferably die) should get a fair trial and we should be outraged at any collateral damage in HIS case.

    Face it, the Empire shooter was killed because he was deemed a threat based on previous actions. These guys are no different except for being much, much more dangerous than the Empire shooter could have ever hoped toi be.

    But he doesn't get a trial while the TERRORIST does. Nice.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAlex View Post
    OK....then why give Chris Doner any due process when he is clearly intent on killing anyone he deems and has no regard for innocent life?


    Why give any due process to any serial killer?

    Why even follow the laws if you're just going to break it the second it's convenient for you to do so?


    Not a situation of war, there's are huge difference. In both cases the individuals decided to go to the Dark Side. One case is domestic, and has not left the country, with no real reason by the perp other than losing his career. The other is a conscious decision and a reversal in ideology, supporting, and or willingly becoming the enemy of his country.

    Nobody knows if Dorner is an enemy of the State, but you can bet that any bearded Americans speaking Arabic and hiding out in Afghanistan specializing in helping out a terrorist organization is.

    Dorner has not been assassinated yet, nor has he been victim of small arms fire, grenade-launcher, helicopter strike. He is at large. Are Americans in Afghanistan not accounted for, yet found to be supporting the Taliban and or al-Queda considered at large? I think not, not when you have made the personal decision to do so.

    Again, don't let due process cloud your judgement. Police in the Dorner issue must keep an open mind. If he makes contact with L.E and wants to give himself up, he will be awarded due process. If he is holed-up and wants a shootout at the OK Corral, then that's what he will get.

    Americans involved in supporting a terrorist organization while being in a country that they are unlawfully meant to be in, and actively helping the said terrorist organization, actually waive their right to due process. This is covered in the Geneva convention which supersedes the US Constitution because the actions are not taking place in the USA, but in a foreign country.

    You might think that the US Constitution carries more clout in a foreign country amidst a war, but it does not.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •