Once again, The Onion manages to nail an issue...

[Andara Bledin]

Cameron Todd Willingham and dozens of others were "obviously guilty," too.

Even the process can fail, which is all the more reason we need to observe it as justly as possible.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

If they're sitting in a cave plotting with terrorists, I'll shed few tears over them getting shot in the heat of the moment of a battle.

However, the idea that the government could detain and/or end a persons life without due process and a trial is one that terrifies and angers me.

I don't care how guilty they look: unless caught in the act, or killed during combat, an american citizen deserves a damn trial.

If we kill an innocent because of assumed guilt, and let lazyness and fearmongering deny that innocent the trial that might have saved them then his country loses what little right it has to call it's self great.

[HYHYBT]

Now, if I were to go out to dinner every night and sit at a table with the same terrorists every single night, yes, that'd be grounds to call me a terrorist and the gloves can come off.

Why would that, in and of itself, be grounds for anything whatsoever?

In particular, take this out of a hostile setting, because not all terrorists are outside the USA or are blatantly obvious.

[Greenday]

Why would that, in and of itself, be grounds for anything whatsoever?

In particular, take this out of a hostile setting, because not all terrorists are outside the USA or are blatantly obvious.

Trust me, I know there are terrorists everywhere. My career revolves around fighting terrorism. You can't be a part of a group without being associated with them. The only people who constantly hang out and plot terrorism with terrorists are...terrorists. The government doesn't take these decisions lightly. There's an extremely complicated process involved in allowing a situation like nailing someone with a rocket to happen.

[Jester]

Well, I guess that's where we differ. I believe some guy who turned his back on this country and is plotting to destroy it loses what he was given. I'd never tell a group of soldiers to walk into some cave and ask hostile enemies to surrender nicely. Their lives are worth more than a terrorist's.

And you are more than welcome to your belief. But the United States Constitution still outranks your personal beliefs.

Look, I won't shed a tear over people who collaborate with terrorists either. But simply saying or believing that an American citizen doesn't "deserve" his Constitutional rights doesn't make it so, for whatever reason you say or believe it, no matter how "obvious" it is to you. You as an individual do not have the right to make that decision.

Do you have the right as a soldier to kill someone in combat? Obviously. But there is a difference between combat deaths and assassination. The scenario you keep citing is a battle, and in battle, I agree you should do what is necessary. But if soldiers capture an American citizen alive, it is not their right to decide his fate. That falls to the courts, as outlined in the aforementioned Constitution. And last I checked, soldiers swear an oath to uphold that Constitution. And when you swear to uphold the Constitution, you don't get to decide which parts to uphold; you must fight to uphold all of it, not just the parts you happen to like or agree with.

And this should not be taken to mean that soldiers should make a point of NOT capturing anyone. In war, in battles, there are times when taking prisoners is necessary, or morally obligated. If the enemy combatants throw down their weapons and surrender, killing them because they are "obviously conspiring with terrorists" and "turned their back on this country" is just not a soldier's right to do. Nor is it any way moral or ethical. It is, in fact, murder, by any definition of the word.

Every American citizen, no matter how repugnant they or their actions may be, deserves a trial whenever they are accuses of any crime, up to and including treason (which is what conspiring with terrorists against America is, after all).

I don't disagree with your opinion of these wretched human beings. But as I said at the beginning, the United States Constitution supercedes our personal opinions.

[Canarr]

Excellently put, Jester.

[Greenday]

But as I said at the beginning, the United States Constitution supercedes our personal opinions.

Well, it's a good thing that we debate our beliefs on this board and not over whether something is legal or not. I'd prefer to argue the morality of assassinating terrorists.

[lordlundar]

Now, if I were to go out to dinner every night and sit at a table with the same terrorists every single night, yes, that'd be grounds to call me a terrorist and the gloves can come off.

It blows my mind how much this is being blown out of proportion. One guy gets blown up and he was clearly, without a single possible doubt, was guilty as hell. And suddenly people think the government is going to start nuking Americans everywhere.

Greenday, you really need to do your research on former senator Joseph McCarthy. Everything you just described here was his justification for enacting laws to destroy several freedoms Americans had during the Cold War in the name of "combating communism". The fallout of his measures are still being felt in your country. The difference here is instead of putting the accused before a kangaroo court like McCarthy did you're saying "kill them on the spot".

[Greenday]

Greenday, you really need to do your research on former senator Joseph McCarthy. Everything you just described here was his justification for enacting laws to destroy several freedoms Americans had during the Cold War in the name of "combating communism". The fallout of his measures are still being felt in your country. The difference here is instead of putting the accused before a kangaroo court like McCarthy did you're saying "kill them on the spot".

The difference between McCarthy and I (Besides me knowing Communism =/= evil) is that I'm not crazy. Hanging out in Hollywood doesn't make someone a communist. Hanging out with a group of terrorists and helping plot terrorism DOES make someone a terrorist.

I'm all for not randomly killing Americans and I'm pretty sure the military agrees (Though I do not speak for the military). From what I can gather based on posts here, it seems no one knows what the process is in order to pull off a drone strike such as this one. It involves more than just saying, "Yea, he had lunch with a relative of a terrorist."

[Mytical]

For some reason I am having deja vu all over again..it really seems we've had this discussion before..with the same results..neither will or able to see the others view. I echo a lot of peoples view here. I wouldn't lose a seconds sleep under some situations..others..it really bothers me. When the government starts deciding it can change the rules whenever it is convenient..it is a worrysome time. Paraphrasing..

I said nothing when they come and got the Jews..For I was not Jewish.

I said nothing when they come and got the Nazi..for I was not a Nazi.

I said nothing when they come and got the Russians..for I was not a Russian.

By the time they came for me, there was nobody left to say anything.

[Andara Bledin]

You can't be a part of a group without being associated with them.

Yes, but you can associate with a group without being part of it.

Your world-view on this specific issue is far too black and white to be accurate or just.

^-.-^

[Jester]

Well, it's a good thing that we debate our beliefs on this board and not over whether something is legal or not. I'd prefer to argue the morality of assassinating terrorists.

While I have no problem morally with assassinating a terrorist, I do have a problem with it legally, as I am big proponent of the Constitution. I don't always like what it allows, but I like that it allows it, if that makes sense.

The difference between McCarthy and I (Besides me knowing Communism =/= evil) is that I'm not crazy.

Hindsight is great, but at the time, few to none of Senator McCarthy's temporaries believed him insane, and none would dare say it.

And while I don't believe you are insane, I do not have enough confidence in every soldier's sanity (or moral compass) to allow them to make such decisions on the ground, as it were.

Hanging out in Hollywood doesn't make someone a communist. Hanging out with a group of terrorists and helping plot terrorism DOES make someone a terrorist.

I partly agree with you. To wit, helping plot terrorism DOES make someone a terrorist. Hanging out with terrorists in and of itself does NOT make someone a terrorist, just AS hanging out with communists or communistic sympathizers in Hollywood doesn't make someone a communist. However, far too many people believe that if you one follows the other, i.e., if you are hanging out with or associating with terrorists, you must be a terrorist, and that simply is not true. Especially with terrorists within the U.S. who are trained to blend in.

While I do not, there are certainly highly intelligent people who could take your comments to mean that if someone hangs out with terrorists, they are themselves terrorists, and therefore deserve to die, trial or not. And I have no doubt that there are people who are not as smart as you who DO believe that. Because, you know, "known terrorists" are known to the government and/or intelligence agencies, but they are not always so well known as such to their friends and acquaintances. As an example, I have hung out with a murderer, and with junkies, and with thieves, and with abusers. I am, however, none of the above. My association with people who were unsavory, or would become unsavory, or were unsavory without my knowledge of their unsavoriness, did not by that association make me such an unsavory person.

From what I can gather based on posts here, it seems no one knows what the process is in order to pull off a drone strike such as this one. It involves more than just saying, "Yea, he had lunch with a relative of a terrorist."

I have no knowledge of the drone process. I'll go further and say I have almost no knowledge of the original story that spawned this discussion. I am merely debating the larger point as to whether or not a soldier on the ground had the legal and/or moral and/or ethical right to execute a suspected terrorist, American citizen or otherwise.

[lordlundar]

Hanging out with a group of terrorists and helping plot terrorism DOES make someone a terrorist.

Ah, so now they have to help PLOT. Nice goalpost shift. So tell me, at what point does "having dinner with" equate to "planning acts of terror", Hmm?

Oh and lets go for comparisons here:

McCarthy era:
Would equate someone being a friend with a communist sympathizer with no proof of any political discussions to being a communist sympathizer in of themselves and subject to the maximum allowable action.

Greenday:
Is equating someone being a friend with a terrorist with no proof of any discussion of terrorism as being a terrorist themselves and subject to the maximum allowable action.

Apart from the communism/terrorist issue, what's the difference? It's still declaring persecution on a large group of people without any real proof.

[Andara Bledin]

Apart from the communism/terrorist issue, what's the difference? It's still declaring persecution on a large group of people without any real proof.

Which is also exceedingly anti-American.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

You can try to word or phrase it any way you want, but we don't launch missiles at terrorists just on a whim. Only proven terrorists get that kind of treatment.