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

[Jester]

I can't speak for everyone here, of course, but I for one was not talking about the government launching missiles at terrorists. I thought I was talking about soldiers taking the law into their own hands and summarily executing American citizens who they suspected of being terrorists, in effect suspending and ignoring the Constitution.

Or did I miss something?

[Greenday]

I can't speak for everyone here, of course, but I for one was not talking about the government launching missiles at terrorists. I thought I was talking about soldiers taking the law into their own hands and summarily executing American citizens who they suspected of being terrorists, in effect suspending and ignoring the Constitution.

Or did I miss something?

I think you missed something. The issue at hand was the government using drone strikes against terrorists who also happen to be American citizens without arresting the terrorist and letting him have a full trial in court first.

[HYHYBT]

No. That's the specific instance that brought up the issue. The issue itself is broader, as your own posts upthread clearly show.

I'm reminded of an episode of "Alice" where she (or possibly one of the other waitresses) is arrested for prostitution. The police officer insists to the judge that her having been in the company of known prostitutes at the time (the two women she'd been holding a conversation with at the time of the arrest) was proof enough.

It's erosion *towards* that that's the concern, and declarations that being around terrorists is proof enough that you are one yourself isn't just a step down that road, but is pretty much the end of it.

[draco664]

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.

And therein lies the problem. How do you define 'proven'? Data from intelligence agencies? When intelligence agencies can't run a simple no-fly list without putting babies on it and can't work out how to remove them?

Most people are willing to accept the result from a trial in a court of law, rather than someone saying "Trust me, he was a terrorist. And no, you can't see the proof, it's classified."

Consider all the hardcore chaps at Gitmo. It was supposed to house 'the worst of the worst', but more people have been released without charge from there than those who have been tried.

And the ones who have been tried have been done so in the most incompetent manner. Look at David Hicks, an Aussie who wrote letters to his folks about going over to the ME to train and fight jihad against the western oppressors. He was picked up and instead of trying him under existing law, they passed a new freaking law to try him under. And because making things illegal after the fact is considered pretty bad form in legal circles, he has essentially been found innocent by the US court of appeals.

When incompetents like that are running things, I have little faith in what they say.

[Greenday]

And therein lies the problem. How do you define 'proven'? Data from intelligence agencies? When intelligence agencies can't run a simple no-fly list without putting babies on it and can't work out how to remove them?

What intelligence agency runs the no-fly list? Looks like some sub-branch of a sub-branch of the FBI. Well, don't worry, it's not the FBI since clearly foreign matters don't fall under the FBI's jurisdiction. The people who handle the intelligence gathering are specifically trained in gathering this specific type of evidence. It's a complicated, detailed process which has to be accepted by and approved by a long list of higher ups before an assassination of such a sort can be done.

Most people are willing to accept the result from a trial in a court of law, rather than someone saying "Trust me, he was a terrorist. And no, you can't see the proof, it's classified."

At some point, people are just going to have to suck it up and realize that a lot of this stuff IS classified and will not be declassified just to solve a simple curiosity. It's classified because if we make the entire process (Evidence gathering, etc.) public, the terrorists will then know what we do, how we do it, and how to fight better against us. It is not in America's (Or anyone else's best interest) to make this knowledge public.

[Canarr]

A simple curiosity? A citizen's right to due process, and another citizen's interest in ensuring that, is just a simple curiosity to you? Seriously?

[draco664]

What intelligence agency runs the no-fly list? Looks like some sub-branch of a sub-branch of the FBI. Well, don't worry, it's not the FBI since clearly foreign matters don't fall under the FBI's jurisdiction.

Way to miss the point. I note you didn't bother replying to the part of my post about Gitmo and the gobsmackingly incompetent way the trials of those prisoners were run. Tell me, what organisation runs that place?

The people who handle the intelligence gathering are specifically trained in gathering this specific type of evidence. It's a complicated, detailed process which has to be accepted by and approved by a long list of higher ups before an assassination of such a sort can be done.

Um, have you read the memo in question? Not the super-secret one obviously, but the memo of the memo that we are allowed to see. It lists out the criteria by which an American citizen can be assassinated, but doesn't actually define them. Things like being involved in planning an imminent attack - what is 'imminent' in that context? Doesn't say. What is an 'attack'? Doesn't say. And it certainly doesn't mention that "long list of higher ups".

Sorry, but when someone claims a power (in defiance of the actual law) and then doesn't set limits on that power, but just says, "trust me to use it properly", every bullshit sensor in my body goes haywire.

At some point, people are just going to have to suck it up and realize that a lot of this stuff IS classified and will not be declassified just to solve a simple curiosity. It's classified because if we make the entire process (Evidence gathering, etc.) public, the terrorists will then know what we do, how we do it, and how to fight better against us. It is not in America's (Or anyone else's best interest) to make this knowledge public.

That people have happily given up everything that your great country originally stood for just proves that the terrorists have won. Your country was founded on the premise that the ruling class did not have the right to rule by fiat - indeed, a brutal and bloody war was fought (by those who would be considered terrorists today) to stop abuses of due process. Those who shed blood in that conflict indirectly set up the conditions whereby *my* country could declare itself free and independent by a popular vote. I have a great deal of respect for the US for exactly that reason.

In light of that, I'm sorry, but 'being able to better fight against you' is bullshit.
The US military has the ability to bomb almost every nook and crany on the freaking planet with pinpoint accuracy, and yet they've somehow got people so scared of a bunch of goat-herders with small arms in caves in a desert half a world away that otherwise rational people are happily handing over hard-won rights. The cheersquad who gleefully slurp up every bullshit ejaculation from that just disgust me.

[Greenday]

In light of that, I'm sorry, but 'being able to better fight against you' is bullshit.
The US military has the ability to bomb almost every nook and crany on the freaking planet with pinpoint accuracy, and yet they've somehow got people so scared of a bunch of goat-herders with small arms in caves in a desert half a world away that otherwise rational people are happily handing over hard-won rights. The cheersquad who gleefully slurp up every bullshit ejaculation from that just disgust me.

9/11/2001 - 3,000 dead, ove 6,000 hurt in an attack by these people
12/29/1992 - Blew up a hotel, killed two and injured a bunch of other civilians
1993 - Blew up a truck bomb in the World Trade Center, killed six, injured over 1,000. All innocent civilians. Same man responsible for that attack plotted to assassinate the pope, President Bill Clinton, and blow up multiple plains in the air but was caught by American intelligence.
1996 - Attempted to assassinate President Clinton.
1998 - Car bombs blow up two American embassies, killing 223 people, over 4,000 injured (Mostly civilians)
7/7/2005 - Bombings in London. 52 civilians dead, 700 or so injured.
How many thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan due to IEDs made by these "goat farmers"?

Read a history book. Goat farmers have done plenty killing of the innocent. You may think helping these guys out by letting them know our procedures is okay as long as you get your feel-good story about them getting their time in an American court but I'd rather have one terrorist assassinated without wasting time trying to arrest him and bring him to trial only for him to get away and kill more innocent people.

[Greenday]

It's funny how you people keep talking about all these liberties and freedoms that we've given up but ironically, I haven't given up any such thing.

[Duelist925]

What intelligence agency runs the no-fly list? Looks like some sub-branch of a sub-branch of the FBI. Well, don't worry, it's not the FBI since clearly foreign matters don't fall under the FBI's jurisdiction. The people who handle the intelligence gathering are specifically trained in gathering this specific type of evidence. It's a complicated, detailed process which has to be accepted by and approved by a long list of higher ups before an assassination of such a sort can be done.

Id rather like to see a rebuttal regarding the Gitmo argument myself. Considering you keep ignoring it.

Secondly: If one branch of the us intelligence agencies can't run something as, relatively speaking, simple as a no fly list...how in the nine levels of fuck are we supposed to trust that any other can safely decide whether or not an american citizen deserves to die without due process of the law?

At some point, people are just going to have to suck it up and realize that a lot of this stuff IS classified and will not be declassified just to solve a simple curiosity. It's classified because if we make the entire process (Evidence gathering, etc.) public, the terrorists will then know what we do, how we do it, and how to fight better against us. It is not in America's (Or anyone else's best interest) to make this knowledge public.

If the united states government authorizes the killing of an american citizen they owe an explanation as to why this citizen was killed beyond "TERRORIST!".

[Greenday]

Id rather like to see a rebuttal regarding the Gitmo argument myself. Considering you keep ignoring it.

What exactly do you want me to say about Gitmo? That the only reason we let them go is because there was too much pressure from the bleeding hearts to let them go? Because let's face it, that's why they were let go. It would be in unpopular thing to do and politicians do what's best for themselves, regardless of what's right. It's why gay marriage is illegal in so many states. It's why politicians create so many anti-abortion laws in various states. Etc. etc. Because politicians bend to pressure instead of standing firm. To quote a great Samuel Jackson line, "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."

Secondly: If one branch of the us intelligence agencies can't run something as, relatively speaking, simple as a no fly list...how in the nine levels of fuck are we supposed to trust that any other can safely decide whether or not an american citizen deserves to die without due process of the law?

There are people in this world who steal, rape, and murder for the lulz. How do I know that everyone on here and everyone I come into contact with doesn't do those things for fun? It's no different from what you suggest, that we can't trust any government agency. At some point, I have to put my faith into someone or something that people do their jobs and they do their jobs well. Same as when I go into public, I can assume most people are just getting on with their lives, being normal.

If the united states government authorizes the killing of an american citizen they owe an explanation as to why this citizen was killed beyond "TERRORIST!".

And sometimes, people will never be satisfied no matter how much evidence we bring against them. Terrorists will inevitably get away with stuff as a result. Governments are there to help the people and sometimes helping the people means dirty work to protect them. It's not always feasible to try to arrest every single terrorist. Sometimes, it's best to blow them to hell before they manage to blend in the shadows only to turn up with an airplane into a building or a bomb in a subway. Can you imagine the outrage that'd occur if a terrorist attack happened and the government came out to say, "We knew this was going to happen and we could have killed them first preventing the tragedy from happening, but we instead only tried to arrest them and couldn't get them that way." Unemployment numbers would drastically go up with the amount of people getting fired as a result of letting something like that go down.

There are people in the world who are idealistic like you and God knows we need more people like you to keep others in check from getting to reckless. People like you keep the world from going insane. But we also need those people that can get down and dirty when need be because there are evil people out there and sometimes, killing them is the only way to stop them from committing atrocities. Sometimes, it is necessary to kill one person to save thousands.

[HYHYBT]

"Guilty because we say so" is wrong, PERIOD, no excuses. The proper standard is "innocent until proven guilty in court." To give up that foundational principle just because it seems obvious in some cases that someone is guilty, or worse, that those claiming to have evidence say it's too inconvenient to produce and so we just have to take their word that it's conclusive, is far too dangerous a precedent to accept.

More dangerous, ultimately, than anything anyone could POSSIBLY get away with as a result of such trials being held.

[Duelist925]

What exactly do you want me to say about Gitmo? That the only reason we let them go is because there was too much pressure from the bleeding hearts to let them go? Because let's face it, that's why they were let go. It would be in unpopular thing to do and politicians do what's best for themselves, regardless of what's right. It's why gay marriage is illegal in so many states. It's why politicians create so many anti-abortion laws in various states. Etc. etc. Because politicians bend to pressure instead of standing firm. To quote a great Samuel Jackson line, "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."

Fair enough, and that is a damn good line.

However I do think thats a bit of an oversimplification--other posters have posted a few damn decent examples of exactly how fucked gitmo was. It was more than just bleeding hearts and weak kneed politicians that got it closed down.

There are people in this world who steal, rape, and murder for the lulz. How do I know that everyone on here and everyone I come into contact with doesn't do those things for fun? It's no different from what you suggest, that we can't trust any government agency. At some point, I have to put my faith into someone or something that people do their jobs and they do their jobs well. Same as when I go into public, I can assume most people are just getting on with their lives, being normal.

There's a difference however--you have little to no reason to suspect anyone here to be a murderer, rapist, or any of the like.

We have pretty concrete proof that the no-fly list was created and run by people with their heads so far up their ass they can taste last nights dinner, in just how utterly shitty it is, and how shittily its run. And its not even that difficult a freaking concept.

Look, I realize that most of the security and intelligence agencies have it more together than the people who came up with that piece of shit, but it hardly inspired fucking confidence, does it?

And sometimes, people will never be satisfied no matter how much evidence we bring against them. Terrorists will inevitably get away with stuff as a result. Governments are there to help the people and sometimes helping the people means dirty work to protect them. It's not always feasible to try to arrest every single terrorist. Sometimes, it's best to blow them to hell before they manage to blend in the shadows only to turn up with an airplane into a building or a bomb in a subway. Can you imagine the outrage that'd occur if a terrorist attack happened and the government came out to say, "We knew this was going to happen and we could have killed them first preventing the tragedy from happening, but we instead only tried to arrest them and couldn't get them that way." Unemployment numbers would drastically go up with the amount of people getting fired as a result of letting something like that go down.

There'd be a hell of a lot of outrage, yeah. Look, when it comes down to brass tacks, I'd rather scum like this be blown away than allowed to harm innocents.

But when an american citizen dies, there needs to be accountability. Here needs to be someone who can say "this is why we did it. " or even "Hers a redacted version, full version available with proper clearence or five years from now" or whatever. There needs to be a damn reason other than "we say he's the bad guy."

There are people in the world who are idealistic like you and God knows we need more people like you to keep others in check from getting to reckless. People like you keep the world from going insane. But we also need those people that can get down and dirty when need be because there are evil people out there and sometimes, killing them is the only way to stop them from committing atrocities. Sometimes, it is necessary to kill one person to save thousands.

You're right, I am a bit of an idealist--and I actually rather like this. This is a very good point, regarding the balance needed to keep from going too far one way or another.

But thats what I'm doing. Balancing this shit, or trying to at least, calling for accountability because its fucking necessary when it comes to people losing their lives.

[draco664]

9/11/2001 - 3,000 dead, ove 6,000 hurt in an attack by these people
12/29/1992 - Blew up a hotel, killed two and injured a bunch of other civilians
1993 - Blew up a truck bomb in the World Trade Center, killed six, injured over 1,000. All innocent civilians. Same man responsible for that attack plotted to assassinate the pope, President Bill Clinton, and blow up multiple plains in the air but was caught by American intelligence.
1996 - Attempted to assassinate President Clinton.
1998 - Car bombs blow up two American embassies, killing 223 people, over 4,000 injured (Mostly civilians)

So, a few thousand people in twenty years. Hate to break it to you, but you're more likely to die taking your morning dump than by a terrorist attack.

7/7/2005 - Bombings in London. 52 civilians dead, 700 or so injured.

Yeah, I was in London on that day. My wife was on the tube when it happened, and after she got evacuated, she then got on the bus in front of the bus that got blown up.

I was also there a few days later when a chap, minding his own business, who had the bad luck to have skin that was a bit brown and live in the same block of flats as someone under surveillance. He was gunned down by trigger-happy thugs - thugs who then tried to use all the same lines you've been trotting out - he was a terrorist, we had reason to kill him but it's classified, we did nothing wrong but protect the people of London...

Oh, and it happened at my tube stop.

No prizes for guessing which event made more of an impression.

How many thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan due to IEDs made by these "goat farmers"?

Yeah, how dare they attack foreign military forces on their soil. Geez, it's like you're pissed that war is dangerous or something.

Read a history book.

I've done so; none of the incidents you listed were unknown to me. In return, I suggest you read a book on risk and statistics. For an outlay of less than a million dollars and a couple of dozen lives, the nutjob Bin-Laden caused more economic damage to the US than the whole cold war. He got your leaders messing their pants at the very thought of him. Despite a well-deserved death by high-velocity lead poisoning, he was astoundingly successful in his stated goals.

And yet, taken overall, death by terrorist attack is so unlikely that insurance companies don't even offer exclusions for it.

Goat farmers have done plenty killing of the innocent. You may think helping these guys out by letting them know our procedures is okay as long as you get your feel-good story about them getting their time in an American court but I'd rather have one terrorist assassinated without wasting time trying to arrest him and bring him to trial only for him to get away and kill more innocent people.

Ok, I'll also suggest that you go and add a book on logic to your reading list, because you're making a *classic* logic error there. One does not imply the other. Unless you think that up until the recent change in policy there was no success in fighting the terrorists. If that's the case, why are you defending the incompetent sods? Or perhaps you can point out an example of a terrorist who was tried, got off and went on to kill more people? If you can't, then your argument sucks. Try harder.

[mikoyan29]

To me this is one of those cases of several shades of gray. Part of me wants to agree with Greenday. There is a declared war on Terrorism (or something to that effect) and during wars there are different standards for killing people. This is hardly the first case of the US assassinating people during wartime. Just look up Yamamoto sometime. If people are in an area with known terrorists...well...