US suspect possibly targeted for drone attack

[That Guy]

I don't even know why they're even debating. They've already set a precedent, so as far as I'm concerned, they can pretty much use the same bullshit excuse they used last time...even if it is morally reprehensible.

Not 'less human' but about citizenship and laws. If you are of US or Pakistani or Chinese or French citizenship, the laws of the country travels with you. Your country is morally and legally obligated to put you under that umbrella, whether you are innocent of a crime or suspect of a crime or guilty of a crime. If a combatant is determined to wage combat against US, his country of citizenship will determine the extent of response by US laws. There is nothing unusual about this. All countries have this understanding of laws and citizenship in general.

Question, as an American, do you personally believe that the government should use such force? Are you against it?

 

[gambit]

That's not what I meant, what I'm saying is they may be minor threats to interest or assets overseas. Not to our actual nation and our covert activities alone are very suspicious, especially blackwater activities in Iraq. They wen on rampages murdering civilians left and right. Most of these terrorist are undercover western/Israeli forces. Even in our armed forces remember the video that leaked out? A scum terrorist pilot killed dozens of Iraqis and was laughing about it like its a video game than an American tank runs over a dead civilians girl. What the **** is that shit man? That's fucking evil.

Of course...You are now diverting because you cannot debate the issue.

I don't even know why they're even debating. They've already set a precedent, so as far as I'm concerned, they can pretty much use the same bullshit excuse they used last time...even if it is morally reprehensible.

The fact that we are debating, and in public at that, mean that unlike the dictatorship you are used to, we take our laws more seriously.

Question, as an American, do you personally believe that the government should use such force? Are you against it?

Once a US citizen is determined to wage his own personal war against his country, or that he allied himself with an organization determined to wage its own brand of politically motivated war against US, then he forfeit all privileges his citizenship contains and he qualified for all the applicable punishments under US laws, even more so if he is overseas.

 

[Falcon29]

Of course...You are now diverting because you cannot debate the issue.

Actually that seems to be you.

You seem to take specific details and actions of 'guerilla' attacks very seriously as if we've never seen targeting of civilians when in fact we are the number one evil people who murdered over a million Iraqi civilians and I can post as many examples as possible. So I don't care what you say, if they terrorists the US military is a much larger terrorist organization.[/quote]

 

[Oldman1]

Killing a 16 year old American in a drone strike was legal, wasn't it?

American govt is a bigot. They make a huge deal about 'American citizens', while relentlessly killing Pakistani civilian non combatants, as if they are 'less human'.

He was killed along with his father.

 

[That Guy]

Of course...You are now diverting because you cannot debate the issue.


The fact that we are debating, and in public at that, mean that unlike the dictatorship you are used to, we take our laws more seriously.


Once a US citizen is determined to wage his own personal war against his country, or that he allied himself with an organization determined to wage its own brand of politically motivated war against US, then he forfeit all privileges his citizenship contains and he qualified for all the applicable punishments under US laws, even more so if he is overseas.

I was unaware Canada had a dictatorship. Look, all I'm saying is that they've already done it twice, if they do it again, it's unlikely that they'll face too much of a challenge. Pointing out the last time it happened is enough to prove this much.

Also, couldn't that be abused? laws and citizenship exist for a reason, you can't simply take away a person's rights, because they may be a terrorist. It puts you on their level, and in some cases, vindicates terrorists who say that the US doesn't respect their own citizen's rights, why should they be trusted.

Taking away the moral aspect, I don't see any legal way for the US to do such a thing.

Still, I guess this "debate" is going to rage on for a while, but I doubt that those in charge even care. From what I can see, this so called debate within the government is nothing more than a farce; if it wasn't, they wouldn't have had it now, it would have been before they started this entire situation.

 

[gambit]

I was unaware Canada had a dictatorship. Look, all I'm saying is that they've already done it twice, if they do it again, it's unlikely that they'll face too much of a challenge. Pointing out the last time it happened is enough to prove this much.

Also, couldn't that be abused? laws and citizenship exist for a reason, you can't simply take away a person's rights, because they may be a terrorist. It puts you on their level, and in some cases, vindicates terrorists who say that the US doesn't respect their own citizen's rights, why should they be trusted.

Taking away the moral aspect, I don't see any legal way for the US to do such a thing.

Still, I guess this "debate" is going to rage on for a while, but I doubt that those in charge even care. From what I can see, this so called debate within the government is nothing more than a farce; if it wasn't, they wouldn't have had it now, it would have been before they started this entire situation.

Absolutely a government can. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. I have the right to vote and I have a responsibility to vote. However, if I do not vote, I do not produce any apparent negative consequence to the country, so the government leave people like me alone. But if, not only did I NOT vote, I also pick up a rifle with a plan to assassinate the next leader, or to bomb the next available school, or to hijack an airliner to crash into a tall building, absolutely I have forfeited any rights that were originally granted to me by virtue of citizenship. All citizens, including YOU, have this understanding. You just like to argue this point just for the sake of arguing, not to illuminate the issue to find anything unexplored.

Actually that seems to be you.

You seem to take specific details and actions of 'guerilla' attacks very seriously as if we've never seen targeting of civilians when in fact we are the number one evil people who murdered over a million Iraqi civilians and I can post as many examples as possible. So I don't care what you say, if they terrorists the US military is a much larger terrorist organization.

Neither do we Americans who cares about our country and want to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, cares what people like you say. But have no fear, Americans like me will defend Americans like you, no matter what.

 

[Falcon29]

Absolutely a government can. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. I have the right to vote and I have a responsibility to vote. However, if I do not vote, I do not produce any apparent negative consequence to the country, so the government leave people like me alone. But if, not only did I NOT vote, I also pick up a rifle with a plan to assassinate the next leader, or to bomb the next available school, or to hijack an airliner to crash into a tall building, absolutely I have forfeited any rights that were originally granted to me by virtue of citizenship. All citizens, including YOU, have this understanding. You just like to argue this point just for the sake of arguing, not to illuminate the issue to find anything unexplored.


Neither do we Americans who cares about our country and want to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, cares what people like you say. But have no fear, Americans like me will defend Americans like you, no matter what.

A lot of Americans cared and were shocked about this:

 

[gambit]

A lot of Americans cared and were shocked about this:

What does this have to do with a US citizen who chose to enlist into a transnational organization that is dedicated to committing terrorism, not just in the US, but anywhere in the West?

 

[Falcon29]

What does this have to do with a US citizen who chose to enlist into a transnational organization that is dedicated to committing terrorism, not just in the US, but anywhere in the West?

Has to do with our weird point if view, we don't see the problem.

 

[gambit]

Has to do with our weird point if view, we don't see the problem.

Because there should not be any. If I joined al-Qaeda, it certainly would not be for educational purposes, right? Unless it is because I want to learn the mechanics of bomb making, right?

 

[Falcon29]

Because there should not be any. If I joined al-Qaeda, it certainly would not be for educational purposes, right? Unless it is because I want to learn the mechanics of bomb making, right?

This isn't about this one guy, if it is, the state needs to prove he has ill intentions against American targets(We know there's no imminent threat to our country). There's no such thing as one Al-Qaeda organization. There are various armed groups with their ideology which is related to their internal affairs. So there's no justification to target people or dehumanize people that have nothing against our nation. They seek to achieve objectives in their own nations and most of the time it has nothing to do with terrorism. If we're going after criminal gangs then we would be going after many more people and foreign organizations, not just Muslims. Because this is what media makes it appear as if we are going after 'evil'. If we're going after evil we'd execute those terrorists in the apache helicopters and blackwater terrorists and much more non Muslim 'evil' people.

 

[gambit]

This isn't about this one guy, if it is, the state needs to prove he has ill intentions against American targets(We know there's no imminent threat to our country). There's no such thing as one Al-Qaeda organization. There are various armed groups with their ideology which is related to their internal affairs. So there's no justification to target people or dehumanize people that have nothing against our nation. They seek to achieve objectives in their own nations and most of the time it has nothing to do with terrorism. If we're going after criminal gangs then we would be going after many more people and foreign organizations, not just Muslims. Because this is what media makes it appear as if we are going after 'evil'. If we're going after evil we'd execute those terrorists in the apache helicopters and blackwater terrorists and much more non Muslim 'evil' people.

If you refuse to consider the reality of warfare that terrorism and guerrilla warfare usually do not create any imminent threat, then there is nothing to discuss. That is like demanding to discuss strategies of armies but insist on removing air power from their calculus. That is simply absurd.

 

[Falcon29]

If you refuse to consider the reality of warfare that terrorism and guerrilla warfare usually do not create any imminent threat, then there is nothing to discuss. That is like demanding to discuss strategies of armies but insist on removing air power from their calculus. That is simply absurd.

Forget that part, lets say I agree with you, now address everything else in my post please.

 

[That Guy]

Absolutely a government can. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. I have the right to vote and I have a responsibility to vote. However, if I do not vote, I do not produce any apparent negative consequence to the country, so the government leave people like me alone. But if, not only did I NOT vote, I also pick up a rifle with a plan to assassinate the next leader, or to bomb the next available school, or to hijack an airliner to crash into a tall building, absolutely I have forfeited any rights that were originally granted to me by virtue of citizenship. All citizens, including YOU, have this understanding. You just like to argue this point just for the sake of arguing, not to illuminate the issue to find anything unexplored.

See, that's where I disagree. Instead of just assassinating someone, and taking away their citizenship, it would be better to try and capture them so that they can be brought to the courts and found guilty through the legal process. I would rather not let our nation stoop as low as the terrorists that we're fighting, because I would want that son of a bitch to be found guilty and given a death sentence.

While your view may seem ideal, there are a lot of problems with it; The biggest being that the government can abuse this to stifle free speech and peaceful protests against a government bent on doing what it wants without the democratic process. If the terrorist in question plans to bomb a school, then that is where our intel agencies come into play. If we know this person is going to do something stupid, he has to be stopped; if killing him is the only way, fine, but more often than not assassination isn't the only way. To say that this is the only thing that the government can do to stop their citizens from committing terrorist acts against the country is a false choice.

By your very logic, any criminal in the US can have his citizenship taken away, because this entire situation doesn't just target the extremes, it targets anyone regardless of the intensity of the crime in question. It's very easy to label someone a terrorist and have their rights taken away, and if you honestly think that the government wouldn't abuse this to target political dissidents, then you're mistaken; We've already seen this happen in many other parts of the world, From Egypt and Saudi Arabia to China and Russia, the US would not be so different.

I don't argue for the sake of arguing, I argue because you know that this sort of power should not belong to the government, at least not without extreme judicial oversight.

But, you're entitled to your opinion, and I can respect that.

 

[Developereo]

Killing a 16 year old American in a drone strike was legal, wasn't it?

American govt is a bigot. They make a huge deal about 'American citizens', while relentlessly killing Pakistani civilian non combatants, as if they are 'less human'.

American laws kick in if an action is committed on American soil or (sometimes) if an American citizen is involved overseas.

The reason the US can kill foreigners offshore in drone strikes is because American forces claim exemption from American laws and operate under laws of international conflict. Given that such laws are drafted and voted on by established governments, they will favor the establishment view over individual rights.

In short, might is right.