Al Queda scores an own goal :-)

[Tsyroc]

Here's another source for the story.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/11/ ... print.html

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Considering one of the men in the car was Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, I find it difficult to believe he was driving with perfectly innocent men.

No you are wrong! He was driving five innocent children! Not five terrorist assholes!

[Knife]

The fact remains:

SUSPECT!

As in they don't know for sure. They think it might have been them...

I wouldn't have AS MUCH of a problem with this if it was proven, wanted terrorists. Not SUSPECTS!

Calling people Suspect is a legalism in America designed to protect news papers and other media from liable or slader litigation. The two fuck wad snipers are called suspects and what they did is alledged until their trial. And since we have'nt been kicked out of Yeman yet indicates to me that the Yeman goverment knew of the operation and at one level or another conceded to it. This had to be an on going operation and I do not believe that the UAV just happend to be flying over the car with Ali in it and the operator just happened to see him and say "Oh my god sir, look what I found." They knew who was there and where that car was going to be for that attack, IMHO. Does our goverment fuck up, hell yes but not this time.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, let's make a concession: we'll send people over there to "suspected" terrorist-friendly states and instruct them to ask -- politely, mind you -- if anyone there has killed or plans to kill innocents. I'm sure the cowardly motherfuckers will be lining up to confess.

Yeah.
That'll work.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

There is an old saying. "If you sleap with dogs, you rise with fleas." The way I hear it, from leftist PBS Pacifica radio, some one found a thigh, and the leg had a distinguishing mark, from which a posative ID was made on some Abu or an other. The "thighmaster" was one of the top brass of Alquida. Being in the presence of, or traveling in a car with such a man puts you in danger. Such men never travel without body guards. All those in the car not bodyguards, had some buisiness or another with this bastard.
NOBODY died that wasn't deserving.

Weemadando has an anti western/america/euro bias, where every opportunity he gets, he dumps on his own, and claims the side he was born on isn't moraly better than the other side of this conflict.
He is also jumping on a semantic legalism. Everyone, even those who have been caught red handed, on camera, with the smoking gun, with the matching ballistics, are still "suspsects". Until convicted.
If a man goes into the Daily Planet, and starts shooting, and is photgraphed, in the act of killing, then Clarke Kent, miraculously the only person not injured, can not do more than decribe what other people and he saw. If he uses the words "killer", or "murderer" he can be sued. AND WOULD LOSE!

I "suspect", that these blasted ex-humans were under survalence, or ratted out by their buddies being squeezed in the way only non democratic police states can squeeze their citizens.

[Master of Ossus]

Weemadando, are you saying that you are the final arbiter of who can and cannot be targetted for attack? Whose standards of guilt are we to use? The fact is that a majority of Muslims do not believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty. Many of them believe that the United States forged the video (through some undefined method), and others do not believe that it is conclusive. Some do not even believe it is evidence. Clearly someone must be allowed to make that decision, and the fact is that it is not anyone on this board.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

PS: I saw what little passed for wreakage, and believe there were explosives in the car. There was only a STAIN, and some small bits of metal.

[Sea Skimmer]

PS: I saw what little passed for wreakage, and believe there were explosives in the car. There was only a STAIN, and some small bits of metal.

You likely saw what was left after they hauled the car body away. There are other pictures of the car loaded onto a truck for transport. Not much left but the frame, all door and side panels blown away, no roof. Basically what you'd expect after 20 pounds of HE went off on impact followed by maybe 8 gallons of gasoline.

[weemadando]

Weemadando, are you saying that you are the final arbiter of who can and cannot be targetted for attack? Whose standards of guilt are we to use? The fact is that a majority of Muslims do not believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty. Many of them believe that the United States forged the video (through some undefined method), and others do not believe that it is conclusive. Some do not even believe it is evidence. Clearly someone must be allowed to make that decision, and the fact is that it is not anyone on this board.

No, I'm simply saying that I have respect for international law and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

By blowing up a car in another nation on suspicion of even ONE of the occupants being a terrorist SUSPECT then you lower yourself to the levels of those you claim to be fighting.

I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if: a) it would be disclosed whether or not the Yemeni govt signed off on the op; and b) there was some definate evidence presented to the public that these people were guilty.

On the topic of explosives in the car... Driving around three weeks or so ago (the last time I did drive funnily enough), had I been hit by a missile explosives would have been found in my car... Both from the missile, obviously enough, and because I had a large bag of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser in the boot, directly above my fuel tank. Think about it. Slim chance, but still...

[Sea Skimmer]

Weemadando, are you saying that you are the final arbiter of who can and cannot be targetted for attack? Whose standards of guilt are we to use? The fact is that a majority of Muslims do not believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty. Many of them believe that the United States forged the video (through some undefined method), and others do not believe that it is conclusive. Some do not even believe it is evidence. Clearly someone must be allowed to make that decision, and the fact is that it is not anyone on this board.

No, I'm simply saying that I have respect for international law and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

By blowing up a car in another nation on suspicion of even ONE of the occupants being a terrorist SUSPECT then you lower yourself to the levels of those you claim to be fighting.

I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if: a) it would be disclosed whether or not the Yemeni govt signed off on the op; and b) there was some definate evidence presented to the public that these people were guilty.

On the topic of explosives in the car... Driving around three weeks or so ago (the last time I did drive funnily enough), had I been hit by a missile explosives would have been found in my car... Both from the missile, obviously enough, and because I had a large bag of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser in the boot, directly above my fuel tank. Think about it. Slim chance, but still...

Explosives testing is more then sufficiently advanced to identify the make of explosives. A fertilizer based explosive can to told from the explosive used in the missile that blows up your car. And any Plastic explosives you might have would also show up.

The best tests can also now often determine the explsive manufactures, even without chemical tracers mixed in.

You'd also need to drive a diesel vehicle for there to be even a chance. And even then, the nature of the blast and the results of the tests would show that while you may have had those substances, they where not mixed.

[Master of Ossus]

Weemadando, are you saying that you are the final arbiter of who can and cannot be targetted for attack? Whose standards of guilt are we to use? The fact is that a majority of Muslims do not believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty. Many of them believe that the United States forged the video (through some undefined method), and others do not believe that it is conclusive. Some do not even believe it is evidence. Clearly someone must be allowed to make that decision, and the fact is that it is not anyone on this board.

No, I'm simply saying that I have respect for international law and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

By blowing up a car in another nation on suspicion of even ONE of the occupants being a terrorist SUSPECT then you lower yourself to the levels of those you claim to be fighting.

I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if: a) it would be disclosed whether or not the Yemeni govt signed off on the op; and b) there was some definate evidence presented to the public that these people were guilty.

On the topic of explosives in the car... Driving around three weeks or so ago (the last time I did drive funnily enough), had I been hit by a missile explosives would have been found in my car... Both from the missile, obviously enough, and because I had a large bag of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser in the boot, directly above my fuel tank. Think about it. Slim chance, but still...

Strawman. These people were not attacked under suspicion that they were GOING to commit a crime. This was not a preemptive strike, but a punitive one.

For all we know, the Pentagon knows perfectly well that everyone in the van had assisted in the September 11 attack on the United States. Why should the public have to know whether or not the people were found guilty? Should our right to know about the past operation outweigh the possibility that disclosing the evidence of their crimes would allow others to escape? Should we broadcast a warning to terrorists prior to their arrests just because people want to know if a past attack were actually justified? Clearly there are excellent reasons why such information should not be released.

Further, OJ Simpson has not been found guilty in a criminal court, despite the preponderance of evidence against him. If Al Qaeda members were actually brought to trial within the United States, or another country (including The Hague), then we could quite obviously develop any of several situations which would all reflect poorly on the war on terrorism. The missile attack is in no way unprecedented by either American or Western forces (indeed, Yemen's own special forces observed the storming of the Great Mosque, which would result in the executions of more than a hundred terrorists all after show-trials that lasted less than one week). Clearly even the Yemens people have a very low requirement for conviction, even in capital cases, regarding terrorism. Note that in Arab countries you are generally presumed to be guilty until proven innocent (although the amount of evidence required against an individual does change with the charge), and such an attack has numerous precedents within the region, and in the Western world.

You are essentially trying to impose your own vision of what is right and wrong not only onto several other countries, but also to at least one other culture that disagrees with you (the Arabs). Further, you are demanding evidence of guilt even though that could compromise the future national security of the United States and its allies solely for the opportunity of being capable of more accurately second-guessing the Central Intelligence Agency.

[weemadando]

Strawman. These people were not attacked under suspicion that they were GOING to commit a crime. This was not a preemptive strike, but a punitive one.

For all we know, the Pentagon knows perfectly well that everyone in the van had assisted in the September 11 attack on the United States. Why should the public have to know whether or not the people were found guilty? Should our right to know about the past operation outweigh the possibility that disclosing the evidence of their crimes would allow others to escape? Should we broadcast a warning to terrorists prior to their arrests just because people want to know if a past attack were actually justified? Clearly there are excellent reasons why such information should not be released.

Just as you a strawmanning me. When do I suggest that we should warn people of raids etc? I simply believe that informing a government that you are going to be assassinating people on their turf is something of a courtesy.

Sure, live intel assets must be kept secret, and I personally have no doubt that the people in the vehicle were terrorists and most likely have and would have continued to commit acts of terrorism. I'm just playing the devils advocate and showing an alternate side of the debate.

Further, OJ Simpson has not been found guilty in a criminal court, despite the preponderance of evidence against him. If Al Qaeda members were actually brought to trial within the United States, or another country (including The Hague), then we could quite obviously develop any of several situations which would all reflect poorly on the war on terrorism. The missile attack is in no way unprecedented by either American or Western forces (indeed, Yemen's own special forces observed the storming of the Great Mosque, which would result in the executions of more than a hundred terrorists all after show-trials that lasted less than one week). Clearly even the Yemens people have a very low requirement for conviction, even in capital cases, regarding terrorism. Note that in Arab countries you are generally presumed to be guilty until proven innocent (although the amount of evidence required against an individual does change with the charge), and such an attack has numerous precedents within the region, and in the Western world.

Terrorism is a crime best suited for trial in the ICC. And how is OJ Simpson a relevant case? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers because a jury didn't feel that the burden of proof was high enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had commited the murders. I still think he did it, but that does not give me the right to kill him on the street.

Osama would be commited in any legitimate court in the world because of overwhelming evidence implicating him, not to mention his own televised admissions of guilt.

And yes, there are limited ways of dealing with terrorists, but the current methods being employed could probably be made slightly less provocative.

You are essentially trying to impose your own vision of what is right and wrong not only onto several other countries, but also to at least one other culture that disagrees with you (the Arabs). Further, you are demanding evidence of guilt even though that could compromise the future national security of the United States and its allies solely for the opportunity of being capable of more accurately second-guessing the Central Intelligence Agency.

No. I'm not trying to impose my vision of what is right and wrong in things. I'm arguing the case in regards to international law. And how could proof of guilt compromise the nation security of the US and allies? Intel sources can be protected. If someone could tell me that the CIA had sought permission from the US government to carry out these strikes based upon incontrivertable evidence that the men in that car were terrorists and that the Yemeni government had at the very least been informed of the actions then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So far all I've heard is that the CIA carried out the strike, Rumsfield not clarifying it further and a whole bunch of name calling in my direction by certain people.

[Knife]

Weemadando, are you saying that you are the final arbiter of who can and cannot be targetted for attack? Whose standards of guilt are we to use? The fact is that a majority of Muslims do not believe that Osama bin Laden is guilty. Many of them believe that the United States forged the video (through some undefined method), and others do not believe that it is conclusive. Some do not even believe it is evidence. Clearly someone must be allowed to make that decision, and the fact is that it is not anyone on this board.

No, I'm simply saying that I have respect for international law and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

By blowing up a car in another nation on suspicion of even ONE of the occupants being a terrorist SUSPECT then you lower yourself to the levels of those you claim to be fighting.

I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if: a) it would be disclosed whether or not the Yemeni govt signed off on the op; and b) there was some definate evidence presented to the public that these people were guilty.

On the topic of explosives in the car... Driving around three weeks or so ago (the last time I did drive funnily enough), had I been hit by a missile explosives would have been found in my car... Both from the missile, obviously enough, and because I had a large bag of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser in the boot, directly above my fuel tank. Think about it. Slim chance, but still...

I don't see how this is against international law or Yeman law. We are there and the goverment of Yeman knows we are there. Our UAV's are operating from Yeman and the goverment of Yeman knows we are operating from there and I think they've noticed that we are strapping missiles to them as well. As far as international law, which one are we breaking? According to the UN and NATO, any member nation has a right to defend itself and killing a known Al queda terrorist is defending ones self.

Your guessing that the Yeman's know nothing of an obvious operation on their soil by American personel that they agreed to have there for pretty much this reason.

[Sea Skimmer]

Terrorism is a crime best suited for trial in the ICC. And how is OJ Simpson a relevant case? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers because a jury didn't feel that the burden of proof was high enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had commited the murders. I still think he did it, but that does not give me the right to kill him on the street.

Osama would be commited in any legitimate court in the world because of overwhelming evidence implicating him, not to mention his own televised admissions of guilt.

And yes, there are limited ways of dealing with terrorists, but the current methods being employed could probably be made slightly less provocative.

Actually its best suited for trial in the nation where the attack took place followed by any third party nation who had citizens injured in the attack followed by the nation from which the Terrorists originated.

Why on earth should terrorist be tired by the ICC when the crime was commit within a nation state aginst a nation states citizens? The physical attack/crime was committed within one country. That’s where the trial should be. Theres no reason to move it else where and that makes everything signficantly more complex.

[weemadando]

Explosives testing is more then sufficiently advanced to identify the make of explosives. A fertilizer based explosive can to told from the explosive used in the missile that blows up your car. And any Plastic explosives you might have would also show up.

The best tests can also now often determine the explsive manufactures, even without chemical tracers mixed in.

You'd also need to drive a diesel vehicle for there to be even a chance. And even then, the nature of the blast and the results of the tests would show that while you may have had those substances, they where not mixed.

Not debating the point that testing can accurately determine explosives make and place of manufacture.

And yes, it was diesel fuelled vehicle.

[Sea Skimmer]

.

So far all I've heard is that the CIA carried out the strike, Rumsfield not clarifying it further and a whole bunch of name calling in my direction by certain people.

Your make a bunch of rabid anti American statements and then complain about name-calling? Fuck you, maybe if you lived in a country that defended its citizens you'd understand.

[weemadando]

Terrorism is a crime best suited for trial in the ICC. And how is OJ Simpson a relevant case? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers because a jury didn't feel that the burden of proof was high enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had commited the murders. I still think he did it, but that does not give me the right to kill him on the street.

Osama would be commited in any legitimate court in the world because of overwhelming evidence implicating him, not to mention his own televised admissions of guilt.

And yes, there are limited ways of dealing with terrorists, but the current methods being employed could probably be made slightly less provocative.

In the case of Al'Qaeda I can't think of a better place to try them. They have attacked many nations and have links in many many more.

The ICC would be a perfect place to try them. Plus, if nothing else it would get people of your back re: Camp X-Ray and treatment of prisoners.

Actually its best suited for trial in the nation where the attack took place followed by any third party nation who had citizens injured in the attack followed by the nation from which the Terrorists originated.

Why on earth should terrorist be tired by the ICC when the crime was commit within a nation state aginst a nation states citizens? The physical attack/crime was committed within one country. That’s where the trial should be. Theres no reason to move it else where and that makes everything signficantly more complex.

[tharkûn]

Generally in the Wild West, people who had "Dead or Alive" status had been seen in the act of commiting various crimes. Not being linked to crimes through tenuous strands of evidence.
Don't give me that witness crap. Wtiness's have proven to be among the most "tenuous" evidence that is admissable in courts. The number of wrongful convictions resulting solely from witness testimony is huge. For whatever reason it has been explicitly stated that Al Queada is wanted dead or alive.

Osama is an excellent example of someone, with whom there is enough evidence to go after them. They still deserve to end up in the ICC rather than just as a smoking ruin in the desert though.
Ahh so you are just a hypocrit. Legally Osama is STILL a suspect. Confessions don't count for jack until the verdict is read. They can be faked, coerced, or simply outright lies. Even AFTER a point blank confession you are still a suspect until the verdict is read. ANYONE regardless of the state of the evidence against them is a "suspect" up until the verdict is read. Its simply a legal term.

So which is it? Shall we never kill "suspects" or should we not kill Osama given the choice of killing him or letting him get away?
You can't have your cake and eat it to.

And its also good to know that at least SOME PEOPLE have respect for human rights and international law
Unlawful combatants are not afforded the right to a trial. Summary killing in the feild is well within the bounds of war. Read the Geneva convention Al Queada fights the bill to a T. There are 4 criteria to get out of unlawful combatant status:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
(c) that of carrying arms openly
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now you can make an arguement for a. B is laughable. C agains is the exact opposite of their modus operandi. D is again against their behavior. In short they have declared war, they are rightly classified as unlawful combatants and killing them is well within the bounds of international law and human rights.

Please show me the laws violated here. Remember in Yemen it's legal to open fire on any "dubious" gathering of 5 or more (at least I think that one was officially codified in law, it was before the government).

But doesn't the US realise that hitting a car in another sovereign nation with a missile is an act of terrorism?
Since when? We did that in Iraq, Afghanistan ... not to mention the number of times it's happened elsewhere in the world. Just because the enemy crosses a border does not give them a get out of jail free card.
The only way its even a crime is if it goes against Yemen. The international community has jack didly squat to do with this.

And isn't it part of the soldiers and polices role to protect the innocent?
Yes that's why you kill people like these, people who have EXPLICITLY STATED they intend to kill innocents.

Look at it this way. What are the odds they will be found guilty? 90%, 95%? Let's go with 90. Now 6 people with a 90% chance of being guilty gives us .6 innocent people we'd expect to kill (if we faced this same situation 500 times and took this course of action, then we'd expect to kill 3 innocent people).

Now on the flip side how many innocent people can we expect to die as a direct result of not killing them? Well let's give them a 10% chance of being chosen for a big operation and pulling it off. Let's go with the Bali bombing as our precendent , what was that 180 dead? So we expect 18 dead innocents if we let them live.

As 18 >> .6 then the moral thing to do is to stop them. It is preferable to capture them, but if that is not an option ... kill them.

The first sentence there makes my head spin with its bloodlust and blatant disregard for human life. You are saying it is fine for us Americans to make the judgement call that says that we are allowed to kill someone we think MIGHT be guilty while having no actual proof that that person was to blame.
Who said we had no proof? All that was said is that they were suspects. We most likely have page upon page of proof that they belong to a conspiracy whose expressed goal is to kill American civillians. We likely have reams of evidence about their individual involvement in Al Queada, it is simply not disclosed. It's called security, if you turn that crud loose you simply serve to warn the enemy what you know and what you are capable of.

Isn't that the same sort of logic that was behind the Sept. 11th attacks? That America is to blame for the wrongs of the world?
Nope the "logic" behind 9/11 was explicitly stated to be:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam ." emphasis added

9/11 occurred because some morons don't like that US troops are based in Saudi Arabia or that Israel controls Jerusalemn. It has JACK DIDLY SQUAT to do with stopping innocents from dying.

Ask anyone in the military, the police force, or the firehouse--they get involved in their jobs knowing what price they may have to pay, and gratefully, they are willing to make that sacrifice to save others who cannot save themselves.
My dear sir, I happen to have been one of them, and come DAMN close to paying that price myself. I'm not talking about just risking your life while doing your best, but policies which specifically INCREASE the risk of the police being killed. Nobody has a problem bitching when police use batons and tear gas in riots, even drafting rules which require the cops to go into riots without proper protection, but ask anyone else ... its a no no. Nobody had a problem with the inanity with which Vietnam was fought, even though it GARUNTEED that more body bags would result.

And a one in 1000 chance is still that--a fucking chance. Obviously you've never known anyone who has had to appear in a court of law for anything.
Yes and there is a GREATER CHANCE they will kill somebody else. Had they not been killed there was a very reasonable chance they might decide to go gun down somebody at the local consulate, set off explosives in yet another nightclub, or even worse.

As for the court, oh please stuff it. I've sat in judgement of petty offenses (mostly drug cases).

Innocent people die every frikking day. Is taking a 1 in 1000 chance of not killing 6 innoccents worth a 1 in 100 chance of killing 200?

Perhaps you should get your head out of your ass and consider how you'd feel if someone blew your fucking head apart because there was a chance you knew what the hell you were talking about.
Been there, done that. Had to have brain surgery.

As long as they are not you or your love ones its okay to kill innocents right?
Nope its perfectly fine to kill innocents so long as that action prevents more innocents from dying.

Case in point hijacker gets on board a plane and holds a gun to a passengers head, uses her as a human sheild, and wants control of the plane. The moral thing for a skymarshal (or other armed person on board) to do is to kill the terrorist, even if it means shooting through the human sheild.

When present with an option you weigh the number of expected dead innocents that will result from that option against the exected dead innocents for not taking that option (both are weighted by probability, i.e. 100% shot of killing 1 innocent is preferable to a 1 in a billion shot of killing 100 million people).

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Wonderful point: Our other option is to let the rotten freaks think its perfectly okay to sneak around plotting genocide against us. Sure, come on over! Steal our planes, hell, ram 'em into buildings while you're here! Plant bombs! Yee-ha! Snacks for everybody! Don't mind us, we'll just stand back and let you do it! Retaliation? Justice? What's that? Those words isn't in Warm & Fuzzy's Dictionary!

I'm sorry, but I have no patience for those who want to apologize for those who would orchestrate the destruction of me and mine. If you want to take it on the cheek, fine, but leave the rest of us the fuck out of your masochistic politics.

As for me, I fully support the idea that if these militant miscreants are going to fuck with us then then justify it by saying that we're "The Great Satan", then I say Fuckin-A Right! I say we go over to their fucking backyards and show them that we are a greater Satan than their addled minds can possibly conceive of.

[Guest]

FUCK THE STUPID FUCKERS UP THEIR FUCKING PATRIOTIC FUCKING ARSES!

Can you tell I'm pissed? What kind of fucking moron launches an attack on a potentially "civilian" target in another nation (in the middle of the area that you guys are supposed to be currying favour with to support a FUCKING WAR), whose government was not even INFORMED of this strike, let alone approving it!

And then you people say that this will get the government more support in the mid-terms? WHAT KIND OF FUCKED UP COUNTRY ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN? Maybe I should just fire several fucking hellfires at Dubya next time he does a public appearance? I mean, if one nation is exempt from internation law - Why shouldn't we all be? Stupid fuckers.


[/rant]

We have every right to kill Al-Queda terrorists wherever we find them. Besides, what you going to do about it besides piss and moan?

[Zaia]

Who said we had no proof? All that was said is that they were suspects. We most likely have page upon page of proof that they belong to a conspiracy whose expressed goal is to kill American civillians. We likely have reams of evidence about their individual involvement in Al Queada, it is simply not disclosed. It's called security, if you turn that crud loose you simply serve to warn the enemy what you know and what you are capable of.

If I could be shown proof, I might feel differently. However, you used the word 'likely' twice when talking about your alledged proof and that is unacceptable to me in terms of justifying murder.

Nope the "logic" behind 9/11 was explicitly stated to be:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam ." emphasis added

9/11 occurred because some morons don't like that US troops are based in Saudi Arabia or that Israel controls Jerusalemn. It has JACK DIDLY SQUAT to do with stopping innocents from dying.

From what source did you acquire this quote, please?

My dear sir, I happen to have been one of them, and come DAMN close to paying that price myself. I'm not talking about just risking your life while doing your best, but policies which specifically INCREASE the risk of the police being killed. Nobody has a problem bitching when police use batons and tear gas in riots, even drafting rules which require the cops to go into riots without proper protection, but ask anyone else ... its a no no. Nobody had a problem with the inanity with which Vietnam was fought, even though it GARUNTEED that more body bags would result.

I would have to disgree with you yet again, or at least your choice of words. "Nobody?" You seem to think everyone in this country is either 100% with you or 100% against you. And, for the record, I am not a sir.

Yes and there is a GREATER CHANCE they will kill somebody else. Had they not been killed there was a very reasonable chance they might decide to go gun down somebody at the local consulate, set off explosives in yet another nightclub, or even worse.

As for the court, oh please stuff it. I've sat in judgement of petty offenses (mostly drug cases).

Innocent people die every frikking day. Is taking a 1 in 1000 chance of not killing 6 innoccents worth a 1 in 100 chance of killing 200?

I'm sorry, perhaps I live in a utopian world, but I happen to think that NO innocent people, American or otherwise, should die at anyone's hand on suspicion of guilt. I believe there's a reason why you can't convict anyone in a court of law on a crime that hasn't been committed yet. I feel punishing people with death for the possibility that they might harm innocent people in the future is ridiculous. I feel the same grief and heartache that many people do when thinking about what Al Queda could do in the future if they aren't stopped now, but killing them because we think they might be the people we are after is NOT the solution. No matter how you say it, killing people without evidence because of crimes you are afraid they will commit in the future cannot be tolerated or justified. Just guessing that evidence exists is not enough to support this belief, in my opinion.

[Knife]

Who said we had no proof? All that was said is that they were suspects. We most likely have page upon page of proof that they belong to a conspiracy whose expressed goal is to kill American civillians. We likely have reams of evidence about their individual involvement in Al Queada, it is simply not disclosed. It's called security, if you turn that crud loose you simply serve to warn the enemy what you know and what you are capable of.

If I could be shown proof, I might feel differently. However, you used the word 'likely' twice when talking about your alledged proof and that is unacceptable to me in terms of justifying murder.

Nope the "logic" behind 9/11 was explicitly stated to be:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam ." emphasis added

9/11 occurred because some morons don't like that US troops are based in Saudi Arabia or that Israel controls Jerusalemn. It has JACK DIDLY SQUAT to do with stopping innocents from dying.

From what source did you acquire this quote, please?

My dear sir, I happen to have been one of them, and come DAMN close to paying that price myself. I'm not talking about just risking your life while doing your best, but policies which specifically INCREASE the risk of the police being killed. Nobody has a problem bitching when police use batons and tear gas in riots, even drafting rules which require the cops to go into riots without proper protection, but ask anyone else ... its a no no. Nobody had a problem with the inanity with which Vietnam was fought, even though it GARUNTEED that more body bags would result.

I would have to disgree with you yet again, or at least your choice of words. "Nobody?" You seem to think everyone in this country is either 100% with you or 100% against you. And, for the record, I am not a sir.

Yes and there is a GREATER CHANCE they will kill somebody else. Had they not been killed there was a very reasonable chance they might decide to go gun down somebody at the local consulate, set off explosives in yet another nightclub, or even worse.

As for the court, oh please stuff it. I've sat in judgement of petty offenses (mostly drug cases).

Innocent people die every frikking day. Is taking a 1 in 1000 chance of not killing 6 innoccents worth a 1 in 100 chance of killing 200?

I'm sorry, perhaps I live in a utopian world, but I happen to think that NO innocent people, American or otherwise, should die at anyone's hand on suspicion of guilt. I believe there's a reason why you can't convict anyone in a court of law on a crime that hasn't been committed yet. I feel punishing people with death for the possibility that they might harm innocent people in the future is ridiculous. I feel the same grief and heartache that many people do when thinking about what Al Queda could do in the future if they aren't stopped now, but killing them because we think they might be the people we are after is NOT the solution. No matter how you say it, killing people without evidence because of crimes you are afraid they will commit in the future cannot be tolerated or justified. Just guessing that evidence exists is not enough to support this belief, in my opinion.

Your looking at it from a criminal law perspective when others are looking at it from a war perspective. When persicuting a war, we do not take all of the enemy comabatents and put them through trial, we kill them. Keeping this in mind, one must also realize that there are Rules of Engagment that the operator in Yeman were following. What those are exactly, I can't tell you because I don't know but there are rules and policies that must be followed durring war.

The biggest piece of evidence that the Yeman's knew of our operation and intent is that we are there with their knowledgd and we haven't been kicked out of there after the incident. Is it possible that American forces screwed up? Yes it is possible and it has happened in the past but that doesn't mean that it has to be the case here.

Needless to say, we may never know the nuts and bolts of this encounter but I do not wish to have a war on terror if every time we want to kill a terrorist in the field we have to catch him first, put him in front of a judge, and if the judge say's its ok, put the terrorist back in the field and kill him.

[Guest]

The US is fighting a war on terrorism. There is no need for a fair trial in a war. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

[tharkûn]

If I could be shown proof, I might feel differently. However, you used the word 'likely' twice when talking about your alledged proof and that is unacceptable to me in terms of justifying murder.
Oh please murder is "unlawful killing", I have yet to hear the law that made this illeagal. Further let's say I did have access to classified evidence only a MORON would present it to "justify" this action. What part of "classified" don't you understand? Is appeasing your sensibilities worth risking God knows what intelligence assets? Sorry but military proof is NOT for general dissemination, and it often stays that way for decades.

From what source did you acquire this quote, please?
Osama bin Ladin. It's the direct translation of his Fatwa.

I would have to disgree with you yet again, or at least your choice of words. "Nobody?" You seem to think everyone in this country is either 100% with you or 100% against you. And, for the record, I am not a sir.
1. My apologies madam.
2. hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l) n.:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.

Shall I refrain from such figures of speech in the future for your benifit? The majority of people simply do not care if the restrictions to protect the likely guilty cost the police/military their lives.

I'm sorry, perhaps I live in a utopian world, but I happen to think that NO innocent people, American or otherwise, should die at anyone's hand on suspicion of guilt.
No you just want them to die because it makes you feel better. Its ALWAYS suspiscion of guilt. That's all a damn jury trial does, you get a bunch of people who suspect that the defendant is guilty, and if they agree ... he's toast. Trials are a luxury in cases like these. The important thing is not bringing them to justice, but STOPPING THEM FROM KILLING OTHERS. Ideally, yes apprehend them if you can. However if that is not pratical, by all means SHOOT THEM DEAD. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I believe there's a reason why you can't convict anyone in a court of law on a crime that hasn't been committed yet.
The crime has already been commited. Conspiracy to commit mass murder ring a bell? When you are a member of an organization like Al Queada you have knowingly declared yourself to be an unlawful combatant. You have knowingly (at least the high rankers like this guy) aided and abetted mass murder. This is what you would be convicted on. Future actions are why its moral to kill you. When your stated goal in life is to kill innocents, you need to be:
a. Behind bars
b. Six feet under


Future actions DO effect your standing. Think bail. If you are a low threat to the community ... you can be released on personal recognizance. If you are a high threat to the community (or a flight risk) ... you can be denied bail. If you are considered dangerous and at large, then you can become "wanted: dead or alive". Your expected future actions DO effect your standing in the justice system.

I feel the same grief and heartache that many people do when thinking about what Al Queda could do in the future if they aren't stopped now, but killing them because we think they might be the people we are after is NOT the solution.
Why not? We lay out the odds. Say 1 in 1000 they are innocent. Say 1 in 100 they are going to kill 50 people in a bombing. We take my way we expect .006 innocents to die. We go your way we expect .5 innocents to die. Go with the lower number.

You, frankly, don't give a damn about saving innocent lives. You care about having a warm fuzzy knowing you support something "noble", even if it's an effective DEATH SENTENCE for orders of magnitude more people. Tell me do you have any argument that is more substantial than "I feel"?

No matter how you say it, killing people without evidence because of crimes you are afraid they will commit in the future cannot be tolerated or justified. Just guessing that evidence exists is not enough to support this belief, in my opinion.
Don't give me this "without evidence" crap. The Yeminis say, ""Authorities have been monitoring this particular car for a while and we believe those men belonged to the al Qaeda terror network." You do realize this is sufficient to open fire with live rounds in Yemen, right? That in all probability the Yeminis asked us to kill them.

The US says it has evidence. The Yeminis say they have evidence. Given the SECURITY issues of the crime why in HELL would they release it to Jon Q Public?

The US is fighting a war on terrorism. There is no need for a fair trial in a war. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
No. There are several better types:
1. The one in custody under questioning.
2. The one who decides to rat out his friends not to get killed.
3. The one who is bribed/coerced into being a mole.

The goal is not kill them for the sake of killing them, it's to stop them. This is best served if you can leach every useful bit of knowledge out of them, tell the world you executed them, and then drop them in a cold dark pit just in case you later remember a question you forgot the first time around.

Killing them is the only preferable to letting them walk away to kill more innocents.

[Guest]

If I could be shown proof, I might feel differently. However, you used the word 'likely' twice when talking about your alledged proof and that is unacceptable to me in terms of justifying murder.
Oh please murder is "unlawful killing", I have yet to hear the law that made this illeagal. Further let's say I did have access to classified evidence only a MORON would present it to "justify" this action. What part of "classified" don't you understand? Is appeasing your sensibilities worth risking God knows what intelligence assets? Sorry but military proof is NOT for general dissemination, and it often stays that way for decades.

From what source did you acquire this quote, please?
Osama bin Ladin. It's the direct translation of his Fatwa.

I would have to disgree with you yet again, or at least your choice of words. "Nobody?" You seem to think everyone in this country is either 100% with you or 100% against you. And, for the record, I am not a sir.
1. My apologies madam.
2. hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l) n.:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.

Shall I refrain from such figures of speech in the future for your benifit? The majority of people simply do not care if the restrictions to protect the likely guilty cost the police/military their lives.

I'm sorry, perhaps I live in a utopian world, but I happen to think that NO innocent people, American or otherwise, should die at anyone's hand on suspicion of guilt.
No you just want them to die because it makes you feel better. Its ALWAYS suspiscion of guilt. That's all a damn jury trial does, you get a bunch of people who suspect that the defendant is guilty, and if they agree ... he's toast. Trials are a luxury in cases like these. The important thing is not bringing them to justice, but STOPPING THEM FROM KILLING OTHERS. Ideally, yes apprehend them if you can. However if that is not pratical, by all means SHOOT THEM DEAD. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I believe there's a reason why you can't convict anyone in a court of law on a crime that hasn't been committed yet.
The crime has already been commited. Conspiracy to commit mass murder ring a bell? When you are a member of an organization like Al Queada you have knowingly declared yourself to be an unlawful combatant. You have knowingly (at least the high rankers like this guy) aided and abetted mass murder. This is what you would be convicted on. Future actions are why its moral to kill you. When your stated goal in life is to kill innocents, you need to be:
a. Behind bars
b. Six feet under


Future actions DO effect your standing. Think bail. If you are a low threat to the community ... you can be released on personal recognizance. If you are a high threat to the community (or a flight risk) ... you can be denied bail. If you are considered dangerous and at large, then you can become "wanted: dead or alive". Your expected future actions DO effect your standing in the justice system.

I feel the same grief and heartache that many people do when thinking about what Al Queda could do in the future if they aren't stopped now, but killing them because we think they might be the people we are after is NOT the solution.
Why not? We lay out the odds. Say 1 in 1000 they are innocent. Say 1 in 100 they are going to kill 50 people in a bombing. We take my way we expect .006 innocents to die. We go your way we expect .5 innocents to die. Go with the lower number.

You, frankly, don't give a damn about saving innocent lives. You care about having a warm fuzzy knowing you support something "noble", even if it's an effective DEATH SENTENCE for orders of magnitude more people. Tell me do you have any argument that is more substantial than "I feel"?

No matter how you say it, killing people without evidence because of crimes you are afraid they will commit in the future cannot be tolerated or justified. Just guessing that evidence exists is not enough to support this belief, in my opinion.
Don't give me this "without evidence" crap. The Yeminis say, ""Authorities have been monitoring this particular car for a while and we believe those men belonged to the al Qaeda terror network." You do realize this is sufficient to open fire with live rounds in Yemen, right? That in all probability the Yeminis asked us to kill them.

The US says it has evidence. The Yeminis say they have evidence. Given the SECURITY issues of the crime why in HELL would they release it to Jon Q Public?

The US is fighting a war on terrorism. There is no need for a fair trial in a war. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
No. There are several better types:
1. The one in custody under questioning.
2. The one who decides to rat out his friends not to get killed.
3. The one who is bribed/coerced into being a mole.

The goal is not kill them for the sake of killing them, it's to stop them. This is best served if you can leach every useful bit of knowledge out of them, tell the world you executed them, and then drop them in a cold dark pit just in case you later remember a question you forgot the first time around.

Killing them is the only preferable to letting them walk away to kill more innocents.

I let my emotions get the better of me, you are right though. The more information we can get out of the terrorists before we execute them the better.