Obama authorizes killing of cleric

[Captain Seafort]

Isn't that what he is? A soldier fighting a war?

No, he isn't. He's a murderer, a common criminal. The scale of his crimes doesn't change that.

You don't see the difference between arresting someone in L.A. vs. trying to apprehend someone hiding out in a foreign hostile territory?

I'm not trying to downplay the difficulty of the problem, merely to counter the tendency people seem to have to view this crook as an enemy soldier rather than as the simple criminal he is.

I'd imagine that's generally what you call most people who recruit soldiers for a country's enemy.

If he were working on behalf of a hostile state I'd agree with you. He's not, he's simply a member of a particularly violent and dangerous criminal gang.

[General Zod]

If he were working on behalf of a hostile state I'd agree with you. He's not, he's simply a member of a particularly violent and dangerous criminal gang.

What difference does it make if they both present a significant threat to your state's security? Or do you not consider criminals who smash airplanes into heavily populated city areas and high value targets a state threat? (You might also want to fix your quote tags).

[Havok]

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

[Captain Seafort]

What difference does it make if they both present a significant threat to your state's security? Or do you not consider criminals who smash airplanes into heavily populated city areas and high value targets a state threat?

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

They're certainly a threat, but the criminal rather than state-led nature of the threat means that I consider it important, from a political point of view if nothing else, to emphasise the law-enforcement rather than military nature of the solution. It's the same thing the British Army did in Northern Ireland - if the Provos were in the middle of mounting and attack, then they would be shot. If there was intel regarding the location of arms, ammunition, or wanted individuals, then the police would go and arrest them, with the army providing backup in case things went pear-shaped.

You might also want to fix your quote tags.

Bugger. I thought I'd got all the attributions right. Thanks for the heads-up.

[General Zod]

They're certainly a threat, but the criminal rather than state-led nature of the threat means that I consider it important, from a political point of view if nothing else, to emphasise the law-enforcement rather than military nature of the solution. It's the same thing the British Army did in Northern Ireland - if the Provos were in the middle of mounting and attack, then they would be shot. If there was intel regarding the location of arms, ammunition, or wanted individuals, then the police would go and arrest them, with the army providing backup in case things went pear-shaped.

I don't think you can neatly divide groups like Al Qaeda into a criminal/state separation like this. Especially given they've had the backing and support of any number of states, even if on an unofficial basis; something international like this seems a bit outside the scope of regular police actions to me.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't think you can neatly divide groups like Al Qaeda into a criminal/state separation like this. Especially given they've had the backing and support of any number of states, even if on an unofficial basis; something international like this seems a bit outside the scope of regular police actions to me.

I doubt any terrorist group has ever been purely criminal, with no state support. Nonetheless, as long as they remain a criminal organisation, operating independently of overt ties to any state, they should be treated as criminals.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let me put this in a law enforcement perspective.

If I were chasing a person that I had probable cause was a serial killer (and I mean identified not chasing a shadow) and he ran and I reasonable believed that his running would defeat my attempt to arrest him then I could shoot him in the back...even if he was unarmed.

If I was responding on a robbery in progress and the subject walked out the front door just as I was arriving and then when he/she sees me goes to run back inside...I could use deadly force to prevent him from taking hostages.

In the OPs case. He's now an active terrorist in a foreign country which apprehension is very difficult. If the opportunity arises then they should take him out.

Your analogy is so false that it makes my head spin. In both of these cases you have attempted to capture the individual in order to bring him before a court. You do not set out for the sole purpose of killing these individuals.

In this case, the goal is not to bring him before a court to answer for his crimes. What you are supporting is nothing short of murder. Not only is it wrong, but in this case it is blatantly unconstitutional. He is not on a fucking battlefield. Is is guilty of criminal offenses against the people and against the state, he is not a foreign fighter engaged in a war. He is a citizen who is guilty of treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder and he must be tried.

Lest we be no better than him.

[jcow79]

Special forces would be the best bet, preferably acting in support of Yemeni police.

Shouldn't we just use this amazingly simple tactic for all terrorists? You've solved the war on terror! This is incredibly more difficult then you seem to be willing to admit.

Difficult question, but I'd say yes. Trying suspected criminals through the courts, instead of deciding there's enough evidence to prove them guilty an executing them without trial, is a vital part of western society.

And yet it's bypassed all the time when criminals are deemed an imminent threat and shot. Would you insist on due process for a criminal shooting at you? Or would you prefer the police just take him out?

Let me reverse this. If you knew where a serial killer was, say in a farmhouse in the countryside, you knew you could reach it before he left, but there's a good chance that he was armed a could kill one or more police if you went to arrest him. Would you have that farmhouse bombed? What if the farmhouse was occupied by a major supplier of hard drugs? Someone producing kiddie porn? Where do you draw the line, and why?

A local farm house doesn't pose nearly the logistical problem that apprehending someone in a foreign country does. You just can't reverse the situation and necessitate the same response.

[Knife]

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

I thought his job was to protect the people of the US that hold the power and elected him along with the laws of the land. This guy is an enemy of our country but also a member of it, as such and as much as some would like to pretend otherwise, he has rights. If they go in to take him and he's shooting back, fine. Shoot him. That's not what I've taken from Obama's command though, rather if say a UAV catches sight of him sunbathing in the middle of the desert alone he's getting a rocket up his ass.

I don't think Kami's and my position is really that far apart. If the dirtbag is in a firefight and there is not a good chance of getting him without a lot of people dying, fine with me if he's KIA. To basically put a bounty on his head, a fucking George W Bush "Dead or alive" on a US citizen, I have issues with.

[General Zod]

I don't think Kami's and my position is really that far apart. If the dirtbag is in a firefight and there is not a good chance of getting him without a lot of people dying, fine with me if he's KIA. To basically put a bounty on his head, a fucking George W Bush "Dead or alive" on a US citizen, I have issues with.

The article wasn't clear on a lot of things, but that's sort of what I gathered from this:

“If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

It sounds to me like he's saying they're engaging in an action that might get a US citizen killed in the process, and they had to get permission in case they did. Not necessarily that he was getting permission to just out and out kill him directly.

[Jim Raynor]

Why does anyone give a fuck if he was an American citizen? Would anyone object to a Predator shoving a Hellfire up his ass if he was born in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? Oh, but he used to live in America so he deserves better treatment over his "foreign" friends.

There's a big difference between killing this guy and arresting a criminal in your own country where it's actually possible to do that without extreme risk. And don't even compare this guy to kiddie porn dealer, there's a difference between being a sick fuck and being a sick fuck who kills people. His citizenship is irrelevant to me. If you participate in killing your own countrymen, then I say you forfeit any rights you might have had as a citizen.

[Knife]

Why does anyone give a fuck if he was an American citizen? Would anyone object to a Predator shoving a Hellfire up his ass if he was born in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? Oh, but he used to live in America so he deserves better treatment over his "foreign" friends.

There's a big difference between killing this guy and arresting a criminal in your own country where it's actually possible to do that without extreme risk. And don't even compare this guy to kiddie porn dealer, there's a difference between being a sick fuck and being a sick fuck who kills people. His citizenship is irrelevant to me. If you participate in killing your own countrymen, then I say you forfeit any rights you might have had as a citizen.

Nope, I don't want my government to have open season on US citizens without more than one branch in on it. He gets a fucking trial before we off him unless he is shooting at the cops when they come to arrest him and even then, after shooting him, we try to send him to a hospital to save so we can try him.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why does anyone give a fuck if he was an American citizen? Would anyone object to a Predator shoving a Hellfire up his ass if he was born in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?

Actually yes. There are a few situations where different rules apply (at least in my brain)

If someone is, on their own, conspiring to commit murder, that is a criminal offense against our people and state. We seek extradition (provided he or she is outside our jurisdiction), and failing that we go in and retrieve (offering apologies for the ensuing diplomatic incident). Then we put that individual on criminal trial with all of the relevant protections of our laws. Regardless of their citizenship status.

If someone is part of an organization with which we are in declared or defacto armed conflict, then sure. Hellfire his ass if he is foreign. We can legally do that. It is no different than shooting someone in a war.

If said person is a citizen, then we are obligated to try them for treason, among other crimes. It is the way our laws are constructed. Cant get around it. Our government is not allowed constitutionally to kill a citizen without due process. To do otherwise leads to a very very bad place.

[Elfdart]

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

What evidence is there that this person is trying to kill Americans or anyone else? The say-so of the same government that had thousands of innocent people locked up in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? The same government that has had to release most of those people because there's no evidence whatsoever that they were guilty of so much as a parking ticket?

Second, we had a President who openly condoned assassinations. His name was Kennedy, and we all know what happened to him. Once a person announces he has the right to rub out others, why should anyone refrain from whacking him? By Obama's standard, some deranged Teabagger would be justified in assassinating him.

I find it ironic that a President from Illinois, the state that brought us Lincoln, would adopt the policies of John Wilkes Booth. I also find it ironic that a black American would condone lynching extra-judicial killing.

[Elfdart]

EDIT: The President's oath of office requires him to defend the Constitution, which prohibits killing without due process of law. In fact, Obama isn't even allowed to jail this person or seize his property without due process.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Your analogy is so false that it makes my head spin. In both of these cases you have attempted to capture the individual in order to bring him before a court. You do not set out for the sole purpose of killing these individuals.

No, my analogy isn't false at all. My opponents in this thread are saying that terrorists are criminals and should be treated the same way. If this is accurate then my example shows that criminals can be killed if they are unable to be taken into custody due to escape. As I said earlier if the subject in the OP wants a trial then he can turn himself in.

My opponents also fail to acknowledge the significant differences between operating inside the US and operating inside a foreign country like Iraq, Afganistan, etc. These differences make apprehension difficult and extremely dangerous.

In this case, the goal is not to bring him before a court to answer for his crimes. What you are supporting is nothing short of murder. Not only is it wrong, but in this case it is blatantly unconstitutional. He is not on a fucking battlefield. Is is guilty of criminal offenses against the people and against the state, he is not a foreign fighter engaged in a war. He is a citizen who is guilty of treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder and he must be tried.

Lest we be no better than him.

No, that is not the case here. It is the emotional exaggeration applied by my opponents in this thread. If this subject were found in a foxhole you and others seem to think a soldier would shoot him right in the head versus actually capturing him. This is completely unsupported speculation. What this order allows is if he is found and resources aren't available to capture him then he can be killed in order to stop his actions against the state in general, but more specifically our soldiers.

He is recruiting, planning, and maybe even participating in war operations and that makes him as much apart of the battlefield as crew chiefs are by just fixing warplanes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why not? Take, for example, your hypothetical serial killer.

You said any other criminal which means shoplifters, drug users, etc. That's why it doesn't work. However, someone planning and carrying out mass murder is a whole different bag.

Then substitute whatever weapon system you desire to minimise or remove the risk to bystanders.

Again, the difference in logistics and threat to friendly forces is significant when comparing the US to a foreign country.

Special forces would be the best bet, preferably acting in support of Yemeni police.

Yeah, that's work great so far terrorist VIPs. Oh wait...the only action getting results is deadly force. Capturing terrorists isn't as simple as sending Chuck Norris in.

Difficult question, but I'd say yes. Trying suspected criminals through the courts, instead of deciding there's enough evidence to prove them guilty an executing them without trial, is a vital part of western society.

Trying suspected criminals is a vital part, and I agree. However, this is not that simple. The subject isn't just a criminal, but he's a soldier fighting in a war against the US and operating from unfriendly territory. Capturing is extremely different. Things have to be in the right place at the right time. It's much easier to just eliminate them, and it makes more sense from a war fighting perspective.

Let me reverse this. If you knew where a serial killer was, say in a farmhouse in the countryside, you knew you could reach it before he left, but there's a good chance that he was armed a could kill one or more police if you went to arrest him. Would you have that farmhouse bombed? What if the farmhouse was occupied by a major supplier of hard drugs? Someone producing kiddie porn? Where do you draw the line, and why?

Let me reverse this since your reversal isn't accurate, in my opinion. If this terrorist was all by himself in a hut in the desert and we had resources available to capture him would I support dropping a bomb on him? No, because capturing him would be more valuable. I also don't believe that is what the order is stating. Deadly force has been authorized against this individual, but that doesn't mean that they won't try to capture him if a reasonable opportunity to do so exists. You, and others, have made this assumption.

This is probably the most accurate scenario. He is holed up with a bunch of other terrorists or in a location where assets aren't available and/or they were in such a position that an attack would lead to high friendly casualties and it was reasonable to believe apprehension could be defeated by escape then yeah blow it up

I've already explained where I would draw the line. If the failure to capture due to either logistics or the tactical situation will reasonably lead the deaths of more of our citizens then he should be killed. Obviously someone producing kiddie porn, selling drugs, trespassing, stealing, etc does not fall into that category. A serial killer, though, does.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

I thought his job was to protect the people of the US that hold the power and elected him along with the laws of the land. This guy is an enemy of our country but also a member of it, as such and as much as some would like to pretend otherwise, he has rights. If they go in to take him and he's shooting back, fine. Shoot him. That's not what I've taken from Obama's command though, rather if say a UAV catches sight of him sunbathing in the middle of the desert alone he's getting a rocket up his ass.

I don't think Kami's and my position is really that far apart. If the dirtbag is in a firefight and there is not a good chance of getting him without a lot of people dying, fine with me if he's KIA. To basically put a bounty on his head, a fucking George W Bush "Dead or alive" on a US citizen, I have issues with.

Our positions are different in this sense. If a UAV catches him sunbathing and there are no resources to capture him then I say eliminate him then and there.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Question. Isn't it the Presidents duty to protect the country from it's enemies? If this guy is an active terrorist, an enemy of our country and someone who is actively planning to kill as many citizens as possible, why does anyone care if Obama gives the green light to whack him?

What evidence is there that this person is trying to kill Americans or anyone else? The say-so of the same government that had thousands of innocent people locked up in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? The same government that has had to release most of those people because there's no evidence whatsoever that they were guilty of so much as a parking ticket?

Second, we had a President who openly condoned assassinations. His name was Kennedy, and we all know what happened to him. Once a person announces he has the right to rub out others, why should anyone refrain from whacking him? By Obama's standard, some deranged Teabagger would be justified in assassinating him.

I find it ironic that a President from Illinois, the state that brought us Lincoln, would adopt the policies of John Wilkes Booth. I also find it ironic that a black American would condone lynching extra-judicial killing.

I believe we are discussing the hypothetical that this information is accurate. I don't think it has been verified. Though I suppose such a claim would be impossible to verify to you.

[Highlord Laan]

Your analogy is so false that it makes my head spin. In both of these cases you have attempted to capture the individual in order to bring him before a court. You do not set out for the sole purpose of killing these individuals.

In this case, the goal is not to bring him before a court to answer for his crimes. What you are supporting is nothing short of murder. Not only is it wrong, but in this case it is blatantly unconstitutional. He is not on a fucking battlefield. Is is guilty of criminal offenses against the people and against the state, he is not a foreign fighter engaged in a war. He is a citizen who is guilty of treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder and he must be tried.

Lest we be no better than him.

I see nothing wrong with stooping lower than our enemies in order to get an advantage over them.

[jcow79]

Our government is not allowed constitutionally to kill a citizen without due process. To do otherwise leads to a very very bad place.

This just isn't the case. Law enforcement kills people all the time when they're determined to be an imminent threat. Kamakazie even covered instances when it is ok to kill an unarmed individual because their escape creates an unreasonable risk to others. Due process is not provided in these circumstances and yet it's acceptable. The distinction is how broadly imminent threat is defined.

If you have definitive evidence that a person intends to or is in the process of carrying out mass murder and you are in no position to apprehend this individual but are in a position to eliminate them, what do you do?

[Mr. Coffee]

I see nothing wrong with stooping lower than our enemies in order to get an advantage over them.

Wait, you mean you don't see anything wrong with us killing a US citizen without trail or even charging the guy formally with anything, completely voiding his rights as a citizen while still going about telling everyone who'll listen about who we as a nation are supposed to be all about liberty, justice, freedom, and such?

Oh, Elfdart... Got a live one for ya here.

[Highlord Laan]

I see nothing wrong with stooping lower than our enemies in order to get an advantage over them.

Wait, you mean you don't see anything wrong with us killing a US citizen without trail or even charging the guy formally with anything, completely voiding his rights as a citizen while still going about telling everyone who'll listen about who we as a nation are supposed to be all about liberty, justice, freedom, and such?

Oh, Elfdart... Got a live one for ya here.

He already forfeited his rights as an American citizen when he decided to betray his people. The intel is already there showing that he has done so. He doesn't even rate status as a human being. Kill it like an animal and be done with it.

Why should our troops put themselves in danger just to run this piece of subhuman filth down? It's a traitor, and it's already known that it will use lethal force to avoid it's fate. I see no reason not to dispose of it in an offhand manner and close the file.

[Knife]

He already forfeited his rights as an American citizen when he decided to betray his people. The intel is already there showing that he has done so. He doesn't even rate status as a human being. Kill it like an animal and be done with it.

Hope to Bajesus you don't have any anti-government lititure in your bedroom then. No minuteman crap, or Sarah Palin "Lock and Loaded" either. They could just shoot you instead of a trial.

By our own laws, he rates not only as a human, but as a citizen. And, as such, he rates all the protections the rest of us get. Laws are not about YOU, they are about US. You are apart of us, but don't confuse the two.

[Highlord Laan]

He already forfeited his rights as an American citizen when he decided to betray his people. The intel is already there showing that he has done so. He doesn't even rate status as a human being. Kill it like an animal and be done with it.

Hope to Bajesus you don't have any anti-government lititure in your bedroom then. No minuteman crap, or Sarah Palin "Lock and Loaded" either. They could just shoot you instead of a trial.

By our own laws, he rates not only as a human, but as a citizen. And, as such, he rates all the protections the rest of us get. Laws are not about YOU, they are about US. You are apart of us, but don't confuse the two.

No, I don't have either of those. However, even if I did, both come in under Freedom Of Speech last time I checked. The creature this discussion is about has actively joined with an enemy force that wages a war on this country, has planned operations with the sole intent to kill American Citizens and has taken part in those actions.

Those actions are not covered by the Constitution. It does not with to have the protections being an American Citizen provides and declared itself to be an enemy of the US. Treat it as one would any other dangerous enemy. Kill on sight.