Obama authorizes killing of cleric

[jcow79]

Why do people keep insisting the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens? This is just FALSE. It's been stated over and over and still ignored. There is all sorts of case law involving the use of lethal force. The law draws distinction between someones "dangerousness" and the options for "less intrusive means available" If a person is deemed highly dangerous and less intrusive means are not available or viable then lethal force is permitted. End of story. This whole "unconstitutional because he's American" nonsense is bullshit.

The issues I see is more along the lines of what Edi pointed out. What has he actually done? What evidence do we actually have? If the evidence is solid, and means to apprehend are not available but means to kill are, then adios.

[Gigaliel]

Bit of a tangent, but:

It's been stated several times, but what does "police action instead of military action" mean?

I've seen people bring up the Troubles* as an analogy but the opposing sides weren't on opposite sides of the planet, among other things.

*This also implies the most successful strategy will take ~40 years, but I digress.

[LMSx]

From one of Keith Olbermann's segments on this, a relevant fact: American citizens have been killed in anti-terror strikes before. Merely having someone in the same building as you who was born in America doesn't give terrorists some sort of Kryptonite immunity to military attack. Again, this is for attacks while the guy is at a dinner table, with no possible definition of "dangerous" that justifies the sort of battlefield killing.

If the US President has the inherent authority to have me executed on his whim, what can't he do?

[Knife]

Why do people keep insisting the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens? This is just FALSE. It's been stated over and over and still ignored. There is all sorts of case law involving the use of lethal force. The law draws distinction between someones "dangerousness" and the options for "less intrusive means available" If a person is deemed highly dangerous and less intrusive means are not available or viable then lethal force is permitted. End of story. This whole "unconstitutional because he's American" nonsense is bullshit.

The issues I see is more along the lines of what Edi pointed out. What has he actually done? What evidence do we actually have? If the evidence is solid, and means to apprehend are not available but means to kill are, then adios.

Red herring. It is not that they can't ever, but there are protections put into place for the citizen. Obama is side stepping those, or at the very least making it seem very much so that he's side stepping those.

[jcow79]

Red herring. It is not that they can't ever, but there are protections put into place for the citizen. Obama is side stepping those, or at the very least making it seem very much so that he's side stepping those.

Strawman. We are talking about the circumstances when a government does INDEED have these rights. No one is advocating this should be SOP for dealing with people the government doesn't like. It's about people that are clearly demonstrated to be extremely dangerous and less intrusive means to apprehend do not exist.

I'm attacking the black & white fallacy that's being used to claim the government has NO constitutional right to kill an American citizen that has been deemed extremely dangerous.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So he's a criminal who's difficult to get to. That does not excuse resorting to killing him when he isn't an imminent threat.

Just because he isn't immediately in the process of planning or carrying out an operation against US citizens or military personnel does not mean he isn't an imminent threat.

You do understand that a mass murder is an imminent threat as long as they are free, right? Regardless if at this very moment they are eating a bag of chips.

I would. I don't give a damn where this bloke was born - I object to treating criminals as though they're soldiers.

Why does the title matter? The only thing that matters is their actions. If the title is all you're hanging onto then that is pretty sad.

I used the serial killer example because the threat is similar - they've both been responsible for large numbers of deaths and will probably continue to be so. However, fundamentally there shouldn't be a difference between terrorists and shoplifters. They don't magically become exempt from due process simply because they're more dangerous.

No, not magically. Logically. Due process isn't held at a higher level than an innocents life. You seem to think they are equal. I tried to show you that they aren't by citing US law enforcement examples, but it still isn't getting through your skull.

Then what about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or Mullah Berader. Arresting these characters is difficult, but it's been done.

You crack me up. Exactly what makes you think they weren't on a kill list? In fact, this very example demonstrates that the opponents in this thread are being paranoid.

If you need an example then I give you Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. BOOM!

He's not a soldier by any description. He doesn't represent any state, recognised or otherwise, he doesn't wear identifying marks or symbols, he doesn't carry arms openly.

Planning out missions against national interests makes you a wartime combatant. He's a terrorist in a situation fighting against a country that has declared war on terrorism. Maybe he isn't a soldier by the traditional definition, but he's still an enemy of the country.

Which is exactly the same as trying to catch any other criminal albeit, as I've said many time, catching this particular bunch is exceptionally difficult.

Not just difficult. Every day you allow opportunities to eliminate this threat either by termination or capture you put your own people at risk.

A reasonable assumption, in my opinion. The authorisation implies that the preferred solution is shoot on sight, even if he isn't posing an immediate threat.

Based on what? Your gut feeling?

This is probably a national difference of approach. Over here, the police are only permitted to open fire if the individual poses an immediate threat. Running away doesn't cut it.

I think you should do some research. You might be surprised what laws are in place when dealing with persons who are a threat to the commmunity, and if your country doesn't have those laws then frankly I find that disgusting. Due process is not equal to the right for an innocent person to live. If the subject in our OP wants to have a trial then he can turn himself in, and if a serial killer wants to have a trial then he to can turn himself in. However, if presented with the opportunity to kill either the OP subject or a serial killer when capture is either too risky or not available then I don't see how any self respecting person or country could not do that.

[Bakustra]

Red herring. It is not that they can't ever, but there are protections put into place for the citizen. Obama is side stepping those, or at the very least making it seem very much so that he's side stepping those.

Strawman. We are talking about the circumstances when a government does INDEED have these rights. No one is advocating this should be SOP for dealing with people the government doesn't like. It's about people that are clearly demonstrated to be extremely dangerous and less intrusive means to apprehend do not exist.

I'm attacking the black & white fallacy that's being used to claim the government has NO constitutional right to kill an American citizen that has been deemed extremely dangerous.

So could you point to the case law which allows the US government to execute people without due process of law? I would like case numbers for Findlaw, if you please. Note that the mere presence of a statute is not enough for a contentious measure like this; case law is necessary to determine if it is constitutional.

[jcow79]

So could you point to the case law which allows the US government to execute people without due process of law? I would like case numbers for Findlaw, if you please. Note that the mere presence of a statute is not enough for a contentious measure like this; case law is necessary to determine if it is constitutional.

I believe the current standards were set in Tennessee v. Garner

[Bakustra]

So could you point to the case law which allows the US government to execute people without due process of law? I would like case numbers for Findlaw, if you please. Note that the mere presence of a statute is not enough for a contentious measure like this; case law is necessary to determine if it is constitutional.

I believe the current standards were set in Tennessee v. Garner

Ah, so the Supreme Court requires that the individual be committing a capital crime(which means that this is only applicable to federal law enforcement and states with the death penalty), only refers to policemen, and involves a suspect being chased. This may only be done in the case of the individual being an immediate danger to people around him, and falls under the reasonable person standard to determine if it is impractical to capture him. I cannot think of any of these that apply to said cleric. Further, there is a due process of law to determine whether the officer acted properly, and if he did not, then he has in fact committed either manslaughter or murder in the second degree, depending on the situation. Close, but no cigar, as the saying goes.

[Garibaldi]

f the subject in our OP wants to have a trial then he can turn himself in

Yeah, a guy who's been marked for execution by a government death squad despite never actually being charged with any crime should willingly turn himself in to that government, which incidentally routinely locks innocent people in secret prisons for years on the basis of absolutely no evidence, and, oh yeah, occasionally tortures them to death.

That's reasonable.

[jcow79]

Ah, so the Supreme Court requires that the individual be committing a capital crime(which means that this is only applicable to federal law enforcement and states with the death penalty), only refers to policemen, and involves a suspect being chased. This may only be done in the case of the individual being an immediate danger to people around him, and falls under the reasonable person standard to determine if it is impractical to capture him. I cannot think of any of these that apply to said cleric. Further, there is a due process of law to determine whether the officer acted properly, and if he did not, then he has in fact committed either manslaughter or murder in the second degree, depending on the situation. Close, but no cigar, as the saying goes.

The case makes no requirements of a capital crime being commited or chase being neccessary. Are you lying now or just illiterate? Over and over again it references deadly force being permitted when the individual poses a threat to others if allowed to remain uncaptured. Here's a direct quote.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12]   feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

(post made from my phone. Please forgive spelling and grammar)

[LaCroix]

That is like 'Terrorist monopoly'

You got american passport - congratulations! Do NOT get a bomb dropped on your head, do NOT get shot on sight, get maybe arrested sometime and go straigt to jail, instead of Guantanamo. Do NOT get waterboarded enhanced interrogation, and do get a trial sometimes instead of being held indefinitely without.

If the Us would follow the letter of law, they would call the country, put forward the evidence they have and have that country arrest the culprits and try them or extradite them to the Us to be tried there.
The Us have not acted within any legal bounds in this whole war on terror bullshit, but suddenly it should do so, because the culprit has the right passport.

It is disgusting how many bigots sit here and cry foul when the US is doing onto its own citizens as it did onto others. You should be ashamed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is disgusting how many bigots sit here and cry foul when the US is doing onto its own citizens as it did onto others. You should be ashamed.

Slow down there, Turbo. I'm reasonably sure those protesting this action probably also protest this action against non-americans.

[Captain Seafort]

Just because he isn't immediately in the process of planning or carrying out an operation against US citizens or military personnel does not mean he isn't an imminent threat.

Let's clarify something then. Imminent threat = him shooting at someone or pointing a weapon at someone.

Why does the title matter? The only thing that matters is their actions. If the title is all you're hanging onto then that is pretty sad.

Then why do you make any effort to catch any criminals, rather than just shooting on sight? Soldiers are not committing crimes by shooting at enemies of their country. They're simply going their jobs and obeying the orders of their chain of command. Terrorists are, because they are indiscriminate and are not acting on behalf of a country.

You crack me up. Exactly what makes you think they weren't on a kill list?

Utterly irrelevant - you complained about it being too difficult to try and arrest this bunch. I proved that wrong because those two were arrested.

Planning out missions against national interests makes you a wartime combatant.

No, it doesn't. I never said he wasn't a threat - I said he wasn't a soldier, he's just a dangerous criminal. A soldier has specific rights under international law, whereas a criminal does not (or rather, fewer and different rights). Was McVeigh, for example, a soldier? If he wasn't, what's the difference between him and AQ? Either he was a criminal, in which case AQ should get exactly the same treatment he got (i.e. arrested, charged and tried), or he wasn't, in which case the US violated international law by executing him after his capture.

You might be surprised what laws are in place when dealing with persons who are a threat to the commmunity, and if your country doesn't have those laws then frankly I find that disgusting.

And I find the existence of those laws and the US 2nd Amendment disgusting.

Due process is not equal to the right for an innocent person to live. If the subject in our OP wants to have a trial then he can turn himself in, and if a serial killer wants to have a trial then he to can turn himself in. However, if presented with the opportunity to kill either the OP subject or a serial killer when capture is either too risky or not available then I don't see how any self respecting person or country could not do that.

And I don't see how any self respecting country can kill criminals who aren't an immediate threat, or elevate said criminals to the status of soldiers.

[Captain Seafort]

It is disgusting how many bigots sit here and cry foul when the US is doing onto its own citizens as it did onto others. You should be ashamed.

Slow down there, Turbo. I'm reasonably sure those protesting this action probably also protest this action against non-americans.

Indeed. I don't care what sort of foreigner this bloke is (or if he were a Brit for that matter). My biggest beef with the shoot-on-sight routine is that it elevates common crooks to the level of soldiers. It's the same problem as the whole concept of the War on Terror - it gives AQ a degree of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Dealing with them using the same process as a shoplifter hammers home the point that they're merely a bunch of crooks, noe matter now dangerous.

[Tiriol]

It is disgusting how many bigots sit here and cry foul when the US is doing onto its own citizens as it did onto others. You should be ashamed.

Why is it bigoted to think that USA would and should treat its own citizens - the very people on which its existence depends upon and which is explained by their continued presence and support - differently? In ideal world, every nation everywhere would treat everyone with every courtesy there is and equally fairly and justly, but since this is not, in fact, an ideal world, at least we should expect a country that has defined itself as opposed to terror and terrorism and as a defender of its people's freedom, protection, constitutional rights and lives - especially when there's a president in charge whose whole campaign platform was all about change and hope. Now I don't know about you, but this doesn't fill me with much hope nor does it look like a change (at least for the better).

[Kamakazie Sith]

Let's clarify something then. Imminent threat = him shooting at someone or pointing a weapon at someone.

No, I don't agree with that clarification. Example - An at large serial killer is an imminent threat until neutralized. If you must then we can simply use the language provided in the court ruling for Tennesse vs. Garner. In fact, that's much easier to go with. Let's replace imminent with "poses".

Then why do you make any effort to catch any criminals, rather than just shooting on sight? Soldiers are not committing crimes by shooting at enemies of their country. They're simply going their jobs and obeying the orders of their chain of command. Terrorists are, because they are indiscriminate and are not acting on behalf of a country.

You're still holding on to the simplistic "if you should do it this way for this circumstance then you should do it this way for all! RAWR!" Terrorists are a threat to life as long as they remain at large. What part about that do you not understand? Why does the title grant them special rights when they are carrying out the same acts that soldiers do in wartime operations?

Utterly irrelevant - you complained about it being too difficult to try and arrest this bunch. I proved that wrong because those two were arrested.

Yes, I did. Your examples do not contradict that. Now if I made the claim that it was impossible or never done then your example would be relevant. My position is that killing them is perferable to allowing them to escape and continue killing our people or soldiers. You and a few others are having a hilariously difficult time grasping this concept.

No, it doesn't. I never said he wasn't a threat - I said he wasn't a soldier, he's just a dangerous criminal. A soldier has specific rights under international law, whereas a criminal does not (or rather, fewer and different rights). Was McVeigh, for example, a soldier? If he wasn't, what's the difference between him and AQ? Either he was a criminal, in which case AQ should get exactly the same treatment he got (i.e. arrested, charged and tried), or he wasn't, in which case the US violated international law by executing him after his capture.

The difference has been mentioned time and time and time and time again. It is starting get old constantly repeating it. Resources for capturing criminals in the United States are very much available, however, exceptions are available in US law when the arrest will be defeated by escape or deadly force on part of the criminal.

Now, those resources are not adequately available within a reasonable amount of time to capture terrorists in foreign countries, especially countries that are sympathetic to terrorist goals. However, as you've shown when they are available then these people will be captured rather than killed. So, again you disproved your own concern that you think they'll shoot rather than capture. Thank you!

Also, I'm dropping the soldier thing. You're right. They don't meet the definition of soldier. However, they are criminals fighting a war which makes them enemy combatants and that makes them subject to military action. It is kind of sad that you feel soldiers should have less rights than criminals.

Your logic - If you're a soldier on the battlefield then it is fine to have an enemy target and destroy you. However, if you are a terrorist operating in a war fighting capacity then you must be hunted down and captured and provided with a fair trial regardless of how many lives you end in the meantime.

And I find the existence of those laws and the US 2nd Amendment disgusting.

Indeed, there are laws in the US that I also find disgusting. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a distinction you brought up where in your country (?) the criminal has more rights than potential victims. Where the right to due process is held in higher regard then the lives of innocents.

And I don't see how any self respecting country can kill criminals who aren't an immediate threat, or elevate said criminals to the status of soldiers.

If the intel is accurate then he is an immediate threat. Just as a serial killer running away from a cop is an immediate threat should he escape.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is disgusting how many bigots sit here and cry foul when the US is doing onto its own citizens as it did onto others. You should be ashamed.

Slow down there, Turbo. I'm reasonably sure those protesting this action probably also protest this action against non-americans.

Indeed. I don't care what sort of foreigner this bloke is (or if he were a Brit for that matter). My biggest beef with the shoot-on-sight routine is that it elevates common crooks to the level of soldiers. It's the same problem as the whole concept of the War on Terror - it gives AQ a degree of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Dealing with them using the same process as a shoplifter hammers home the point that they're merely a bunch of crooks, noe matter now dangerous.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck...

Are these criminals engaged in planning and executing combat operations against US soldiers? Yes. Then that makes them enemy combatants and subject to the rules of engagement.

[Sarevok]

Claims about this being a less than ideal world only come to play if this were a real war. I repeat this is not a real war like those between nations. The enemy is barely even defined clearly and he is pathetically weak, There is no condition for victory and no end to fighting in sight. What do America have to lose here by putting principles above expediency ? How can you suffer setbacks in a war on terror when you do not even know what constitutes losing and winning ?

[Yogi]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Your solution to the problem of car accidents is to ensure people have less experience driving? While 24% of all accidents occur with the under-25 group, is that because young adults are inherently horrible drivers (and they don't have any respect for their elders either), or because they are still novice drivers? Or is it both? In two of these three situations, you have not done anything to solve the problem, but have merely shifted it so that said 24% becomes part of the 24-32 age range. You also ignore logistics. What of young adults who are gainfully employed and need to drive to their place of work? They would have to be carpooled by parents or older relatives, which is a strain on the family, in particular if the hours of work don't coincide well. The US is simply not laid out in a way that would allow most of the population to go carless, which is my point. Reducing the amount of people who drive essentially makes them unemployable in most of the US, or else dependent on carpools. In short, your methods are, hilariously, about as effective as "kill 'em all" approaches to terrorism; you create as many problems as you solve.

Fine, we'll go with your idea of completely rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. As long as it costs less than 900 billion dollars and lowers traffic accidents by at least 2%, it's still more effective than our terrorist crusade.

The U.S. is not Israel. We do not have a history, in the twentieth century, of violently annexing our neighbors' land and oppressing the native inhabitants, which is what precipitates anti-Israel terrorism. We can resolve the problem of terrorism far more easily than suburbification. Here's a suggestion: avoid making ourselves a target, make strategic use of propaganda campaigns, and treating anti-terrorism efforts as police work rather than military action.

Sooo . . . . we're in agreement? Thanks?

Ah, so claiming that terrorism is a nonexistent, or at least practically so, threat is the best way to convince people that using assassinations is a bad idea. I don't know how I didn't take note of such an amazing thinker like you earlier!

It IS insignificant. Before and after 2001, the number of US civilian deaths from terrorism rarely went into the double digits. Most of the deaths from Terrorism is from the wars fighting them.

Okay, you see, this was playing off your "insert random insult here" little bundle of love and happiness, since apparently "snide" is the wrong word to use. Your little comment there is something a number of people do, wherein they declare "lol stardestroyer.net am I right people?" in the middle of a thread where they disagree with what people are saying. I find that almost as annoying as anything else people complain about in fellow posters, frankly.

OK.

[Bakustra]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Your solution to the problem of car accidents is to ensure people have less experience driving? While 24% of all accidents occur with the under-25 group, is that because young adults are inherently horrible drivers (and they don't have any respect for their elders either), or because they are still novice drivers? Or is it both? In two of these three situations, you have not done anything to solve the problem, but have merely shifted it so that said 24% becomes part of the 24-32 age range. You also ignore logistics. What of young adults who are gainfully employed and need to drive to their place of work? They would have to be carpooled by parents or older relatives, which is a strain on the family, in particular if the hours of work don't coincide well. The US is simply not laid out in a way that would allow most of the population to go carless, which is my point. Reducing the amount of people who drive essentially makes them unemployable in most of the US, or else dependent on carpools. In short, your methods are, hilariously, about as effective as "kill 'em all" approaches to terrorism; you create as many problems as you solve.

Fine, we'll go with your idea of completely rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. As long as it costs less than 900 billion dollars and lowers traffic accidents by at least 2%, it's still more effective than our terrorist crusade.

Thank you for agreeing that your idea was a stupid one.

The U.S. is not Israel. We do not have a history, in the twentieth century, of violently annexing our neighbors' land and oppressing the native inhabitants, which is what precipitates anti-Israel terrorism. We can resolve the problem of terrorism far more easily than suburbification. Here's a suggestion: avoid making ourselves a target, make strategic use of propaganda campaigns, and treating anti-terrorism efforts as police work rather than military action.

Sooo . . . . we're in agreement? Thanks?

No, you were comparing the US to Israel in the point I was responding to, saying that terrorism was something much harder to reduce than. Learn how to store the contents of your posting in long-term memory, if you please.

Ah, so claiming that terrorism is a nonexistent, or at least practically so, threat is the best way to convince people that using assassinations is a bad idea. I don't know how I didn't take note of such an amazing thinker like you earlier!

It IS insignificant. Before and after 2001, the number of US civilian deaths from terrorism rarely went into the double digits. Most of the deaths from Terrorism is from the wars fighting them.

Curiously enough, people are talking about the implications, moral and legal, of ordering someone assassinated. Charging in with a grandiose, crimson example of Clupea pallassi is a non sequitur, akin to barging into a thread on the practicality of this rocket engine or another with "we'll never get into space anyways, so stop talking about it". It's therefore bizarre for someone to use this to attack the idea of using assassinations against citizens or in lieu of a trial/military action, especially since it is contingent on current or near-current situations. Am I to take it that you would support "throwing out the Constitution" if terrorism were actually a significant threat? I doubt that this is the case, which is why I denounce your argument.

[Captain Seafort]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck...

Are these criminals engaged in planning and executing combat operations against US soldiers? Yes. Then that makes them enemy combatants and subject to the rules of engagement.

And if they ever decide to fulfil the Geneva criteria for soldiers - distinguishing mark recognisable at a distance, carrying weapons openly and organised command structure then they can be treated like soldiers - including releasing them when the Afghan war is over. Until such time they should be treated like the criminals they are, regardless of what they or you might like pretend they are.

No, I don't agree with that clarification. Example - An at large serial killer is an imminent threat until neutralized. If you must then we can simply use the language provided in the court ruling for Tennesse vs. Garner. In fact, that's much easier to go with. Let's replace imminent with "poses".

A serial killer is an imminent threat because he is amongst his potential victims, and even then he would not be killed unless he posed an immediate threat, the definition of which I provided. A drunk or speeding driver also poses a threat to life - a far more imminent one than some terrorist in a cave. Do you therefore propose equipping police helicopters with Hellfires?

Incidentally, what exactly is the language of this court ruling you cite?

You're still holding on to the simplistic "if you should do it this way for this circumstance then you should do it this way for all! RAWR!" Terrorists are a threat to life as long as they remain at large. What part about that do you not understand?

I understand it just fine. This does not remove their right to due process.

Why does the title grant them special rights when they are carrying out the same acts that soldiers do in wartime operations?

It grants them different rights, including the right to due process, because they aren't soldiers - I gave the definition of such above. The fact that you evidently don't like the fact doesn't change it. It also removes certain rights, such the fact that if you treat them as soldiers you can't put them on trial for attacking and/or killing US soldiers. If you treat them as criminals then they can be tried for murder/attempted murder.

My position is that killing them is perferable to allowing them to escape and continue killing our people or soldiers. You and a few others are having a hilariously difficult time grasping this concept.

And my position is that treating crooks as crooks, denying them the status they want and the propaganda value that goes with it (i.e. that they're soldiers fighting an heroic war against the evil murdering Americans) is preferable to throw the rules out the window simply because it's very difficult. Look at the Troubles for example - the UK treated the IRA as criminals and, while it took a long time, we won. Bombing the Republic would simply have pissed off a lot of people and made the problem ten times worse, as Bush to a degree and Obama to a far greater degree have do with the drone war.

The difference has been mentioned time and time and time and time again. It is starting get old constantly repeating it.

I wouldn't have to repeat it if you gave some indication that you've understood it.

Resources for capturing criminals in the United States are very much available, however, exceptions are available in US law when the arrest will be defeated by escape or deadly force on part of the criminal.

In other words, if you think someone's guilty and you can't catch up, just shoot them. I'm glad I'm not in the States.

However, as you've shown when they are available then these people will be captured rather than killed. So, again you disproved your own concern that you think they'll shoot rather than capture. Thank you!

It's not the mere fact that they're shooting as an alternative, it's that they're shooting when they're not an immediate threat.

Also, I'm dropping the soldier thing. You're right. They don't meet the definition of soldier. However, they are criminals fighting a war which makes them enemy combatants and that makes them subject to military action. It is kind of sad that you feel soldiers should have less rights than criminals.

It makes them subject to military action when they're shooting. In which case I have no problem with them getting the kitchen sink thrown at them. The issue of whether they get more rights is highly debatable. It's true that they have a right to due process, but all you're allowed to do with soldiers is to lock them up (in pretty comfortable conditions compared to prison, AKAIK) until the war's over, at which time they must be released. Criminals you can try and if found guilty either lock up or execute

Indeed, there are laws in the US that I also find disgusting. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a distinction you brought up where in your country (?) the criminal has more rights than potential victims. Where the right to due process is held in higher regard then the lives of innocents.

Because until you have a guilty verdict there's this little thing called presumption of innocence. While there are many cases, the gentleman in question being one of them, where a guilty verdict is all but assured, until that verdict is delivered then you must work under the possibility that the bloke you're chasing isn't guilty, either because of mistaken identity or no crime being committed.

If the intel is accurate then he is an immediate threat.

And if the intel is wrong then you've blown up the wrong bloke, either because it wasn't him or because he isn't guilty. The problem with intelligence-led operations is that they're a) non-public, for obvious reasons and b) don't have a great track record recently (Iraq, anyone?). Arresting him allows the acquisition of other intelligence (computers, notes, whatever) which are both admissible in court (i.e. in the public domain) and can confirm or refute the arrested individuals guilt.

Just as a serial killer running away from a cop is an immediate threat should he escape.

No he isn't. He's a threat, certainly, but immediate, in the English I understand, means right fucking now, not in hours, days or weeks.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And if they ever decide to fulfil the Geneva criteria for soldiers - distinguishing mark recognisable at a distance, carrying weapons openly and organised command structure then they can be treated like soldiers - including releasing them when the Afghan war is over. Until such time they should be treated like the criminals they are, regardless of what they or you might like pretend they are.

What does that have to do with them still being subject to the rules of engagement in a warzone? Would you care to point to the citation in the Geneva convention that states enemy combatants who aren't soldiers are exempt from rules of engagement?

A serial killer is an imminent threat because he is amongst his potential victims, and even then he would not be killed unless he posed an immediate threat, the definition of which I provided. A drunk or speeding driver also poses a threat to life - a far more imminent one than some terrorist in a cave. Do you therefore propose equipping police helicopters with Hellfires?

Hey, fuck face. If you aren't going to pay attention to the thread then get the fuck out. It has already been covered numerous times that an unarmed criminal could legally be killed while trying to escape if the peace officer has probable cause that they pose a danger to the community.

Your logic is retarded. A drunk driver is not maliciously setting out to murder people, and therefore not the same. A speeding driver is not setting out to murder people, and therefore not the same! In an effort to try and mock this discussion you are making yourself look like an idiot by demonstrating that you think drunk drivers, speeders, shoplifters, and mass murders all fall into the same criminal category.

Incidentally, what exactly is the language of this court ruling you cite?

Link

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22.

Even though the officer in this case was found to have used excessive force (because the criminal was unarmed and no probable cause existed that he was a danger to the community) the court ruled that a peace officer could use deadly force to prevent escape of an unarmed person who the peace officer had probable cause posed a danger to the community if allowed to escape.

I understand it just fine. This does not remove their right to due process.

Based on what law? Law, as cited in the article, and the US criminal law both support the use of deadly force against persons such as the subject in the OP.

It grants them different rights, including the right to due process, because they aren't soldiers - I gave the definition of such above. The fact that you evidently don't like the fact doesn't change it. It also removes certain rights, such the fact that if you treat them as soldiers you can't put them on trial for attacking and/or killing US soldiers. If you treat them as criminals then they can be tried for murder/attempted murder.

You gave the definition. You did not cite the law. Again, I'd like you to cite the law that states the subject in our OP is not subject to military action when engaged in wartime operations against the United States. You may cite either the appropriate Geneva Convention article or US Criminal Law.

And my position is that treating crooks as crooks, denying them the status they want and the propaganda value that goes with it (i.e. that they're soldiers fighting an heroic war against the evil murdering Americans) is preferable to throw the rules out the window simply because it's very difficult. Look at the Troubles for example - the UK treated the IRA as criminals and, while it took a long time, we won. Bombing the Republic would simply have pissed off a lot of people and made the problem ten times worse, as Bush to a degree and Obama to a far greater degree have do with the drone war.

What rules are being thrown out the window? Last time I checked you hadn't cited any law, or rules. You've cited ideals such as due process, but no law. You'll probably cite the fifth amendment of the constitution. However, keep in mind Tennessee v. Garner shows that due process doesn't take priority over the preservation of innocent life.

I wouldn't have to repeat it if you gave some indication that you've understood it.

You asked what the difference was between a McVeigh and AQ. Both are criminals, however, one is much easier to capture. Both could be killed unarmed if apprehension was not possible. What puts our OP subject in greater danger is that he is a violent criminal operating in an area where capture might not be possible when/if he is located.

In other words, if you think someone's guilty and you can't catch up, just shoot them. I'm glad I'm not in the States.

It's not what I think, but what is legal in the US. You do know what probable cause is, right? You would need probable cause that your subject poses a danger to the community if allowed to escape.

The other option for violent criminals is to not try and escape. Crazy concept, I know!

It's not the mere fact that they're shooting as an alternative, it's that they're shooting when they're not an immediate threat.

You have I have different opinions on what constitutes immediate. Someone who plans deadly operations is an immediate threat. However, I'm more than happy to take the position of the courts and concede the use of the word immediate rebase my argument off that of Tennessee v. Garner.

It makes them subject to military action when they're shooting. In which case I have no problem with them getting the kitchen sink thrown at them. The issue of whether they get more rights is highly debatable. It's true that they have a right to due process, but all you're allowed to do with soldiers is to lock them up (in pretty comfortable conditions compared to prison, AKAIK) until the war's over, at which time they must be released. Criminals you can try and if found guilty either lock up or execute

It makes them subject to military action period. Whether that action be capture or kill. Perhaps, he should just go back to being a propoganda pusher for AQ instead of taking part in operations.

Because until you have a guilty verdict there's this little thing called presumption of innocence. While there are many cases, the gentleman in question being one of them, where a guilty verdict is all but assured, until that verdict is delivered then you must work under the possibility that the bloke you're chasing isn't guilty, either because of mistaken identity or no crime being committed.

In most cases that is true when you're dealing with non-violent criminals. In the case of violent criminals then the likelyhood of future victims should be considered when deciding to act.

And if the intel is wrong then you've blown up the wrong bloke, either because it wasn't him or because he isn't guilty. The problem with intelligence-led operations is that they're a) non-public, for obvious reasons and b) don't have a great track record recently (Iraq, anyone?). Arresting him allows the acquisition of other intelligence (computers, notes, whatever) which are both admissible in court (i.e. in the public domain) and can confirm or refute the arrested individuals guilt.

Like I said before this discussion is operating off the assumption that the intel is accurate. If it isn't or hasn't been verified then I don't support a kill order. This discussion is also about whether or not a government can kill one of its citizens without due process.

No he isn't. He's a threat, certainly, but immediate, in the English I understand, means right fucking now, not in hours, days or weeks.

See Tennessee vs. Garner.

[eyl]

If the Us would follow the letter of law, they would call the country, put forward the evidence they have and have that country arrest the culprits and try them or extradite them to the Us to be tried there.

What if the country in question refuses to arrest him? (Or doesn't control the territory enough to do so even if they want to?)

This question is addressed to everyone, no just LaCroix. People are arguing that terrorists are criminals rather than combatants (except in actual combat) and thus should be arrested if possible. While I'm not completely opposed to that viepoint, it ignores a significant problem - police powers can only be executed if law and order in the area in question is above a certain threshold.

To given an analogy - do you think the police/courts could or would operate like they currently do in LA if attempts to make arrests were routinely answered by hails of RPGs?

[Captain Seafort]

What if the country in question refuses to arrest him? (Or doesn't control the territory enough to do so even if they want to?)

Then you're fucked.

To given an analogy - do you think the police/courts could or would operate like they currently do in LA if attempts to make arrests were routinely answered by hails of RPGs?

No - warrants would be executed with armoured infantry support, and if the subject of said warrant was among those doing the shooting then it's his lookout.