The Glade 4.0

That is my basic argument, this policy is no different than a police officer killing someone because they are perceived as a clear threat to others. By the same token the issue is not black and white, if you kill a man holding a gun to someone elses head and that gun turns out to be fake or unloaded they were not in hindsight a threat to anyone. If someone posts on the internet that they are going to blow up a bridge and are found parked under a bridge with explosives they are presenting a clear threat to others even if their intention was not to blow up the bridge.

The first example is justified homicide, the second is assassination?



Agree with that completely.



Here is where it falls apart for me. The Fort Hood shootings were not part of an insurrection or invasion but I don't think anyone would argue it wasn't a terrorist-sympathetic attack. If the military knew his plans and had opportunity to kill him (assuming he couldn't be arrested) then in hindsight would anyone fault them for doing so?

_________________

Insert flippant comment here.

But really, once more, listen to DE. You are taking stuff out of context and he is trying to put context back around it. Nothing lives in a vacuum, at least, not for long.

Hopwin makes a good point as well.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Ok, the problem is that a guy who posts he is going to blow up a bridge and is eating lunch at McDonalds is not a clear threat.



A guy who is under a brige with explosives has a weapon he is directly threatening people with; both anyone on the bridge and anyone coming to arrest him. However, if he has no other weapon, law enforcement would still probably close the bridge and try to talk him out. The exact circumstances would dictate.

Note that both your "clear threat to others" examples involve someone using an actual weapon. That doesn't translate all that well to terrorist activities until the actual attack is conducted, although it could. If, for example, a terrorist camp has an S-200 missile battery set up to threaten aircraft, that would be the equivalent of pointing a gun at people, although even then there are other considerations that don't exist for the average criminal; for example is the search radar on? Tracking radar? Is it locked on?

Really, the answer is it doesn't matter; attacking targets in foriegn countries by military means is national defense. We do not need to follow the niceties of law enforcement. If an American is at some location that would otherwise be a legitimate target that's his own fault (unless we're talking about hostages, but that isn't exactly germane to the issue; that just complicates the tactical situation and changes our goals in attacking); if he's not at a location that's otherwise legit, then what is he really doing that makes him a threat?

This is only one of hundreds of examples, and principles from civilian law enforcement do not always translate well.



Yes, and rightly so. The only way he "couldn't be arrested" is if he were using a weapon to threaten others and thereby keep the cops at bay. In that case he could be killed just like the liquor store robber. If it's on a military installation, the MPs can shoot him; if not, civilian law enforcement can. He's one guy. If he kills himself to avoid arrest... well, problem solved.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Totally agree, if someone is just ranting then there is no justifiable way to take his/her life without a clear danger.


If the explosives in his vehicle are for legitimate purposes and he's just an arrogant/beligerent *** who feels laws don't apply to him and ingores or incenses the police? I still say he presents an immeninent threat even if his own personal intentions are not to be one. Others would argue otherwise.


Again, wholeheartedly agree. If you are in bed with the enemy it is your own ***. I feel the same way about people who knowingly hang out with criminals in civilian life. If you don't want to go to jail or be hassled by police don't hang out with criminals.

_________________

Ok, really, if a guy has been threatening to blow up a bridge and is under a bridge with explosives, what do you think are the chances he's just a belligerant *** and they're for his own use? Physically possible? Yes. However, that's why the most preferred method would be to get him out, arrest him, and give him a trial. If he's threatening to blow up anyone who comes to arrest him, that's another crime in and of itself.

He does present an imminent threat, but the exact nature of the threat is not the same as a man with a gun. Ok, he's an imminent threat. However, not all threts require the same tactics to deal with them. If he just ignores the police, ok, how long is he going to sit under the bridge? Until he dies of thirst?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The question of whether to shoot someone is a tactical one, and the exact details of the situation dictate tactics. No two guys with explosives under a bridge will be the same. Some may need to be shot, others not.

[/quote]

I agree, but that's mainly because people who hang out with criminals tend to be criminals; their protestations of innocence notwithstanding; they tend to hinge on "well I didn't do the same crime he did.". However, that's why we have courts. If you really just got arrested for hanging out with a criminal chances are good that you'll walk.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Don't three or four people on this board come to mind who would refuse to obey a police order, solely on principle, if they believed they were in the legal or "moral" right?

_________________

They talk about it. However, I don't know any of them to have actually done it, much less while having a truckload of explosives.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've refused police orders in the past. I also refuse to speak to a police officer on duty 99% of the time.

_________________

Safe.


Hopwin:

It is clear cut, and no such "smoking gun" scenarios exist. They're fabrications to convince you to cede liberty.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I thought we just proved they happen every day to the police? Also Fort Hood was thrown out there as another example.

_________________

1) What police officer has encountered a "terrorist" under a bridge with a bomb; or holding a gun to someone.
2) Fort Hood is not a correlation in any way. That was a terrorist engaged in a terrorist act. Having shot him is not assassination.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It doesn't matter if a guy under a bridge or holding a gun to someone is a terrorist or not; you're going to shoot him or not based on the situation in order to end the threat with as little loss of life and property damage as is practical.



I think he means before the guy started shooting up the place.

In any case, it doesn't matter if the guy was a terrorist or not. If you find out he's about to go shoot up a place, arrest him. He's not any different than the Virginia Tech shooter just because he's a terrorist. That's his motivation. Shooting him versus arresting him is a tactical decision and is based on the situation at the time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

1) You don't have police standoffs where you live?

2) If he had left a note stating his intentions would you have argued if they had gunned him down the moment he stepped onto the base with his weapons?

_________________

It should be noted here that the Fort Hood situation is a singularly bad example because it involves someone attacking the military itself, and therefore the self-defense of the military and its individual members is being confused with using it, or law enforcement to go out and proactively kill people.

I would have a problem if they simply gunned him down simply because they could capture him if they knew he was coming. Fort Hood has 5 full heavy brigades. It would be simple to put armored vehicles at every gate and just snatch him up when he came in. They did precisely that after 9/11; the gate I came in had an M1A1 with its main gun aimed at the traffic control point. What's he going to do, go out in a blaze of glory shooting at armored vehiles with a pistol. Problem solved, and then it's clearly self defense; and at elast he had the chance to surrender.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not with terrorists.



Um, yes.



Your first point, like Hopwin's has nothing to do with terrorism, and both points support what I'm saying, albeit indirectly.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's probably because that was the point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ah.

I must've mistaken your position. Apologies.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Hmmm let me try restating this. This "assassination" power already exists and to me is no different than the authority vested in police officers already. If the Federal Government (I am assuming this power impacts military, FBI, NSA, ATF, etc) determines someone is a threat they can eliminate them. Regardless of their citizenship. But the execution of this power is as DE said a tactical one.

_________________

So if police find out someone is planning a bank robbery they kill them rather than getting a warrant for arrest?

Wow that is so interesting, and wrong.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

What you're doing then, is extending the term "threat" to encompass a lot more than it does now. If I'm pointing a gun at you, I'm a threat to you - a clear and present one. If I go have beer with DFK! and talk about buying a gun and shooting you, that's threatening and I'm a potential threat to you.

Yes, there is some grey area between "potential threat" and "clear and present" - that's what we arrest people for. We don't arrest people for talking about killing someone and not actually doing anything, and we don't insist that people wait till they get shot to defend themselves.

It's not any different because someone is a terrorist. That's their motivation. Either they are inside this country doing criminal activity, and are a law enforcement problem, or they are outside this country (or attacking it in a way only the military can deal with, such as flying planes into buildings) and a military problem.

When you start moving the definition of "threat" into "potential threat" territory, you run the risk of it continuing to move that way until it's being used to kill people, say, just because they went on a Hajj.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or because they gave money or legal services to terrorist organizations. I mean, clearly, at that point, they're helping a terrorist, which makes them the same as terrorists, which makes them a threat. We should assassinate them.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Isn't that pretty much what I said? If someone leaves a note saying they've strapped a bomb to their chest and are about to go blow themselves up in a crowd and that person is then spotted in a large crowd with a bulky coat on and maybe a cellphone or detonator in their hand would you kill them? Would you question an army/SWAT sniper for shooting him?

It is beyond me. I'd be inclined to say their statements + what appears to be opportunity & equipment would make it justifiable.

Words alone, no of course not, but words + potentially life-endangering actions does cross that line for me.

_________________

[/quote]

That's where you're getting into trouble. You seem to think that the actions of people overseas working with terrorists are easily translated into equivalent criminal behaviors here.

As a purely practical matter of how they operate, terrorist blur the line between criminal and military. This is aprt of what they rely on for success; they want to be too tough for alw enforcement to handle, but seem weak enough, and blend in with the population enough that using the military seems heavy-handed.

Terrorist activities generally require money, training, and other support to be effective. Sure, any jackass can kill a few people with a gun, but even making small homemade bombs requires some training to avoid killing yourself in the process, and sophisticated attacks require a lot more than that.

Therefore, terrorists spend a lot of time getting things together for the actual terrorizing. That's partly why a lot of terror attacks that seem "easy" don't happen; they aren't all that easy because there's lots of little complexities and problems that most people aren't aware of because they lack tactical training. That's what the terrorists are doing, working out the logistics, funding, training, and other issues to make their super-duper-special attacks work.

Now, are these acts "potentially life-threatening behavior?" Well, yes, eventually they are, but they aren't immediately threatening. If they're being conducted by foriegners, then we drop a bomb on them or send a SEAL team in there or get the nation they're in to do it for us or whatever. That's national defense.

If it's happening here in the U.S. we get a SWAT team together and raid the place or whatever, and we arrest them, and maybe one or two get shot if they try to fight.

All well and good, but the issue here is American citizens on foriegn soil. If they're not actually engaging in some activity that's a threat to life right now, such as, say, shooting missiles at passing airliners, then we can't just start letting the government target them for what they're doing because while learning to make bombs is fairly obviously intent to blow something up, how about just learning to shoot (a totally legal activity here). Or how about just sympathizing with terrorists and wanting to hang out with them? Or arranging money and other support for them? All of these might be arrestable behaviors, but they don't come to the level of needing deadly force. They aren't the same as sitting under the bridge with explosives; they're more like the guy making the explosives in his barn after telling everyone he's going to blow up a bridge. You can't shoot him unless he points a gun at you or something like that; you go in there and arrest him.

Therefore, the government shouldn't be targeting them. Ok, they're over there and we can't arrest them right now, but that's fine, either they stay there and out of the way or we arrest them when they get here.

If an American happens to get blown up or killed in the process of targeting the other terrorists, that's their tough luck (unless they're hostages in which case we'd probably re-think our course of action). Don't hang out with people the U.S. is likely to drop bombs on. If, however, you survive this, the U.S. should not be sending someone to downtown Cairo or wherever to get you because you think it's safer than a terrorist camp in Yemen.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

From page 1:


I am not arguing with anything you said lol

_________________

In that case I have no idea what you're trying to say.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."