# UK, FR target their citizens on kill lists



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I heard an interesting bit on the news today. Britain, France, and the US all target some of their own citizens on kill lists / hit lists. The US is already known to do this (drone strikes etc) and it's controversial. I was surprised to hear that Britain and France also directly target their own citizens who are suspected members of belligerent factions in battles abroad.

IMO this is a problematic policy for many reasons:

- should the state be executing people without trial?
- do certain groups qualify you for state execution, but other groups don't?
- what guarantees are there of fairness and accuracy in the execution process?
- how do we protect against mistakes or malice on the part of govt? what is the public/open review process?
- what is the recourse against mistakes made in govt and intelligence

For example, there are cases of Canadians/Australians/Brits who have gone to the middle east to fight with Group One as well as Group Two. Let's say that One and Two both are engaged with unsavoury terrorist groups, armed militias/armies engaged in active conflict. Say that both One and Two are conducting atrocities, *but the current western policy is to support Two and oppose One*.

Can one justify targeting and killing your citizens who have joined One? Perhaps after the next elections, the government may decide that Two is a hostile enemy as well.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Don't want to get killed............don't go.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

james4beach said:


> ...Can one justify targeting and killing your citizens who have joined One? Perhaps after the next elections, the government may decide that Two is a hostile enemy as well.


Well, at least it's frugal. If there is a mistake, we can always erect a memorial, apologize. You would like a moral clarity in a fog of war. Forget about it, not gonna happen. 

Let me remind you about a Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion. These were Canadians who fought for the Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The Republic was supported by the Soviets. Canadian government declared their participation illegal, took away their passports, etc. The other side was Franco fascist Spain, supported by the Nazi Germany.

The Spanish Civil War ended on September 1, 1939, Franco fascists won. The same day Germany invaded Poland from the west, two weeks later Russia invaded Poland from the east. They met in the middle and celebrated together – military parades, postal stamps issued, etc. GB and France joined in. WWII started.

In Ottawa, across the street from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or whatever it is called today), there is a memorial erected in 2001 to commemorate Canadians who fought in the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

And to go back to the Middle East, we just awarded 10 million dollars to a guy who fought our allies there.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

If a citizen is brandishing a gun aggressively in public the police may feel compelled to kill him without a trial.

If a citizen is sneaking into a nuclear plant with a big duffle bag the armed security may feel compelled to kill him without a trial.

If a citizen is overseas and conducting imminent hostile maneuvers the military may feel compelled to kill him without a trial....

I don't see the difference.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> If a citizen is brandishing a gun aggressively in public the police may feel compelled to kill him without a trial.
> 
> If a citizen is sneaking into a nuclear plant with a big duffle bag the armed security may feel compelled to kill him without a trial.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone disputes the killing of a combatant who's actively engaged in some fire fight or battle overseas, where a citizen happens to be among the people attacking.

What I was talking about are specific government policies where they put a person's name & face on a hit list. Then the government goes out of their way to assassinate him, like with Obama's drone strikes. That's very different, it's a targeted killing. Absolutely unlike someone brandishing a gun and getting shot by police or someone attacking a govt facility with a weapon.

I'm talking about targeted state killings here.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Hmm, well I'm not sure then. What is the situation where one is to be captured/arrested and brought to trial, vs. assassinated? Is it mainly a matter of access?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james, you concept of the rights of the citizenry seems much to absolutist to me ... we trust the enforcers of the law to make these kinds of decisions every day

when a police force decides to take down a suspect, they decide how much of a danger someone poses and what kind of force is needed to stop him right up to just plain killing him if they get the chance ... they make these decisions constantly

if the authorities determine someone is a criminal and presents an imminent harm to the rest of us, they have a responsibility to take him out ... if they can't arrest him and his threat is extreme, then they do what they must do to protect us

you are a touch too precious in your interpretation of individual rights i think

these are not extra-judicial death squads as in the philippines 

the people killed by drones are well documented terrorists


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> james, you concept of the rights of the citizenry seems much to absolutist to me ... we trust the enforcers of the law to make these kinds of decisions every day
> 
> when a police force decides to take down a suspect, they decide how much of a danger someone poses and what kind of force is needed to stop him right up to just plain killing him if they get the chance ... they make these decisions constantly


But we make them with checks and balances. Police forces are investigated. Military commanders are held to account, and have to follow rules of engagement and international agreements relating to war crimes, PoWs, etc. The problem with secretive terrorism-related assassinations of citizens it that they rely on "secret evidence" and are not put through the standard checks & balances.

fatcat, consider this hypothetical scenario:

Let's say Trudeau goes off the deep end of ultra-liberalism. His government decides that the alt-right is a terrorist movement. Forget whether or not this is fair, the point is that the government can make this decision. Now, Canada starts monitoring Canadian citizens who go to alt-right terrorist training and radicalization camps in other countries. They monitor people who support and spread alt-right radicalization propaganda (including some CMF members). The Government of Canada hones in on a couple of suspects, two Canadian citizens who are definitely terrorists (according to secret evidence). One citizen then travels to an eastern European country and is found to be engaging in terrorist militias in, say, Poland. Canada is not at war with Poland. The Government of Canada orders a targeted killing of the Canadian citizen in Poland, without a trial or due process. Maybe it's done by a drone strike or elite task force.

The Government of Canada puts out a press release saying this man was a dangerous terrorist and they had to take him out. The govt also says: the alt right is such a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom that extreme measures are needed, and it's such a clear case of terrorism that there's no room for dispute.

What do you think, fatcat. Are you comfortable with that scenario? You have endorsed it.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

excuse me if i appear to be avoiding the question because i am trying not to ... but

the alt-righters in your scenario are political enemies, they are doing things in poland that our government doesn’t like, they are spreading propaganda, they are consorting with people in poland that our government considers terrorists

but they are not killing or conspiring to kill canadians

the men being killed in the middle east by drones are people directly responsible for terrorist attacks against americans and believe me there are rules and protocols and there are plenty of records kept on who is killed and why and how they are killed

also, there is the issue of political support which in the case of killing terrorists by drones in the middle east by the american government is extremely high

whereas in your scenario, this would be seen as a highly political scenario where the government was targeting poltical enemies ...

the nub of the question is simple i think, do we assign the law enforcers of our government the power to decide how to act against lawbreakers ? and i think the answer is that we do

are you suggesting that we have a mock trial in absentia to determine if someone can be taken out ?

further, are you asserting that if we have direct verifiable evidence that a person is committing terrorist acts against the usa and that we are unable to arrest them and so we should do nothing and allow them to continue their activity when we can stop them with a drone strike ?

i certianly do not

this is going to be a tough sell to citizens of the usa and canada and pretty much most of the western first world james

so, if we have eyes on a terrorist, someone who has killed or intends to kill canadians and we can’t get ahold of him by normal means (i.e. find him, detain him and arrest him) but we know he will try to kill canadians, what exactly do you expect the government to do ? what action should the government then take ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat your tune would change if suddenly you found a different government in power who goes after new "terrorists" of different varieties.

The point of demanding fairness and accountability of government is to preserve our country no matter who is in power, no matter how crazy the government may be. It's a slippery slope and if we start relaxing rules on government, for example, letting them "go ahead and murder citizens who seem like bad dudes" this sets a precedent that can easily be abused by a future government.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> fatcat your tune would change if suddenly you found a different government in power who goes after new "terrorists" of different varieties.
> 
> The point of demanding fairness and accountability of government is to preserve our country no matter who is in power, no matter how crazy the government may be. It's a slippery slope and if we start relaxing rules on government, for example, letting them "go ahead and murder citizens who seem like bad dudes" this sets a precedent that can easily be abused by a future government.


hmm, i was thinking about your post and i was about to make a post referencing the fact that i thought you were thinking about a “slippery slope”

heres why i think it isn’t a slippery slope ... they aren’t killing people “who seem like bad dudes”, they are carefully building cases, complex cases against terrorists who either have or are actively intending to kill either our own people or our allies people

these killings are not undertaken lightly, it isn’t a couple of guys marking up a napkin with names on it, especially if it involves a us citizen

this is not a case of the government spinning stories to cover for killing political enemies

citizenship is no protection against being a mass murderer and as i say, governments, ours and others make these decisions all the time and we want them to

donald trump isn’t duterte in the phillipines who is doing exactly what you say

and again, i ask you, what action do you take against a person that you cannot physically arrest but you know is planning deadly harm against many civilians and who you can stop via a drone strike, what do you do ? ... do you not kill him because he is a citizen ? ... do i have that right ?

i agree, i don’t want out government gratuitously targetting and killing political enemies but what the cia and dod are doing is a long way from that


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> heres why i think it isn’t a slippery slope ... they aren’t killing people “who seem like bad dudes”, they are carefully building cases, complex cases against terrorists who either have or are actively intending to kill either our own people or our allies people


If the track record of how they order kills of non-citizens is any indication, these are _not_ carefully built cases. We know some things about these processes. There are many ex drone operators who have suffered PTSD and intense guilt from (in hindsight) careless killing of unconfirmed targets. You call it carefully crafted cases, but what seems to actually happen is that trigger-happy operators have a field day the moment they encounter anything that looks like an "enemy target".

"Pakistani interior minister Rehman Malik has stated that 336 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan claimed over 2,300 victims, 80% of whom were innocent civilians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing

Additionally,


> Greenwald concludes that the Disposition Matrix has established "simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be "disposed" of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency".


I think you're naive to think that these are carefully and fairly reviewed cases. No accountability. No transparency.



fatcat said:


> these killings are not undertaken lightly, it isn’t a couple of guys marking up a napkin with names on it, especially if it involves a us citizen


If they aren't taken lightly, why are there so many collateral casualties? Even tons of children! Is that what you call "accuracy"?

You asked, what is a country supposed to do? Operate under the law! Gather evidence, show the evidence in open court, let the accused defend themselves, and have a trial. This post-9/11 obsession with bypassing the law and using secret evidence is really disgusting.

I also wonder...

Why do you hate the legal system, fatcat? Do you prefer a world in which authorities take unilateral actions whenever they suspect something, and never have to prove their assertions?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> If the track record of how they order kills of non-citizens is any indication, these are _not_ carefully built cases. We know some things about these processes. There are many ex drone operators who have suffered PTSD and intense guilt from (in hindsight) careless killing of unconfirmed targets. You call it carefully crafted cases, but what seems to actually happen is that trigger-happy operators have a field day the moment they encounter anything that looks like an "enemy target".
> 
> "Pakistani interior minister Rehman Malik has stated that 336 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan claimed over 2,300 victims, 80% of whom were innocent civilians."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
> ...


james, you have ducked my question twice, setting aside the issue of errant drone strikes which are a real thing, it is another subject from the original post

what would you do if you have identified a citizen of the united states about whom you have solid evidence of terrorist activities involving the killing of us citizens and he is acting in a way that clearly demonstrates he will continue to target and kill americans and you cannot arrest him because he is in the middle east and moves from one place to the next in such a way as to prevent capture .... but you can kill him with a drone strike

what do you do ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You ducked my questions too but I'll answer yours directly.

What would you do? Follow the same legal protocol used for any other _suspected_ criminal who is outside your jurisdiction. If it's part of warfare, you follow the rules of war.

I'm not a lawyer but there are laws that cover all of this. One thing that I know is you sure as hell can't just go to another country that you're not at war with, and start assassinating people all over the place.

What field of work were you in during your working days? I work closely with the DoD and US Military.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rone-wars-normalisation-extrajudicial-killing


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat's views on this are contrary to core American values:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rone-wars-normalisation-extrajudicial-killing


> The spirit of the constitution was quite the opposite: all of the founders were concerned, in varying degrees, with the risk of allowing the president to exercise too much discretion when declaring war or using force abroad. For this reason, the constitution explicitly grants the right to declare war to the Congress in order to restrain the president from chasing enemies around the world based solely on his authority as commander-in-chief. *The founders would be horrified, not comforted, to know that the president has implicated himself in the killing of foreign nationals in states against which the Congress has not passed a declaration of war.*


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

james4beach said:


> ... I work closely with the DoD and US Military...


This explains why you decided to keep 25% of your net worth in the physical gold. Philosophically speaking, I find it reassuring that you consider a complete calamity to be of only 25% probability. I’ve read somewhere that “McNamara boys,” i.e. people working under McNamara on the mutual destruction doctrine, refused to join their retirement plan – they knew all this would end well before their retirement years.

You speculate how legal it would be if the Canadian Government started extrajudicial killings of Canadian alt-right guys in Poland. Here on Earth, we worry what to do about hardened killers returning to Canada from their ISIS adventures.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ng-islamophobic-about-arresting-isis-fighters


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Hear, hear !! Obama and Clinton are war criminals that have assassinated people around the world with impunity. LOCK THEM UP. Or at least send them to The Hague and let them have access to little bottles of "medicine"


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Parkuser said:


> You speculate how legal it would be if the Canadian Government started extrajudicial killings of Canadian alt-right guys in Poland.


To clarify, I'm saying that is illegal and wrong. But if we permit the current style of extra judicial killings to occur, we're normalizing highly illegal and immoral activities. And it can really hurt us later. Thankfully, Canada doesn't do this kind of thing yet, but US/UK/FR do.



> Here on Earth, we worry what to do about hardened killers returning to Canada from their ISIS adventures.


And you really don't see the connection? Don't you think that immoral and illegal hostilities towards foreign countries, including the slaughter of civilians, is creating some of the blowback that motivates these people?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> You ducked my questions too but I'll answer yours directly.
> 
> What would you do? Follow the same legal protocol used for any other _suspected_ criminal who is outside your jurisdiction. If it's part of warfare, you follow the rules of war.
> 
> ...


james, you are still ducking

in the scenario i painted, the government knows that the person is guilty of terrorist acts, he is not suspected, intelligence services know he is guilty, but he can't be arrested ... so what would you do james ? would you let him go ?

i don't believe that the dod and cia just get together for coffee and sketch out who they are going to kill on the back of a napkin

there are procedures, especially if they are targeting an american citizen, but once they have established that a person is a credible terrorist threat to the people of united states, they should absolutely and indeed use deadly force if the potential harm and / or past actions of the person warrant it

indeed, they have a responsibility to keep us safe ... exactly like a policeman does when he confronts a person (a citizen) who he determines represents a deadly threat to other people, the cop takes out his weapon and kills the person, it happens every day, terrorists, here or overseas are no different

citizenship (i think this is what bothers you, am i correct ?) doesn't make you immune from harm if you present harm to others 

have i addressed your questions ? ... if i haven't, state them again

and you need to answer my opening question, the terrorist isn't a suspect, we know he is a terrorist who presents immediate harm what would you do ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> james, you are still ducking
> 
> in the scenario i painted, *the government knows that the person is guilty of terrorist acts*, he is not suspected, intelligence services know he is guilty, but he can't be arrested ... so what would you do james ? would you let him go ?


You're wrong. They might know or strongly believe the person has done certain acts, but they can't know the person is guilty of a crime *until there's a trial and we go through the well established legal process*.

No trial? No presentation of evidence, no chance to defend oneself? Then one is NOT guilty under the law. The scenario you painted might be the case in China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, but it's not how our country works.

You keep saying "government knows". Nope. They don't know, they can only suspect guilt. Governments and police can't just decree that someone is guilty of a crime and deserves execution.

What are they supposed to do? Bring charges against the accused and go through the legal process. These are not the first people to be absent at the time charges are brought against them.

fatcat you are (I believe) an older gentleman. I thought you would respect the fundamental principals of our countries. These are the values that make US and Canada bastions of freedom and democracy, and the envy of the world. Do you seriously believe that governments have the authority to unilaterally determine guilt and carry out executions?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And not only is this kind of action by the government contrary to the US (or UK) laws, it also threatens to deteriorate international law:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un

The whole process may be a war crime, and yes, Obama & crew might in the future be found guilty of war crimes. He'll get a trial though and have the chance to defend himself.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

james4beach said:


> To clarify, I'm saying that is illegal and wrong. But if we permit the current style of extra judicial killings to occur, we're normalizing highly illegal and immoral activities. And it can really hurt us later. Thankfully, Canada doesn't do this kind of thing yet, but US/UK/FR do.
> 
> 
> And you really don't see the connection? Don't you think that immoral and illegal hostilities towards foreign countries, including the slaughter of civilians, is creating some of the blowback that motivates these people?


I do troll you a little bit, but life is more complicated than you pretend it to be. What do you do if bandits take over a failed state like Somalia and menace neighbours, and anybody else? Declare a war to be legal, wait for the UN like in Rwanda? Can you declare a war on a nuclear state like Pakistan? And then what? Their military operate like a state within a state and support Al-Qaeda. Remember where and how bin Laden was hiding? You can talk to the Pakistani government, try to pay them off, but they only loosely control the military or the provinces bordering Afghanistan.

Yes, the extrajudicial killings by the drone strikes go against official declarations. They probably are demoralizing the military. Yes, innocent people get killed because bin Ladens of this world prefer to hide in crowds rather than in wilderness. But they can keep situation under control. Israel proves it. And the alternate solutions are really bad.

I think the main disagreement is following. You believe that these strikes are punishment for what the “targets” have done, and that the punishment should be done by legal means. But they are probably done to “cut the head off,” or to stop an action. I bet punishment does not enter into consideration.

There is also the situation you described as #2, what happens when the state changes alliances? This is quite real. Canada is actively supporting Kurds. If there is a civil war in Iraq we will surely abandon them. Not that long ago there was a story in the NP about an ex-military who went back to Iraq (Syria?) to join Kurds. When he came home he was visited by the RCMP. They told him, this is a very bad idea, do not go there. So people are warned, actively discouraged. But citizenship is not a superpower. Once you join the enemy you are a fair game. Complaint about killing your own citizens is a red herring.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> fatcat you are (I believe) an older gentleman. I thought you would respect the fundamental principals of our countries. These are the values that make US and Canada bastions of freedom and democracy, and the envy of the world. Do you seriously believe that governments have the authority to unilaterally determine guilt and carry out executions?


i suspect we are talking past each and will never close the loop but i will try again

a huge part of “core american values” is the right of self-defence few principles, are more deeply embedded in the american character ... there is no other first world western nation that affords so much latitude to the concept of the right to defend oneself

we trust our intelligence agencies to work dilligently on our behalf to keep us safe ... if they identify a target, a leader of al-qaeda or isis that they believe, as best they can, is leading terrorist operations and the person so identified is in a country that makes capture and trial impossible as is the case throughout much of the middle east, then i absoutely believe that they not only have the right but they have the responsibility to stop that person from committing terrorism even if that includes killing them

we have been doing this to leaders of isis and al-qaeda for some time and i am glad we do so

do you seriously believe that if we have an opportunity to save future lives and stop a significant terrorist from comitting more murderous acts, that we should let him go merely because we are unable to capture him and try him ? seriously ?

we trust our government intelligence services to do all kinds of dangerous and violent things on our behalf to keep us safe

if a guy walks out in the street shooting a gun in the air and pointing it at people in the neighbourhood, what exactly do you expect the police to do ? let him possibly shoot an innocent bystander ? no, you expect them to keep us safe by shooting him if necessary, if you can arrest and stop him, fine, but that often isn’t the case, the terrorist analogy is exactly the same ... we have no way of arresting and trying these terrorists

do you seriously believe we should just let all of these terrorists walk free and commit murder because we are unable to capture them ?

if that is the case james, and we speak across a wide divide of understanding about just what exactly american values are

finally, as to your supposition regarding my age i will only say that yes, i am old, but i am certainly no gentleman as pie with surely affirm


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat, you speak in absolutes and seem to have 100% faith in correct actions by government officials, police and intelligence. In reality, they make lots of mistakes. I work with police and these kinds of agencies, and I can tell you they are just as fallible as the next guy. In fact what I find scary about them is their closed mindedness, tunnel vision, and over confidence in their ability to "spot a bad guy".

We have a legal system for a reason. Yes, sometimes you have to let the bad guys go, or fail to do anything about them.

Freedom isn't free. Remember, terrorists hate our freedom. Don't hand it over to them.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Freedom isn't free. Remember, terrorists hate our freedom. Don't hand it over to them.


Since I wrote this part ironically, let me explain:

There is a cost to having a free, democratic society with laws and fairness for all. The COST is that you sometimes end up letting child molesters, murderers, terrorists, and tax evaders go free. Sometimes you have citizens who you strongly suspect are acting as terrorists, but you can't do anything about it.

The BENEFIT of a law-abiding society with checks and balances on the authorities is that it doesn't devolve into a fascist or oppressive regime, police and government don't become crooked or abuse their power, and every person has equal rights and freedoms. You have a society with fairness. Additionally, your country provides a strong moral example to the world and becomes a desirable place to live. Politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and police know their place ... and recognize that they _serve the public_, and don't _rule_ the public.

You and I probably have different values on this spectrum. If I understand you correctly, you are not so happy about the costs of a free and democratic society and these benefits don't impress you too much.

You keep saying things like "should we just let all of these terrorists walk free". I think that in your mind, what makes them a terrorist is that government authorities think they're a terrorist (and have a whole bunch of secret evidence they will never show anyone). In my view, they are only a confirmed terrorist/criminal once a case has been proven through the legal system.

Contrary to what you say, these are not strong cases with rock solid evidence when the government claims someone is a terrorist deserving execution. For example, the US classifies all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants (ACLU).

Sometimes it's very flimsy evidence (or none at all) before deciding who to kill. *This would never hold up in court*. So no, I do not automatically trust government and intelligence to be fair in how they choose people for execution. Let's see the evidence, and have them prove it in the open.

I agree that intelligence agencies have special powers to keep nations safe, but they too must be accountable and must prove their claims. The problem is that post 9/11, there are many more secret actions, secret evidence, lack of disclosure, lack of review by impartial courts, etc.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Since I wrote this part ironically, let me explain:
> 
> There is a cost to having a free, democratic society with laws and fairness for all. The COST is that you sometimes end up letting child molesters, murderers, terrorists, and tax evaders go free. Sometimes you have citizens who you strongly suspect are acting as terrorists, but you can't do anything about it.
> 
> ...


james, we are at an end here, you continually characterize my views incorrectly ... 

i am very concerned about the rule of law, freedom and democracy but i am not naive and foolish

perhaps i am characterizing your views incorrectly but you give every appearance of believing that we should allow known terrorists (and don't here be a fool james, of course our intelligence agencies are smart enough to know who leads isis and al-qaeda and who is ordering killings and conducting torture, of course they do even though they also do mistakes) to simply walk free and continue killing people because we can't capture them and try them in a court of law

this is naive, foolish and dangerous james ... thank god you aren't in a position in our intelligence agencies or the dod or the police or any of the other law enforcement agencies that protect us

you would make a fine defense lawyer / quaker ... both are people and institutions i respect, as i do you, but we are on the other side of chasm on this one james


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> perhaps i am characterizing your views incorrectly but you give every appearance of believing that we should allow known terrorists (and don't here be a fool james, of course our intelligence agencies are smart enough to know who leads isis and al-qaeda and who is ordering killings and conducting torture, of course they do even though they also do mistakes) to simply walk free and continue killing people because we can't capture them and try them in a court of law


The intelligence agencies are smart enough to know the leaders, but they're striking far more than just the top leaders. And they do make mistakes, as you acknowledge.

Maybe a difference in our viewpoints is that I take those mistakes very seriously. Accidentally killing a citizen -- as the US did with that child who was eating dinner -- is something that I consider an extremely serious mistake, the kind of mistake that should end a decision maker's career forever.

Are the intelligence agencies "smart enough" or accurate enough to do this right? Clearly not. Otherwise, they wouldn't be accidentally killing children at dinner tables.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The intelligence agencies are smart enough to know the leaders, but they're striking far more than just the top leaders. And they do make mistakes, as you acknowledge.
> 
> Maybe a difference in our viewpoints is that I take those mistakes very seriously. Accidentally killing a citizen -- as the US did with that child who was eating dinner -- is something that I consider an extremely serious mistake, the kind of mistake that should end a decision maker's career forever.
> 
> Are the intelligence agencies "smart enough" or accurate enough to do this right? Clearly not. Otherwise, they wouldn't be accidentally killing children at dinner tables.


lovely, we close the loop james ... i have long been concerned about errant drone strikes as have many others on all sides ... aside from the moral weight of killing innocent civilians, they are often a huge rallying cry for militants and terrorists who no doubt use them to recruit

if one of my loved ones was killed by some missile out of the blue i would be furious and would no doubt hate the usa

it does not mean that i think we should stop all drone strikes, but more that we need to be extremely selective in how we use them, nevertheless, mistakes will still be made ... i want to minimize those mistakes to a maximum degree but i still think drones are necessary and useful tools

don't forget, that by killing terrorist leaders with drones, we save countless innocent future lives

have you seen "eye in the sky", a wonderful and powerful film about just this exact issue


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Well, we seem to be converging on this issue somewhat.

I haven't seen Eye in the Sky. But I did see a couple other ones, most recently National Bird - I suggest checking it out
http://nationalbirdfilm.com


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Well, we seem to be converging on this issue somewhat.
> 
> I haven't seen Eye in the Sky. But I did see a couple other ones, most recently National Bird - I suggest checking it out
> http://nationalbirdfilm.com


got it in my netflix james, thanks


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> got it in my netflix james, thanks


Suggestion: don't watch this if you're feeling kinda down.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Whether its right, wrong or moral, if the govt suspects someone to the point they need to take them out - it makes me feel a little more safe. Sure, there is no trial - but would you really want to wait for trials when you have evidence that there is a direct threat? How many articles have we heard of 'citizens' committimng terrorits activities only to find out they were on the gov'ts watch list already? You definately wish they were taken out before their terrible acts. 

What if someone threatens your family? But govt can't do anything because of lack of evidence or you need to go to trial? How much faith would you have in your gov't then? How well will you sleep at night knowing there is a threat on your family? 

If you have a suspect, I have no issues putting them on a hit list. Sounds rough but I sure wouldn't want to take a chance and wait it out. I find we live in a society that tries to be too "politically correct" and it is biting us in the a$$.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mortgage u/w said:


> If you have a suspect, I have no issues putting them on a hit list. Sounds rough but I sure wouldn't want to take a chance and wait it out.


What if _you're_ suspected of a crime? What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

james4beach said:


> What if _you're_ suspected of a crime? What a ridiculous statement.


Right. 

As far as I know, they don't pick such high profile suspects out of a hat.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

As I understand it then you're saying that for regular crimes, you wouldn't want an assassination/hit list, but for certain major crimes with high profile suspects, it's OK to assassinate instead of going through the justice system.

Which crimes qualify for assassination? How about suspected child molestation?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Back in the day bad guys got a fair trial then a quick hanging. Took care of business.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

this is what eric holder wrote with regards to one of the high profile us citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki) killed by a drone strike (his 8 year old daughter was later killed by a trump ordered drone strike which goes to one of james' earlier points about the killing of innocents and stoking of anger):



> high-level U.S. government officials [...] concluded that al-Aulaqi posed a continuing and imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. Before carrying out the operation that killed al-Aulaqi, senior officials also determined, based on a careful evaluation of the circumstances at the time, that it was not feasible to capture al-Aulaqi.
> 
> In addition, senior officials determined that the operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles, including the cardinal principles of:
> 
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki[/SUP]


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

When I see the mistakes that DEA makes when attacking a home, I would not want any of it. Cops are quick to shoot first...


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

james4beach said:


> As I understand it then you're saying that for regular crimes, you wouldn't want an assassination/hit list, but for certain major crimes with high profile suspects, it's OK to assassinate instead of going through the justice system.
> 
> Which crimes qualify for assassination? How about suspected child molestation?


You starting talking about crimes that were dealt with at a higher government level. For me, the word "terrorist" comes to mind - not "child molestor". So in reply to that, if one were suspected of terrorist activity, I don't think we should just wait it out.

If child molestors and car theives are on an assissination list, then this topic is taking a whole other turn.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

One can imagine a President Bush or Obama weighing each authorization as the balance of _Competing goods_. It is difficult to imagine a President Trump wrestling with the moral dilemma. Systems which kill civilians (be they citizens of the killing country or not) are only as incorruptible as the person in charge.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

olivaw said:


> One can imagine a President Bush or Obama weighing each authorization as the balance of _Competing goods_. It is difficult to imagine a President Trump wrestling with the moral dilemma. Systems which kill civilians (be they citizens of the killing country or not) are only as incorruptible as the person in charge.


one hopes that the lower downs, when they decide what to take to the president are scrupulous in their targeting ... though at the end of the day, he is the president and he must make the call, in some high profile cases anyway

i wouldn't hang too much on the morality (or lack thereof) of the president on drone strikes, obama was one of the most moral presidents in my lifetime and he was drone happy and apparently killed between 384 and 807 civilians

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...r-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush


----------

