SO now Americans living abroad can be taken out with drones

[chuckusaret]

The problem with the bleeding hearts of this country is they lack the will or intestinal fortitude to do what needs doing. And we are weakening as a nation because of it.

Has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, it all has to do with What is allowed under the United Nations Agreement and what a foreign nation would take as an act of war against their country. What gives the President the right/authority to sentence a person to death without due process. Be careful for what you wish for because the president recently signed the NDAA which allows him to strip us of rights as he sees fit.

Pakistan was not made aware in advance that the US was going to invade their country to take out Osama Ben Laden and was informed only after the operation was completed.

Some on this forum defend the 2nd Amendment but would readily give up other rights that we have under the Bill of Rights.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[glockman10mm]

The thing that strikes me as odd is that for a lot of folks that do not trust our current POTUS they fully support and trust his decision making ability to orderthe killing of a US citizen....which BTW makes him look very good politically.

That's a very good point. However, this is one of the only things that have come about from this administration that make sense.

If, an American citizen is engaged in terroristic activities, and the terrorists think that he would be immune from strikes, they, being the dress wearing cowards they are, could use this to their advantage, perhaps as even a shield.

This may be an issue that we have not been aware of, and, because of the presence of a US citizen among them, may be holding up timely attacks to prevent or disrupt their actions.

[glockman10mm]

Has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, it all has to do with What is allowed under the United Nations Agreement and what a foreign nation would take as an act of war against their country. What gives the President the right/authority to sentence a person to death without due process. Be careful for what you wish for because the president recently signed the NDAA which allows him to strip us of rights as he sees fit.

Pakistan was not made aware in advance that the US was going to invade their country to take out Osama Ben Laden and was informed only after the operation was completed.

Some on this forum defend the 2nd Amendment but would readily give up other rights that we have under the Bill of Rights.

Once again, we are talking about actions under a war declaration. Are you still a US citizen when you align yourself with the enemy your country is at war with, and plan actions that would cause death to your countrymen?

No sir, I submitt at that time, you are now an enemy combatant.

And screw the UN. They have never succeeded at anything they have attempted.
The UN rules didn't work for our Vietnam Vets taking fire across the DMZ.
But it protected the enemy.

[bombthrower77]

That's a very good point. However, this is one of the only things that have come about from this administration that make sense.

If, an American citizen is engaged in terroristic activities, and the terrorists think that he would be immune from strikes, they, being the dress wearing cowards they are, could use this to their advantage, perhaps as even a shield.

This may be an issue that we have not been aware of, and, because of the presence of a US citizen among them, may be holding up timely attacks to prevent or disrupt their actions.

What's your standard of evidence in determining any of this? Without that, you are just guessing, and highlighting the problem created by this type of policy.

[WHEC724]

And the problem with being a bully is that lots of people wind up hating the bully's guts for being one.

You and POTUS may see this as a popularity contest.

I don't.

[Mike1956]

You and POTUS may see this as a popularity contest.

I don't.

I made a statement of fact.

[WHEC724]

I made a statement of fact.

The bad guys will always hate the good guys. That's a fact that I can accept.

[glockman10mm]

What's your standard of evidence in determining any of this? Without that, you are just guessing, and highlighting the problem created by this type of policy.

I'm not a policy maker. I suppose it rely on intelligence.

However, here's a very good reason, a scenario, since that's the only way we have analyzing this from our positions without the benefit of inside information;

Assume, that a terror cell has been identified plotting the transportation of a nuke across our open border. It's a situation where we know they have the bomb, it's man packable, and this is a time sensitive issue where we only have a small window to act before we lose track of it.

Now suppose, an American is involved in this situation. He's a Physicist from a well known University with deep Islamic convictions.

Due to the element of surprise being crucial, we cannot hope to capture him and bring him to trial. If we do, we give up our ability to keep track of the bomb, which is headed for an unknown US location, possibly a major city.

Do we let it happen because we don't want to trample on the rights of one citizen, and see 10s of thousands die before our eyes?
What's the solution here?

[mg27]

I remember arguing with someone on facebook when i used to go on there about this. I thought it was a good thing to kill these terrorist even if they were american citizens, because I figured why waste tax payer money on a trial and they are scum of the earth..

However After some thought, I think it is problem. The definition of a terrorist can change at anytime, hell we as gun owners and collectors, or people who like to buy many guns and store ammo could and probably in time will be considered a domestic terrorist.. I dont like what I'm seeing. ITs just another way of stripping away our freedoms and heading towards dictatorship

[glockman10mm]

The bad guys will always hate the good guys. That's a fact that I can accept.

This country has saved the world ass with the blood of our people since becoming a nation, and they hate us for it. And some always will.

It's time to put the interest of our own country first and screw the rest.

[mg27]

I should say it like this, If they kill terrorist as we all know, The usual suspects, I think that is fine, but with the way things are today, I think that the NDAA will be a big issue down the road or sooner that thought. Im all for taking out terrorist, I dont care where they were born, but as I said , I think there is too much wiggle room and can turn around and bite us on the behind. Theres already a war on Christians, patriots, hillbillys, Guns, people who dont support gay marriage are all of the sudden considered bigots. The traditional American way can become a threat possibly... If your in a milita you most likely be on a watch list, even if its to protect this country from an abusive govt. That word is almost evil in most peoples eyes.

[suntzu]

I'm not a policy maker. I suppose it rely on intelligence.

However, here's a very good reason, a scenario, since that's the only way we have analyzing this from our positions without the benefit of inside information;

Assume, that a terror cell has been identified plotting the transportation of a nuke across our open border. It's a situation where we know they have the bomb, it's man packable, and this is a time sensitive issue where we only have a small window to act before we lose track of it.

Now suppose, an American is involved in this situation. He's a Physicist from a well known University with deep Islamic convictions.

Due to the element of surprise being crucial, we cannot hope to capture him and bring him to trial. If we do, we give up our ability to keep track of the bomb, which is headed for an unknown US location, possibly a major city.

Do we let it happen because we don't want to trample on the rights of one citizen, and see 10s of thousands die before our eyes?
What's the solution here?

What are you trying to say? Kill the physcists? Is he the only one that can detonate the bomb or put it together? This is in the US so if we know where he is how come we can't capture him? The rationale behind drone strikes is not because it is time sensitive to prevent an operation or attack. It is because we are either denied acces to the country or it is time sensitive where the BG could leave the area before troops can arrive to capture him. Is he putting it together in the US?
I know what you are going for but you did not write this chapter to a novel very well.

[bombthrower77]

I'm not a policy maker. I suppose it rely on intelligence.

However, here's a very good reason, a scenario, since that's the only way we have analyzing this from our positions without the benefit of inside information;

Assume, that a terror cell has been identified plotting the transportation of a nuke across our open border. It's a situation where we know they have the bomb, it's man packable, and this is a time sensitive issue where we only have a small window to act before we lose track of it.

Now suppose, an American is involved in this situation. He's a Physicist from a well known University with deep Islamic convictions.

Due to the element of surprise being crucial, we cannot hope to capture him and bring him to trial. If we do, we give up our ability to keep track of the bomb, which is headed for an unknown US location, possibly a major city.

Do we let it happen because we don't want to trample on the rights of one citizen, and see 10s of thousands die before our eyes?
What's the solution here?

With the scenario you describe, the bomb is the immediate threat and assuming it is known to exist you, I and practically every sane person on the planet would agree that it needed to be stopped. If the scientist you describe gets hurt or killed in the process of getting rid of the threat, it would be incidental to the action. If, however, this same scientist is known to have knowledge of how to make a bomb and knowledge of the materials available to make it, and happens to dislike certain things about America, or has publicly declared himself to be in conflict with the government, would deliberately targeting him for death be justified? I'd say absolutely not.

Imminent harm and potential harm are two completely different things. The former allows us to legally to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The latter allows the government to take those rights away.

[Mike1956]

The bad guys will always hate the good guys. That's a fact that I can accept.

Good and bad is a matter of perspective. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, while one's patriot is another's wild-eyed, jingoistic schizophrenic.

[WHEC724]

For those here who are of the sentiment that we need to be careful about the precedent that we set in smoke checking an american citizen, I submit that if this (or any) administration wants to come after you, they're gonna get you, precedent or not.

My perspective is that of preferring not to hamstring ourselves with excessive noble rules. It didn't work in Vietnam, and in fact it doesn't work in any war time scenario. The bad guys don't play by the rules. They don't even declare war anymore.