This is a discussion on SO now Americans living abroad can be taken out with drones within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The scenario is staged off this soil, per the OP's topic. I'm not saying it's not a simple matter, with regards to being able to ...
Array
The scenario is staged off this soil, per the OP's topic.
I'm not saying it's not a simple matter, with regards to being able to balance the security of the American people vs the need to protect the rights of the people, I'm just saying I can understand the necessity in some cases to do this.
Nothing said here will influence or settle the matter. It's out of our hands, and unless we are privy to all the info, it's all speculation.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."Originally Posted by Mike1956
Of course I'm being facetious here, but I've gotta stand up for somebody. 'May as well be me.
__________________________________
'Clinging to my guns and religion
Array
I thought it was fairly self explanatory.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Tell it to the guy with the bomb vest."Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."
Of course I'm being facetious here, but I've gotta stand up for somebody. 'May as well be me.
Kahn Souphanousinphone, Sr. "I could be manic, could be depressed. Real crapshoot."
Array
Well, help me out here. I am trying to equate the rationale behind drone strikes which I thought I covered pretty good...they are not time sensitive as far as an operation going down like an imminent nuclear strike.
Your analogy is happening in the US I assume and is imminent and I also assume that only the death of the physcisits will prevent this? COrrect me if I am wrong.
So on one hand we are talking about drone strikes where it is not time sensitive as far as US lives being lost vs ?(drone strike) to kill a person that will cause imminent danger.
They are not the same subject..but again, I must have not understood you.
We use drone strikes because we feel we can;t capture the dude and bring him to trial.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
Isaiah 6:8
You mean the American citizen wearing the bomb vest that I'm hoping that the drone takes out?
We talk in circles now. Same team, different perspectives. Over/out.
__________________________________
'Clinging to my guns and religion
Array
Forgot...Glockman...your analogy is basicaly do you shoot a BG with a gun to a hostages head...yes, of course. But that is not why drone strikes are done, but if that was the situation it would be alright to do so becasue of the imminent danger.
I prefer to capture the BG if he is not presenting a danger because I want the intel. I would also prefer to let him live another day if it would be possible to capture him in the future (near future). That is not being a bleeding heart. That is smart intel and what most of us preferred to do.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
Isaiah 6:8
Array
SunTzu, the senario is outside the US. Read it again. If, they don't act now, the cell may disburse or begin to move the bomb, and they may lose track of it.
It's not just the scientist, it's all the players gathered together working to get this bomb to the US.
They have a small window of opportunity to wipe out this group and destroy the bomb. But in doing so kill the American who is assisting them.
Because of the lack of access and cooperation from the host country, they cannot put boots on the ground without alerting the group.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Array
Check out these micro drones:
UK sends hand-held helicopter drones to war zone - Yahoo! News
.4XD0
I am not sure I fully comprehend what the issue is here. Just because someone is an American doesn't absolve them of risks they take and war/terror crimes they commit off of American soil. If a sniper would be justified in taking out target (whatever nationality) a drone should be able to do the same thing (and with less risk).
Array
Hey, I said I did not understand...OK, we have all of this intel to know that there is a bomb 100 percent, it is a nuke 100 percent, this scientists is their 100 percent, and we do not have the confidence in all of the technology and sources we had to verify this that it can't be tracked after this very short window....OK Gotcha! But since this is your scenario I will say yes, you may kill them all because you have verifiable information that will cause the sorta close to imminent death of American lives.
That is a far cry from the way drones are used now. You sure have a bunch of 100 percents in there (I added them for you)
BTW: you did not mention that we did not have access and cooperation from the host country in your OP.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
Isaiah 6:8
Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress - Washington Times
There are 30,000 drones planned for the skies over the continental U.S. by 2020 - for surveillance purposes.
I wonder when they will decide that it will be OK to arm just a few of them?
Just in case...you know....possibly a Tea Party Rally filled with people who are now considered to be potential terrorists gets out of hand.
Array
Perhaps the point of this post has become lost. My concern is that there is much room here for the definition of who is a terrorist and who is not. The directive does not solely include Islamic terrorists. It is that it opens the door for a much more lose interpretation as to whom the government sees as a threat that concerns me.
RE: Part in bold. The answer is YES. You would also be a felon if caught and convicted, or a traitor if caught and convicted
of treason. The problem with what we are doing is the issue of whether or not any sort of due process rights must be
accorded to US Citizens who move abroad and are "alleged" to be engaged in hostile actions toward us. The dilemma becomes
whether we should treat them simply as combatants with no regard to their citizenship and due process rights, or whether we
should treat them as common criminals.
History has shown that we (in the distant past) did not simply hunt down and kill someone who was charged with treason.
The classic example is the Vice President-- Aaron Burr, who raised an army intending to do who knows what with it, and
was charged with treason by the Administration of President T. Jefferson. He was also acquitted of the charge. (This has and had
nothing to do with the shoot out involving Hamilton).
By the reasoning of the present and immediate past Administrations it would have been lawful to merely send out
a party with orders to kill Burr on the spot, instead of capture him and return him for trial.
So, we have changed the rules from then to now.
The arguments that it is impractical to capture some of these goofs and bring them back rings a bit hollow, as it was
certainly no easy thing to find Burr in the Western Wilderness and bring him back to DC.
All of that said, and earlier having noted the weakness of the use of the due process case involving Soc. Sec. payouts as
justification for doing stuff without due process, I nevertheless reluctantly approve of what is being done.
(Though we will regret is at the first time some one is found to have been taken out through misinformation and error.)
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
This topic will discussed on the Hannity show tonight.
US Army 1953-1977
‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
— Abraham Lincoln
Posting Permissions
99Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
