draconix Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 The ends do not justify the means. America was founded on solid principles, one of which is the right to a trial by jury of your peers. What a Yemeni court decided about our citizens is irrelevant to the actions of the United States beyond our decision regarding extradition. If we wanted them brought to justice, maybe we could let the Yemeni's know where to find him so they could kill him. But in my country, we try our citizens, and they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 The ends do not justify the means. America was founded on solid principles, one of which is the right to a trial by jury of your peers. What a Yemeni court decided about our citizens is irrelevant to the actions of the United States beyond our decision regarding extradition. If we wanted them brought to justice, maybe we could let the Yemeni's know where to find him so they could kill him. But in my country, we try our citizens, and they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When a soldier on the battlefield sees an enemy, what does he do? Does he ask for 'proof' that this is an enemy, before he pulls the trigger? Does he demand a trial before firing? Supposedly, we are at "war". The battlefield is just somewhat less than well-defined. You decry these actions, as "unconstitutional", yet you don't have an alternative. The Yememi's had already passed judgement, they had already tried to find him, they may be the ones that told US where to find him. The man was an enemy. What do you do in war? You kill your enemy. Simple as that. Citizenship is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 On the contrary, citizenship is at the very core of the matter. What a soldier does on a battlefield is irrelevant. This was not a battlefield situation. I've posted alternatives. Capture, trial, and sentencing. Another alternative was tipping off the Yemeni government to carry out their own sentencing. We are "at war" with drugs too. Do we shoot every drug dealer and pot-smoker on sight? Not our citizens, not outside of self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 The ends do not justify the means. America was founded on solid principles, one of which is the right to a trial by jury of your peers. What a Yemeni court decided about our citizens is irrelevant to the actions of the United States beyond our decision regarding extradition. If we wanted them brought to justice, maybe we could let the Yemeni's know where to find him so they could kill him. But in my country, we try our citizens, and they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When a soldier on the battlefield sees an enemy, what does he do? Does he ask for 'proof' that this is an enemy, before he pulls the trigger? Does he demand a trial before firing? Supposedly, we are at "war". The battlefield is just somewhat less than well-defined. You decry these actions, as "unconstitutional", yet you don't have an alternative. The Yememi's had already passed judgement, they had already tried to find him, they may be the ones that told US where to find him. The man was an enemy. What do you do in war? You kill your enemy. Simple as that. Citizenship is irrelevant.@Hey YouYou are never going to convince Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee to forgo the rights, liberties and security for our nation that they fought so hard to maintain at great personal risk, sacrifice and service....how droll....the least contribution the highest moral indignation. I would not waste anymore time trying explain the concept of a battlefield environment ,but that is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) As I said before, it matters if they were with armed combatants. If they were just propaganda agents in a foreign nation, a assassination is illegal. Also Aurielius, it does not help your point to make posts without an argument that is simply insulting other people. I will explain why you can not kill someone for enemy propaganda without a trial. Lets say I was joking about something, and it made it appear like I supported the enemy. Could the government kill me based on limited evidence, simply because they think I may be committing treason? No. They still have to gather evidence and attempt to charge me with treason before any punishment is brought out. Also I am going to go ahead and say this, and a bunch of people are going to go crazy over what I am about to say, but fine.More US citizens die from everyday things every year (like dogs or bathtubs) then from terrorists. You really don't have much to be afraid of. Edited October 14, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 You are never going to convince Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee to forgo the rights, liberties and security for our nation that they fought so hard to maintain at great personal risk, sacrifice and service. Thanks for the personal attack. Please try to keep this civil, would you?Nobody is fighting for their rights, liberty or security in the middle east right now except for the people who live there, that are being deprived of those rights by the Terrorists and the United States. It's too bad that our efforts in the middle east are wasted, but that wasn't my decision. Hell, it's not even legal, but that's a different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardOfAtlantis Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Then you would be named an enemy of the state, targeted for elimination, people on message boards would be talking about what a scumbag you are, etc......which is what makes me nervous about flying American commercial aircraft....who knows who that guy in seat 34F is....http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/teehee.gif What I care about is our slow moves into Orwellian territory.That is certainly happening. Reminds me of Gilliam's Brazil, where the invisible terrorists are explosions coming from the Centralized Ducts... I mean, it's great that Osama died... It would have been better if we could have captured him first, interrogated and tried him, and eventually kill him after letting him wallow in his defeat, rotting in a cell first.They were never going to allow Osama to open his mouth in a public context. Here's an example, a quote of his I've seen around in a few places: (sorry for the look of it, copying it from a website I picked it off of this time) from a Pakistani interview 28 Sept 2001, supposedly. "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. "Take that for what you will, it's just an example of what could come out of his mouth if given the opportunity (which of course he wasn't). This "collateral damage" angle is a complete red herring and if anything is even more dangerous than the original concept of targeting Americans. Now they just have to target some guy next to you. Oops, sorry....exactly (see above, commercial airlines...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bben46 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 I'm going to shut this one down before someone loses their temper and gets banned. It appears you have reached an impasse. The same arguments are being rehashed for about the third time. Some people just cannot be convinced by the facts - or just choose to ignore any facts that they find do not support their argument. :psyduck: BTW, If you are so worried about being blown up flying on a commercial airliner how do you feel about commuting by car 20 miles to work? You are far more likely to die of almost any other cause - and especially from a car accident, than from a terrorist attack by a random terrorist bomb on an airliner. The odds of dying in a terrorist bombing of an airliner, IF the terrorists are able to blow up one every year is about 1 in 100,000 per yearThe one year odds of being killed in an auto accident? 1 in 6500. Of course, the odds drop to zero if you don't ever fly. But will you be willing to give up driving or even riding in a car? I'll take my chances on the airliner. I flew the week after 9/11 and didn't feel threatened at all.Bben46, Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts