This is about what I suspected.
Is everyone on board with this program? Anyone else troubled?
Thank god I don’t make youtube videos… Don’t want to be an enemy of the state.
I’m glad to see you made this into a thread Jackrash. What’s the alternative in your opinion? On the ground snatch and grab operations which are exponentially more expensive, both monetarily and in terms of American lives lost? Also, I find that these topics need a little more specialization than something that Yahoo news or a flagship media outlet can provide.
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I’m glad to see you made this into a thread Jackrash. What’s the alternative in your opinion? On the ground snatch and grab operations which are exponentially more expensive, both monetarily and in terms of American lives lost? Also, I find that these topics need a little more specialization than something that Yahoo news or a flagship media outlet can provide.
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627[/quote]
I’ll take a look at your link later when I have some time. I guess my biggest objection isn’t to the fact of targeted killings, its to a lack of standards justifying or explaining their use and the potential for abuse and unnecessary expansion of the program in the future. I’ll explain my position more a bit later when I have some time.
More on John Brennan, the architect of the Disposition Matrix and possibly the next director of the CIA.
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay.
It’s about time…put those Drones over all the bad neighborhoods in America, program them to kill
only Thugs that are wearing their respective gang colors and tats with the hi-tech ultra HD
drone cams that they recently improved, and lets watch the fun LIVE on the internet as homies,
vatos, and white trash are getting vaporized from the sky to the street corners…Who wouldn’t pay to see that? Make it permissively interactive so viewers can press the button on the trigger video game style, think how patriotic you would feel…think what that would do
for morale! Clean kills, no fuss, no muss…no PTSD.
Honey, where’s my popcorn? the “Nightly Scumbag Extermination Hour” is almost on!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
What do you guys not get about “it is a slippery slope.” Government forever reaches for greater power and control. Precedent is justification for wedging the door ever more open.
This shit crosses the line. Period.
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…
[quote]JEATON wrote:
What do you guys not get about “it is a slippery slope.” Government forever reaches for greater power and control. Precedent is justification for wedging the door ever more open.
This shit crosses the line. Period. [/quote]
I’m in this same boat. And fingers crossed it is a full cruise liner and not a canoe.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
What do you guys not get about “it is a slippery slope.” Government forever reaches for greater power and control. Precedent is justification for wedging the door ever more open.
This shit crosses the line. Period. [/quote]
What is the alternative you propose then? U.S. ground forces putting their lives on the line in exponentially more risk inherent and costly operations? Or should these individuals be allowed to act with impunity?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
What do you guys not get about “it is a slippery slope.” Government forever reaches for greater power and control. Precedent is justification for wedging the door ever more open.
This shit crosses the line. Period. [/quote]
What is the alternative you propose then? U.S. ground forces putting their lives on the line in exponentially more risk inherent and costly operations? Or should these individuals be allowed to act with impunity?[/quote]
As always, you are right.
It is either Omnipotent Statism Judging from a distance and Raining Death from above on American citizens without due process, or nihilism, rolling over and showing a bare little bellies to the terrorist.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
They lose the legal protections of American citizens when they take up arms against the United States and its allies and actively work to further the cause of terrorist organizations. Savagery? Hardly. Idealism has its place but it certainly isn’t in the realm of national security.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
What do you guys not get about “it is a slippery slope.” Government forever reaches for greater power and control. Precedent is justification for wedging the door ever more open.
This shit crosses the line. Period. [/quote]
What is the alternative you propose then? U.S. ground forces putting their lives on the line in exponentially more risk inherent and costly operations? Or should these individuals be allowed to act with impunity?[/quote]
As always, you are right.
It is either Omnipotent Statism Judging from a distance and Raining Death from above on American citizens without due process, or nihilism, rolling over and showing a bare little bellies to the terrorist. [/quote]
A false dichotomy and one I didn’t argue for. Again, what is the superior solution you had in mind? U.S. ground forces conducting a snatch and grab operation? Trying them in absentia from a nation whose authority they do not recognize and whom they are actively waging war against?
John Brennan: The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy
“The United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat.”
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
They lose the legal protections of American citizens when they take up arms against the United States and its allies and actively work to further the cause of terrorist organizations. Savagery? Hardly. Idealism has its place but it certainly isn’t in the realm of national security.
[/quote]
If the guy is an active enemny and taking up arms at the very moment he is sniped by a drone, fine. Still grinds my gears but at least I can justify that.
If dude is walking to the local market… No.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
They lose the legal protections of American citizens when they take up arms against the United States and its allies and actively work to further the cause of terrorist organizations. Savagery? Hardly. Idealism has its place but it certainly isn’t in the realm of national security.
[/quote]
If the guy is an active enemny and taking up arms at the very moment he is sniped by a drone, fine. Still grinds my gears but at least I can justify that.
If dude is walking to the local market… No.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying the only time you feel a drone strike is justified is in the event of the individual actively engaging in small-arms combat? And that a known high value target (i.e. financier, propagandist, enemy commander, ect.) shouldn’t be targeted if he is merely coordinating operations from a known militant stronghold? I agree that all efforts should be made to minimize civilian casualties if that’s what you meant.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying the only time you feel a drone strike is justified is in the event of the individual actively engaging in small-arms combat? And that a known high value target (i.e. financier, propagandist, enemy commander, ect.) shouldn’t be targeted if he is merely coordinating operations from a known militant stronghold? I agree that all efforts should be made to minimize civilian casualties if that’s what you meant.[/quote]
Speaking strictly in terms of US Citizens yes.
If their acts of treason are small-arms combat then fine, snipe his ass right there and then. It is defending the safety of your troops.
If their acts of treason are the other things you noted, and they aren’t activily involved in trying to kill someone… I have a hard time justifing violating their rights.
Sorta like, if you send in a team to pick him up and he resists, shoot the bastard. But if you send in a team and he goes willingly, you bring him back and take away his rights the old fashioned way, jury trail, or at least military trial.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
They lose the legal protections of American citizens when they take up arms against the United States and its allies and actively work to further the cause of terrorist organizations. Savagery? Hardly. Idealism has its place but it certainly isn’t in the realm of national security.
[/quote]
If the guy is an active enemny and taking up arms at the very moment he is sniped by a drone, fine. Still grinds my gears but at least I can justify that.
If dude is walking to the local market… No.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying the only time you feel a drone strike is justified is in the event of the individual actively engaging in small-arms combat? And that a known high value target (i.e. financier, propagandist, enemy commander, ect.) shouldn’t be targeted if he is merely coordinating operations from a known militant stronghold? I agree that all efforts should be made to minimize civilian casualties if that’s what you meant.[/quote]
What you don’t understand is that a US citizen has the constitutional right to due process, whether through civilian court or military tribunal. An example of the first would be John Walker Lindh. There is an example of the second where a US citizen was captured within the US after being discovered a saboteur. He was tried in a military tribunal (due process) and executed.
The methodology of how the government captures and secures said citizens is not mine to define.