Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?

Uh, no. I was saying there was a huge difference between murder and selling ciggis, which Dan seemed to be claiming where the same.

Notice I never said "This guy is a criminal! He should be executed!". This is mostly because I think the death penalty is fucking disgusting. Wheat NA said and I quoted was that he was part of a group that declared war on the US, so if the US military kills him in the combat zone, well, that's how war goes. When you declare war, you kinda gotta expect that kind of thing.

It's not a war between countries, it's not against people of a certain religion, citezenship, or tribe. It's a country vs a group of people that came together of their own free will to form a team to attack the country they hate. Their citezinship etc. does not dictate wether or not they are an enemy, only their membership of the group does.


^More incoherant shitty writing, I'd fix it but I gotta get to class.

...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...

This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.

Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Wars on drugs, poverty, and, yes, drunk driving are declared so that rights of the people may be revoked in the name of war / emergency.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Uhhh... fuck yes?

this debate has gotten really stupid.

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.

According to you they are not soldiers. I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but your definition doesn't really fit the real world these days.

Using police/prosecutorial methods should be the first choice, of course. But when that is not possible or pragmatic, then what do you propose we should do? Let him keep organizing attacks against us? That's irresponsible.

No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.

Just in time for Halloween, for those looking to get their martyr on, the Anwar al-Awlaki drone missille attack gag!

The tower shooter was an immediate risk. Someone conspiring to commit a crime is still just conspiring. Please don't confuse concern over the details of the how with disagreeing with the results. And, yes, we did trip over the constitution, we killed an american citizen with no due process.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

Rrrriiiight. So he puts down the gun, and we can't apprehend him, so we have to wait for him to pick up the gun again and start shooting and killing more people before we may do anything? Do you seriously not see the absolute absurdity of your position? Obviously, if he has set the gun down, but has not surrendered and we can't apprehend him, and there are potential victims in range, he is still a grave public danger.

I'm well aware of every word you quoted from the Constitution. None of that matters, because, like the tower sniper, you don't get to kill people and then maintain your position as a threat to public safety, and be protected via due process while maintaining that position of threat. If he wanted due process protection he could have surrendered, thereby relinquishing his position as a threat to our citizens. But he chose to continue actively waging war against us.

Al-Awlaki wasn't a public danger? He launched attacks against us. He was planning more attacks. It may be your opinion that he wasn't a threat, but given what we know about al Qaida, that would not seem to be a very well-informed opinion. Is there only a threat if a gun is pointed at someone? Do you not consider intent and means to carry out an attack as a threat? You don't consider waging war against us as a threat?

But none of the above matters anyway. He wasn't under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. He was a non-state actor in a foreign land waging war against us. So, like I already said, there is zero due-process constraint on military action.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.

But you are!