pagemap

This whole situation is getting so out of hand.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1204cia04.html

__________________
Got|Apex Senior Inexperienced Poster
S.I.P.

Cubsfan

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, just the part you quoted)

I actually have no problem at all with this, with one caveat: they better be pretty sure of themselves!

Assume for the second that it is 100% certain that an American citizen is working for al-Qaida. From my point of view, they are as much an enemy as anyone. It may even be treason, I don't know.

The problem here comes, of course, if they aren't totally sure, but pretty sure Then perhaps assasination isn't the best way to go about it.

gwilks98

Well, folks, take a good look at who Bush is surrounding himself with: Kissinger (suspected Butcher of Cambodia) and Gephardt (Gestapo wannabe).

__________________
"I know the pieces fit, cause I watched them fall away."

"Cold silence has
A tendancy to
Atrophy any
Sense of compassion."

MJK

Cantacuzene

Gephardt is a democrat. I think you mean Ashcroft.

Either way this whole issue is only a problem if the government abuses its power. And we all know the government would never abuse power, especially overseas where there is less media.

Johnnymac

Abuse power? What? They would never......

sbp

"These officials said the authority will be used only when other options are unavailable. Militarylike strikes will take place only when law enforcement and internal security efforts by allied foreign countries fail, the officials said.

Capturing and questioning al-Qaida operatives is preferable, even more so if an operative is a U.S. citizen, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Any decision to strike an American would be made at the highest levels, perhaps by the president."

Why should a terrorist scumbucket be given a pass.

As for Gephardt, he is a democrat and potential Presidential candidate in 2004.

Tse How

You should have a problem with it then.
Not because they work for Al-Qaida necessarily, but for the fact that the soldier might not know for sure. And if a soldier puts a bullet through the heart of a U.S. al Qaido operative in a rage, I bet you the story will be spun so that they can say "Its 100% he must have been Al-Qaida."

sbp

Capturing is preferred, whacking is a last resort.

For those opposed: what would you suggest then?

If an Al-Qaida operative who is American is killed, that is the way it goes. That person knew the risks when joining up with a terrorist group.

ironape

The way I look at it is this. The person must have some reason to have joined them. This leads me to believe they are anti-american and no longer wish to be american. Why would they wanna be called what they hate.

Since they are no longer american but labeled al-quaida then why should they not be targeted if all al-quaida are. They made a choice and now they suffer with all the rest. Al-quaida should be hunted down like dogs. Do you really think they will go easy the next time they blow something up? I dont think so. They bloodied americas nose and now its beat down time.

Ape

__________________
Screw Spelin and Gramur... Im a Damn Dirty Ape!!

Cubsfan

Well, they could also come to my house and shoot me, and then say that it was "self-defense" on their part. If the government really wants to kill someone, they could. I'm not so much worried about them covering it up, I have a certain level of trust in the government (I know I'm going to get hammered for that one!)

Remember a few weeks ago when we blew up that car that contained a very important al-Qaida member? What if there was an al-Qaida American in that car? I don't want there hands tied just because of that. If you fight for a foreign army against the US, all bets are off

Butch

Actually, the CIA does not have permission to kill "you" . . . at least not if "you" refers to most of the people on these boards . . . assuming they live in the US.

The CIA is not allowed to spy/conduct operations within the US.

However, the CIA does have permission to kill American citizens. It was not explicitly said that they could, but permission is tacit in that American citizens were not excluded from the order.

__________________
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and beastiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse

Cantacuzene

I think the idea is that even if you are a member of al-queda you are still an american citizen and entitled to your rights as an american. American citizens are only allowed to be killed by police or military if they are commiting a crime where deadly force is authorized or fleeing the scene of a crime where dealy force is authorized.

And why the special treatment for Al-queda terrorists? Is an american member of the albanian communist radical terrorist wing somehow less of a terrorist, doesn't he deserve to die just the same? Or worse still, perhaps they will just label him al-queda so they have an excuse to kill him. What if I'm a student studying abroad and I visit a famous mosque as a tourist and I just happen to rub elbows with an al-queda big whig, and he stops to talk to me for 10 minutes, does that make me suddenly open to be killed or arrested by the CIA? Probably.

I hate all of these laws, its far too easy to manipulate and abuse them.

Kim

So what do you suggest we do to end the suppossed manipulation and abuse?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes.
--Jack Handey Deep Thoughts

hang10wannabe

well if thats the case, then why worry about it, if they kill you ur dead. i think this is what they call having trust/faith in ones country to do what is right. and i have mucho faith that our country is right and will do the right things and not abuse this power which they have.

__________________
http://jedilightfoot.deviantart.com

Cantacuzene

Enforce the legitimate laws we already have rather than making new laws which comprimise our rights as american citizens.

kain9i6

If you are hanging around with al-Qaida you are an enemy and should be shot.. If you denounce america and join the scum, then die with the scum..

YAY for lake Afganistan!!!!!

molecularfire

No big deal. The CIA can kill us at anytime if they want to anyways. Heck, if they kill a few people by accident, so be it. Can't expect people to be perfect. I'd rather they get the bad guys and accidentally kill a few innocent people then not get the bad guys.

__________________
Disclaimer - The above opinion should not be taken as medical advise. My only advise is to talk to your doctor. If you are stupid enough to take anything I say seriously, you have nobody to blame for your cranio-anal inversion but your stupid self.

I may not be smart enough to do everything but I am dumb enough to try anything. - Beastboy.

Kim

I agree!

Merlin

I hear what you are saying but realize how easy it would be to twist this into an "anyone who disagrees with our government is a target" arguement. Being a country that was born out of violent revolution where all of our founding fathers would have been labeled terrorists I think it is important to distinguish between citizens and external forces.

__________________

Cantacuzene

Its that permissive attitude that will get our guns confiscated, our books burned and our intellectuals thrown in prison. The CIA is a part of our government. BY the people FOR the people. Whenever any law is passed ask whether it is in the best interests of american citizens and you have your answer. Any law that specifically says the government can arbitrarily kill american citizens with impunity is obviously neither by or for the people.

If the said american terrorist is a terrorist, arrest him, and put him on trial for treason and if he is guilty THEN he will die. We our a society that places value on trial by jury. To suggest otherwise is unamerican and unpatriotic. Its funny how the people who blindly follow the laws passed by the administration are the ones who consider themselves the patriots. These people have no idea what america means.

Anyone who likes or trusts the government will get the government they deserve: one is that is unlikable and untrustworthy.

Kim

Never mind.

zenbooty

Thank god somebody's speaking sense here. Hearing people over and over saying it was ok for our new secret police to kill any American they think belongs to a shadowy, secretive, extremely loosely organized group was starting to scare the living Hell out of me. The parallels between our new "security" measures and the actions of fascist authoritarian regimes in the past are becoming starker and more frightening with every passing day.

__________________
Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

Cubsfan

So at what point do we draw the line? What if an American joins the Iraqi army? Should we not kill him because of this? So you're going to use the "self-defense" sort of story there. Because he's shooting at us, then we can kill him.

Ok, let's try somthing else. Say, perhaps, that there are many Americans who join al-Qaida. Now, say they join in a totally non-combative way (computer programmers or something). If al-Qaida puts them in every installation, we have just taken away the ability to do anything, because we might kill the American. Also, as I said before, what if an American al-Qaida was in that car that the CIA blew up a few weeks ago. Well we can't kill him, so we just missed a chance to hurt al-Qaida badly.

Now I'm not saying that the CIA should be able to just kill anyone who "might" be connected. There should be very good proof, and also a good reason that they couldn't just arrest them (i.e. in the car, not just walking down the street). They should have the power, but also the responsibility and accountability.

Cantacuzene

You miss the point. If we attack an al-queda compound and an american terrorist is killed in the attack, that is fine. What I protest is that if the said compound surrenders rather than arresting the american they can just kill him. Thats what I oppose.

Your comparison to the iraqi army is ridiculous. Its against the law for an american to join the armed forces of another nation, thus it becoems treason. The army of a sovereign nation is far different than a club of terrorist.

Cubsfan

That's where the part about responsibility comes in. Obviously just mowing down people is not acceptable.

Just curious about treason. Were the Taliban considered the armed forces of another nation? I know that the American dude wasn't charged with treason because he joined them. Also, treason doesn't automatically give the right to kill an American. Treason must be tried and have two witnesses. Treason does carry the death penalty, however.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that the government has to have both the power and the responsibilty. I think it seriously hurts efforts when the power is not available to them, but I also think that the power should be checked by both the rest of the government and the people.

zenbooty

You are confusing CIA operations with miltary activity. If an American finds himself on the field of battle with an enemy force than God help him. But the CIA does not operate on that level.


Again, this is a situation where an American is located at an enemy installation of strategic military value. No military would or should stop an attack on the enemy because of the presence of Americans. But let me give you another situation:

Let's say there is a peace activist who just won't shut up, receiving funding and support from various left wing activist groups, and a mouthpiece in the editorial pages of various newspapers around the country. His message strikes a chord with many in the general populace, causing public support for the war to diminish noticeably. This obviously doesn't mesh with the goals and motivations of the President, nor the Vice President, nor thus the entire Executive branch (under which fall the Army and CIA). Now, let's say one night under cover of darkness CIA special operatives break into said activist's home and put a bullet in his head (historically this is much closer to how a CIA operation goes down, as opposed to military action). The next day, the CIA and Dept. of Justice claim to have had evidence that the activist had ties to Al Quaeda. The way things are now thanks to the Homeland Security Department, this story would end right there. None of the evidence would have to be made public. No trial would be necessary. No public questioning would need be entertained by the CIA, the Justice Dept., or the president. No one would have to account for anything. They just say "Al Quaeda," and since all relevant information regarding the operation, the activist, and Al Quaeda's membership are hidden from any public oversight, they are free to do as they please. Shouldn't this be a major concern to anyone who truly believes in freedom?


The problem as it is right now is that no proof is necessary. The individual will receive no trial, there is no public oversight over the actions of the CIA. They are the sole arbiters of what proof is sufficient, and no one else gets a glimpse of how they arrived at their conclusions.

molecularfire

First off... guns are useless. When the bill of rights was written, the second amendment was put in to keep the government in check. The right to bear arms was put on so that people can have the ability to revolt should the government turn tyrannous. That is no longer the case. I don't care what kind of gun you have, that is now no longer doable.


Yes. We place value on a system that a bunch of people who don't know what happened, don't care what happened and are too dumb to get out of jury duty are the best ones to decide what happened. Simply put, the only way to keep our government in check is in us getting past our own selfish desires in life and taking a more active stance on how it's run. Simply put, with very few exceptions... that doesn't happen. How many people vote? How many of those that do vote actually read the actual laws that they are voting for? We get 99% of our information second hand or worse because we are too darn lazy to bother reading and understanding the laws as they are written. We don't want a fair government, we want to be able to do whatever we want and get away with it. The only reason why people are so worked up over this is because it is possible that we can get screwed by it. We don't care if the CIA kills all non-citizens because then we are safe. In fact, we want them to be able to stop all threats against us, but to do it in such a way that there is no possible way that we can be at risk. Unfortunately, that's not the way fights go. It's this attitude... this apathy for what is right, what is logical, etc... this pure selfish desire for what we want that has gotten our society to the depths that it has sunk.


We've already got that one. Now... if we bind their hands because of some theoretical fear we will have one that is also incompetent. Do you have any idea why we have a bunch of liars in office. We wouldn't vote for someone who told us the truth. The truth is that as a society, we want everything without giving up nothing. We want lower taxes but more services. We want to be protected by something stronger than us, but we don't want them strong enough that we can't beat them? How is that even possible? We don't want politicians, we want magicians.

Cantacuzene

I disagree with you. If 99% of american citizens were in open revolt, do you honestly think the army would remain loyal to the government? I think not. An american soldier wont fire on his family, especially if EVERY soldier's family is in revolt. You also overestimate the armies size. The army can't be in every city. Washington DC has a large population. If the entire citizenry of DC was hell bent on storming the white house, the police and national guard would not be able to stop them.

Kenas

Way to go!! Terrorists don't care about MY human rights, why should I care about theirs.

Cantacuzene

Because you are better than they are.