Let's get all the dishonest framing out of the way re: killing of Al Qaeda figures. Here's a list

[stevenleser]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/10/dead-captured-and-wanted/

My contention is that we are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Osama bin Laden formally stated this on two occasions. Let me know if anyone needs to see a link, I think we have all seen his pronouncements on this score.

The above link contains a list of all prominent figures among Al Qaeda and its affiliates and supporters. The folks not already dead or captured have two choices, surrender, or be killed. I have no problem with that given their groups stated intent to wage war against us.

It is not considered execution of a US citizen if you are killed in support of a group with whom we are at war and make no mistake, the conditions between the United States and Al Qaeda completely meet the UN definition of a state of war.

[TheWraith]

1. A fugitive being pursued by the police has the option to surrender. Death is an alternative.

And if the police shoot him because he won't surrender, that doesn't make it murder, even if you're an American citizen.

[stevenleser]

2. I agree, although in the case of someone support a group with whom we are at war...

they have to surrender well in advance or risk something like a bombing, etc.

[KansDem]

3. Are you okay with the government killing members of right-wing militia movements?

After all, they have declared war on America:

The violent sometimes look to religion for justification

Before Jerry Kane, 45, and his son, 16, allegedly shot to death the officers Thursday, he discussed violence in a debt-avoidance seminar captured on video.

“The Bible even tells us if you’re going to go and make war against somebody, you have to kill their sheep and their goats and their chickens and their babies and their wives,” Kane said in a video that’s now been removed from the YouTube site. “OK, you have to kill them all. So what we’re after here is not fighting, it’s conquering.”

In the video, he and others discuss a “rogue” female IRS agent and IRS agents in general.

“They’re criminals,” Kane said. “That’s why it’s time to conquer. Find out where she goes and hangs out and get a bunch of friends together and go beat her a–. Break her f—ing legs. She won’t do it no more. I’m not advocating violence; I’m advocating conquering. It’s not violence.”

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/jmitchell/tag/hutaree-militia-movement/

And nine members of the Hutaree Militia were arrested by the FBI. Should these people have been merely assassinated?

Last of Nine Alleged Cop-Killing Plotters Arrested

The last of nine people indicted in a plot to kill police officers was arrested this evening at a home in Hillsdale County, Mich.

Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, was captured without incident Monday evening, authorities told ABC News.

Authorities say Stone was one of two sons of David Brian Stone, 45, the alleged ringleader of the Christian militia group called Hutaree.

The anti-government militia allegedly plotted to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices and projectiles before being foiled by FBI raids that started Sunday in three states that netted nine members of an extremist group, federal authorities said today.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/michigan-christian-militia-hutaree-targeted-law-enforcement/story?id=10228716

Why arrest them if it's okay to kill anyone declaring war on the United States?

[The Magistrate]

5. Absolutely, Sir: It Should Have Been Doing This For Years

[stevenleser]

7. I'm not sure of your point. Should there be a difference? I'm not sure.

If you declare your intent to wage war on a nation state, I think you deserve to be treated by that nation state as if you are in a state of war with them. If the nation state decides to be nicer about it, you are lucky.

No one is forcing the groups we are talking about to do these things.

[jberryhill]

17. If someone is reasonably believed to be in commission of a deadly crime,

And is given notice that they are wanted.

And does not turn themselves in.

And there are no reasonable alternatives for capture.

Then there is not a due process requirement to permit the crime to continue.

[COLGATE4]

26. And your precedent for this conclusion is.....?

[jberryhill]

27. This happens daily in hostage situations

I'll go hunt down a case if you'd like, but this is precisely why police forces have snipers.

If a hostage taker will not surrender, and cannot be safely apprehended, then the sniper looks for a clean shot.

Otherwise, I've been missing a lot of threads on DU when these situations go down.

Edit Tennessee v Garner

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others

----

There is likely more on the subject of ongoing crime, as opposed to fleeing, but that's a starting point.

[COLGATE4]

42. How does a Tennessee case relate to this? I don't see where

you can prove that he posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The case you cite actually proves my point.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Only if two conditions are met:

1) Arresting and trying them is not feasible.
2) The person in question has literally declared war on the US, in the "actively attempting to kill or assist in the killing of large numbers of people".

If someone is on American soil then, by definition, it's feasible to try to arrest them and hence ordering them assassinated is not legitimate, but killing people who are resisting arrest with extreme force is sometimes legitimate.

[Gregorian]

4. Sometimes I have to ask if by 'war' they mean defending themselves.

No, I'm not siding with Al Qaeda. I'm pointing out that Osama did not attack Iceland for a reason. And it isn't Bjork.

[stevenleser]

8. I can say I am defending myself against all kinds of things when I blow up a building full of people

that kind of logic doesnt work for me.

[saras]

19. Even if most of the organizations in the building are working for the death of you and your culture?

[stevenleser]

25. You really need someone to help you with an answer to that? If I dont like goth culture should I

kill them and blow up the business that cater to them?

[Gregorian]

34. That was my point. I may not have made it very well.

In a way it was a snide point. I can't justify what they did. But they can.

My point is that we're no better than them, if we pull these kinds of stunts. It's sickening. No wonder it was so hard to get people interested in the Troy Davis case.

[KansDem]

10. I suppose going into the mid-East via Iraq for no good reason....

...and killing Iraqi civilians might have a profound effect on the rest of the populace.

[stevenleser]

11. And I could totally understand wanting to wage war for those reasons. But it would still be war

and you are opening yourself up to legally being killed or maimed by the folks against whom you are warring.

[stevenleser]

18. P.S. Civilians are always killed in wars. ALWAYS.

I see a lot of antiwar folks engaging in red herrings like "Civilians got killed" or, "They used drones" when what they really want to say is "I don't want war to happen, I think war is wrong, and I want this war to stop".

I don't know when someone decided that just being straightforward and saying "I don't want war to happen, I think war is wrong and I want this war to stop" was a bad thing to do but they were incorrect. The honest and straightforward approach is always better.

Anyone who knows the history of war is going to look at your assertion that "Civilians got killed" and they are going to think that you are raising a red herring about that particular war since civilians dying and being killed is something that always happens in war. The UN in fact has a standard that deals with civilians being killed in war that says the amount of civilians who died has to be completely disproportionate to the objective one was attempting to attain before such a thing raises to the level of war crime. The UN sent back a response to that effect to those who objected to the US' initial bombardment of Iraq en route to the invasion.

[KansDem]

40. That's why war is a last resort

The UN in fact has a standard that deals with civilians being killed in war that says the amount of civilians who died has to be completely disproportionate to the objective one was attempting to attain before such a thing raises to the level of war crime.

...and not something you do as a "business venture" using other people's children.

[stevenleser]

41. I agree 100%. See my below article for my feelings on the Iraq war

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[TwilightGardener]

6. Yep. If you want to be AQ, you really shouldn't expect your citizenship status

to protect you in the foreign country where you hid.

[stevenleser]

9. Very well put. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Thank You Twilight.

:applause:

[polmaven]

28. Precisely!

I am of the opinion that, when he left the United States, became a member of a terrorist group which had declared intentions to wage war on the US, and actively plotted to do the same, he renounced his citizenship.

[Phx_Dem]

39. +1

[jenmito]

12. K&R. I will direct people to this thread when they start with their false talking points.

Thank you.

[stevenleser]

13. No, Thank YOU Jen

:-)

:pals:

:hug:

[jenmito]

15. Awww, shucks...

back atcha!

:pals:
:hug:

[msongs]

14. doesn't meet the definition of war in the US Constitution however, which states that

only congress can declare a state of war to exist. And btw if you declare war on your neighbor does that give you a right to murder everyone in your neighbor's house via drone attacks?

[stevenleser]

16. Actually, that is wrong. The Constitution says that congress has the power to declare war, that is

true, but it does not say that a state of war does not exist if congress doesnt declare it. That is an important flaw in your reasoning.

Another way of thinking about this is, if a foreign power blows up the Capitol building with the members of congress inside and then attacks and invades, does that mean no state of war exists and can never exist?

Obviously that is silly. States of war exist even if no one formally declares them as such.

[COLGATE4]

43. That;s why FDR convened Congress to ask for a declaration of

war against Japan after Pearl Harbor???

[stevenleser]

47. And if he hadn't, would no state of war exist? Were the navy folks who manned antiaircraft batteries

at Pearl Harbor committing murder when they shot down Japanese planes, or were their actions governed by the Geneva conventions since the moment the Japanese fired on us, a state of war existed beween the US and the Japanese empire?

[saras]

20. First dishonest frame to go: that the US has any business whatsoever in the Middle East

[stevenleser]

23. If you phrased that better, I might at least partially agree.

Their citizens and businesses travel and do business with us and vice versa. So, insomuch as that is concerned, we have "business" being there and they have "business" being here.

Should we be controlling or trying to control the regional politics there? No. If that is what you are trying to say, I agree.

[golfguru]

22. There are 2 Billion Muslims out there.....

We can kill a few hundred. Won't change anything.

Just close all 700+ bases worldwide, and bring all troops
home to defend homeland. Then Al Qaeda or any other group
has no reason to hate us or attack us. It is our military
presence in Muslim countries is the reason they are able to
recruit endless supply of terrorists.

And the really stupid part is, we are maintaining all these
foreign bases with borrowed money from China. The interest
payments are going up every year and will never end because
we have no budget surplus to pay back any principal.

[DCBob]

24. so if we could kill a few million then that would be better in your eyes?

FYI, we are not at war with Muslims.

[golfguru]

29. Please re-read my ENTIRE post again, carefully

because you obviously mis-understood what I am saying.

To summarize for you again, we need to withdraw all our
troops from world over. There is no where in my post I talk
about killing any Muslims. Sheez!

[DCBob]

30. your first sentence was more than enough.

[golfguru]

31. LOL is that how you studied in college?

By reading the first sentence of any chapter?

[DCBob]

32. doesnt take a college education to see the nonsense in what you posted.

[golfguru]

33. Have a good evening!

[stevenleser]

35. I almost wish I could see what 'ignored' was saying. Almost. n/t

[DCBob]

37. ha! you are probably smart to ignore that dude... but he is entertaining sometimes.

;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. You're equating "muslims" with "muslim terrorists" - something I didn't expect to see on DU.

There are two million muslims; killing one of them won't change anything.

There are only a small number of muslims actively involved in plotting violence against the United states; killing the senior ones may well change a lot.

The idea that closing Americas bases worldwide would end hatred of America strikes me as laughable. It's possible that never having established those bases, along with never having supported Israel, the Shah of Iran, various secular Arab regimes, etc, might have prevented that hatred from arising, but it's too late for that now. There may be other valid reasons for closing some or all American overseas bases, but that is not one of them.

[mikekohr]

36. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield.

[Ikonoklast]

44. The funny part is, he probably was surprised.

These guys think they can slaughter innocent people with impunity, and just retreat to a remote part of the world, pay off a few locals, and live in safety, plotting to kill even more people.

I hope the rest of AQ membership thinks the same way.

[Phx_Dem]

38. I agree 100%.