| Author |
|
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 8:35am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Paulo, I just read the story you linked, and it's about going after a known terrorist who happens to be American but is helping plan and launch attacks against the U.S.
The link in your quote is about how W. knew there were innocent people being held at Guantanamo.
One is about eliminating a person who is helping kill people, and the other is about imprisoning innocent people. Do you understand that?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 8:58am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Without a trial or due process, Brad? Just, bang, bullet in the head? Do we just unquestioningly accept what the government tells us?
Consider the argument made here, which quotes part of an Executive Order signed by Reagan in 1981 (emphasis from the article):
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.
Seems a fairly compelling argument to me.
As for the Guantanamo detainees, there are still 180 left, according to that article. So, there doesn't seem to be any rush to release them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9165
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:03am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Brad already answered the first part, but..... "As for the Guantanamo detainees, there are still 180 left, according to that article. So, there doesn't seem to be any rush to release them." They're in legal limbo thanks to the Bush administration. If it was easy to release them back to their countries of origin, they would have been released already. It truly is a legal quagmire that the current administration has to trudge through.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:06am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Paulo - the guy isn't an individual belonging to a hostile army, or a citizen or subject of a hostile government. He's an American citizen. Also, the article you linked to states that
As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country...In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks... and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.
Did you read the article you linked to, Paulo?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:14am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Brad, in the interests of full disclosure when it comes to 9/11 issues, Paulo believes that the twin towers were felled by explosive devices planted inside the buildings, and not by structural failure caused by airplanes crashing into them and jet-fuel fires.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:17am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Also, I might add that he's still an active hostile - not a captive. In fact, you actually highlighted that part "who may be slain without trial by any captor" so I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against.
In fact, I'd like to point out something else. I'm Canadian. We're discussing this openly in the most public of places. It's not like it's some clandestine sinister thing the government is doing - they are being as transparent as they can be! They even show all the steps and all the work it takes to make extra special certain what they are doing is necessary, and that it is legal.
Do I approve of killing anyone? No, I wish we could all just get along and settle our arguments with laughter and hugs. But hey, if you DO have to take a life, to protect the safety and lives of others, then the way they're doing this is pretty much the way I'd like them to do it - openly, honestly, and with as much deliberation and red tape as possible. They've cleared that, the guy is a target, he shouldn't be trying to kill innocent human beings.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:18am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Al - I was there for that discussion. I took part in that discussion. I still, sometimes, feel like planting sharp objects into my own skull because of that discussion.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:20am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Blank post.
Edited by Al Cook on 13 April 2010 at 9:20am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:35am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Brad wrote:
| Paulo - the guy isn't an individual belonging to a hostile army, or a citizen or subject of a hostile government. He's an American citizen. |
|
|
So, enemy soldiers get more rights than American citizens? Pretty absurd game of semantics there.
QUOTE:
| Did you read the article you linked to, Paulo? |
|
|
It reports that the gov't put someone on their hit list. That doesn't mean I agree with the policies it reports.
Anyway, when did it become guilty until proven innocent...or killed? Can you cite the proof that this guy is so dangerous that killing him without a trial would be justified?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:40am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Thanks Paulo. I'm out. Have fun in the land of Make Believe.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:42am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Brad wrote:
| Also, I might add that he's still an active hostile - not a captive. In fact, you actually highlighted that part "who may be slain without trial by any captor" so I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against. |
|
|
First, I didn't highlight that part (read my post). Second, you seem to be missing the context of that statement.
That said, I did make an error. That quote isn't from Reagan's Executive Order, it's from General Order 100, signed by Lincoln. So, my apologies.
Reagan's Executive Order says "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 13 April 2010 at 9:43am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Brad wrote:
| Thanks Paulo. I'm out. Have fun in the land of Make Believe. |
|
|
What exactly are you referring to? What "make believe?" Why not answer the questions I asked instead of copping out?
Edited by Paulo Pereira on 13 April 2010 at 9:52am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
