4 ms·

Just curious what ends you think justify these means? and do you think the US (and other 5 eyes) is achieving those ends?

latch 6y ago
If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.
- useriousbro 6y ago
  Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke? Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused? There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol. I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
  - latch 6y ago
    I'm saying that I can imagine a realistic scenarios where an extra extrajudicial execution could be seen as the lesser of two evil by reasonable people. Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.
    - useriousbro 6y ago
      And I am asking.. does this look like one of those situations and do you think there is appropriate oversight in this situation? our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      I can imagine these too, but some imaginary scenarios come too close to "24" TV series scenarios, i.e. completely unrealistic. But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      I think that's a reasonable opinion, but I would also like to point out that in the US it's neither formalized, nor scrutinized.

latch 6y ago

If you allow me to ignore the slippery slope argument, the typical justification given for extrajudicial killing (clear and immediate threat) at the very least, makes this a not-so black and white issue.

useriousbro 6y ago
Are you saying that the targets referenced in this article/hearing were clear and immediate threat to Americans on the other side of the world? or maybe they were minutes from launching a nuke? Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused? There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol. I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
- latch 6y ago
  I'm saying that I can imagine a realistic scenarios where an extra extrajudicial execution could be seen as the lesser of two evil by reasonable people. Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.
  - useriousbro 6y ago
    And I am asking.. does this look like one of those situations and do you think there is appropriate oversight in this situation? our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    I can imagine these too, but some imaginary scenarios come too close to "24" TV series scenarios, i.e. completely unrealistic. But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    I think that's a reasonable opinion, but I would also like to point out that in the US it's neither formalized, nor scrutinized.