4 ms·

Due process is subject to feasibility on American soil as well. Mass shooters seem to get very few days in court.

monocasa 4y ago
It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  > It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Even then, it would mostly be a qualitative judgement. For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? I'm not saying the gov was wrong or right with Anwar, just that the arguments presented here fail to account for real world complexity.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    > A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? Following that logic, drone striking you in your house is an active situation. No constitution needed. No, I obviously meant that you're allowed to kill as LEO _in response_ to an active situation. > For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? > What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? The real world is not the TV show 24. The purpose of the constitution is to constrain such actions even if extrajudicially drone striking every person with a modicum of 'credible evidence' against them would be easier or might lead to less tragedies. Additionally, you're ignoring that there was no active situation Al-Waki was accused of participating in. Just political speech the government didn't approve of.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      > Following that logic, drone striking you in your house is an active situation. No constitution needed. No, I obviously meant that you're allowed to kill as LEO _in response_ to an active situation. My point was that you haven't defined what an "active situation" is. I could say "we should only kill people when we have to" and that'd be accurate, but that'd be useless for the point of this conversation, which at this point seems to be defining "have to". > The real world is not the TV show 24. The purpose of the constitution is to constrain such actions even if extrajudicially drone striking every person with a modicum of 'credible evidence' against them would be easier or might lead to less tragedies. Indeed, however, such things happen and people are forced to act during them. I also highly doubt the playbook the military uses is "do we have at least a modicum of evidence? then kill them." >Additionally, you're ignoring that there was no active situation Al-Waki was accused of participating in. Just political speech the government didn't approve of. I am ignoring no such thing as I made no comment on his situation other than to say I do not have enough information to make a judgement.
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        > however, such things happen Source?
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        It's common enough that states have statutes regarding the use of deadly force when someone is believed to pose a threat, whether or not they are a threat in that moment. "Fleeing Felon" statutes for instance.

It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.

BobbyJo 4y ago
> It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Even then, it would mostly be a qualitative judgement. For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? I'm not saying the gov was wrong or right with Anwar, just that the arguments presented here fail to account for real world complexity.
- monocasa 4y ago
  > A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? Following that logic, drone striking you in your house is an active situation. No constitution needed. No, I obviously meant that you're allowed to kill as LEO _in response_ to an active situation. > For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? > What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? The real world is not the TV show 24. The purpose of the constitution is to constrain such actions even if extrajudicially drone striking every person with a modicum of 'credible evidence' against them would be easier or might lead to less tragedies. Additionally, you're ignoring that there was no active situation Al-Waki was accused of participating in. Just political speech the government didn't approve of.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    > Following that logic, drone striking you in your house is an active situation. No constitution needed. No, I obviously meant that you're allowed to kill as LEO _in response_ to an active situation. My point was that you haven't defined what an "active situation" is. I could say "we should only kill people when we have to" and that'd be accurate, but that'd be useless for the point of this conversation, which at this point seems to be defining "have to". > The real world is not the TV show 24. The purpose of the constitution is to constrain such actions even if extrajudicially drone striking every person with a modicum of 'credible evidence' against them would be easier or might lead to less tragedies. Indeed, however, such things happen and people are forced to act during them. I also highly doubt the playbook the military uses is "do we have at least a modicum of evidence? then kill them." >Additionally, you're ignoring that there was no active situation Al-Waki was accused of participating in. Just political speech the government didn't approve of. I am ignoring no such thing as I made no comment on his situation other than to say I do not have enough information to make a judgement.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      > however, such things happen Source?
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        It's common enough that states have statutes regarding the use of deadly force when someone is believed to pose a threat, whether or not they are a threat in that moment. "Fleeing Felon" statutes for instance.