4 ms·

The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there we

The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a really difficult problem.

alexqgb 13y ago
It's not really a solution of any kind if it creates problems vastly bigger and more terrifying that the ones it purports to solve. It's kind of like killing a fly on a window by throwing a hand grenade at it.
- shitlord 13y ago
  But the majority of people think it's an acceptable solution for the time being. If they weren't, then there would be a political shitstorm. And there really isn't - because nobody can give a better solution than letting those people just go free and do as they please. From my experience, the majority of people actually terrified of this are people on the internet. A lot of people are uneasy with it, but only on the internet are people terrified. The government isn't going to go around killing anyone it dislikes willy-nilly.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
    - shitlord 13y ago
      There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity. I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.
      - vdaniuk 13y ago
        Killing of a suspect is not an atrocity. Nice.
      - alexqgb 13y ago
        Actually, there's no difference at all when one involves the other. (See drone strikes / collateral damage / Hellfire missiles / Yemen). Also, killing people posing no immediate threat to the lives of others and with no due process is, almost by definition, an act of murder. Not war, murder.
jfoster 13y ago
Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides & downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side. Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are genuine threats to many other people. Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power isn't being abused? Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies involved to be extremely transparent about each case, releasing everything that led them to the decision that they took.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  "It can be a slippery slope". (A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C) zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who are ordering the killings can be a slippery slope? That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have slid all the way down.
  - jfoster 13y ago
    If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.
    - rurounijones 13y ago
      In legal terms (and I use that loosely) they have already decided that they have that right, so in that sense we have already reached the bottom. Now, implementation wise you are correct in that things could be worse. However in the "We are the government and we can do this" sense...ditch. (It must be said that the nice thing about the large-scale implementation problem is that the US population would rise up against that, but that is small comfort for the victims in the "small enough that 'Joe Average' doesn't care about it" death-list.)
    - grey-area 13y ago
      If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens And if they weren't?
flumbaps 13y ago
In yearly global death count, terrorism accounts for around 10,000. That would not be a big deal even if all those deaths were in the US (and not scattered over the globe, and mostly in places of high civil unrest). I'm not saying 10,000 deaths isn't sad, but in 2011 a whopping 597,689 Americans died of heart disease. Yet, there aren't secret government enforced exercise camps, are there? There aren't secret courts that shut down McDonalds restaurants without trial, are there? It doesn't matter whether this is an evil plan to grab power by Obama or not. It gives a huge amount of power to the President. If you don't fight it now, that power will never be given back. Each successful president will enjoy the ability to kill of anyone they feel like in secret. Add to that the complicit news organisations, sweeping domestic spying programs and the secret prisons, and you have everything in place for a coup. All it takes now is for the wrong guy to get elected.
- chii 13y ago
  i agree - power needs checks and balances. This scenario reminds me of the bourne movies, in which the CIA authorizes assasinations just like this.

alexqgb 13y ago

It's not really a solution of any kind if it creates problems vastly bigger and more terrifying that the ones it purports to solve. It's kind of like killing a fly on a window by throwing a hand grenade at it.

shitlord 13y ago
But the majority of people think it's an acceptable solution for the time being. If they weren't, then there would be a political shitstorm. And there really isn't - because nobody can give a better solution than letting those people just go free and do as they please. From my experience, the majority of people actually terrified of this are people on the internet. A lot of people are uneasy with it, but only on the internet are people terrified. The government isn't going to go around killing anyone it dislikes willy-nilly.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
  - shitlord 13y ago
    There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity. I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.
    - vdaniuk 13y ago
      Killing of a suspect is not an atrocity. Nice.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Actually, there's no difference at all when one involves the other. (See drone strikes / collateral damage / Hellfire missiles / Yemen). Also, killing people posing no immediate threat to the lives of others and with no due process is, almost by definition, an act of murder. Not war, murder.

jfoster 13y ago

Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides & downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side. Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are genuine threats to many other people. Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power isn't being abused? Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies involved to be extremely transparent about each case, releasing everything that led them to the decision that they took.

rurounijones 13y ago
"It can be a slippery slope". (A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C) zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who are ordering the killings can be a slippery slope? That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have slid all the way down.
- jfoster 13y ago
  If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.
  - rurounijones 13y ago
    In legal terms (and I use that loosely) they have already decided that they have that right, so in that sense we have already reached the bottom. Now, implementation wise you are correct in that things could be worse. However in the "We are the government and we can do this" sense...ditch. (It must be said that the nice thing about the large-scale implementation problem is that the US population would rise up against that, but that is small comfort for the victims in the "small enough that 'Joe Average' doesn't care about it" death-list.)
  - grey-area 13y ago
    If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens And if they weren't?

flumbaps 13y ago

In yearly global death count, terrorism accounts for around 10,000. That would not be a big deal even if all those deaths were in the US (and not scattered over the globe, and mostly in places of high civil unrest). I'm not saying 10,000 deaths isn't sad, but in 2011 a whopping 597,689 Americans died of heart disease. Yet, there aren't secret government enforced exercise camps, are there? There aren't secret courts that shut down McDonalds restaurants without trial, are there? It doesn't matter whether this is an evil plan to grab power by Obama or not. It gives a huge amount of power to the President. If you don't fight it now, that power will never be given back. Each successful president will enjoy the ability to kill of anyone they feel like in secret. Add to that the complicit news organisations, sweeping domestic spying programs and the secret prisons, and you have everything in place for a coup. All it takes now is for the wrong guy to get elected.

chii 13y ago
i agree - power needs checks and balances. This scenario reminds me of the bourne movies, in which the CIA authorizes assasinations just like this.