3 ms·

Characterizing the killing of people who actively plan attacks on civilians for their own political ends as 'assassination' seems misplaced. These are killers

Characterizing the killing of people who actively plan attacks on civilians for their own political ends as 'assassination' seems misplaced. These are killers with an agenda. It is quite literally kill or be killed.

gldalmaso 12y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-dron...
vidarh 12y ago
Where did the US government provide proof that their targets were actively planning attacks on civilians? They didn't. That is the issue. Even a secret in-absentia trial with an appointed defender unable to communicate with the person they are defending would be better than the current system. It would still be a farce, but it would be vastly better. The current system is state sanctioned murder. Nothing less. That none of the people in the chain of command is on trial for murder says all we need to know about the callousness of the US government.
- clavalle 12y ago
  To what possible end do you think the US would be killing these people if not to eliminate a threat?
  - vfclists 12y ago
    Could you kindly provide evidence of the threats are you referring to? You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone? An American citizen who open admits committing a crime gets more due process than a harmless child in some third world country. Do American military men ever have to produce evidence before killing children, as in www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0?
    - clavalle 12y ago
      You didn't answer my question. Why would the US kill these people if they are not a threat? What would the motive be? As for your request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Muhammad_Wazir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Muhammad_Wazir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitham_al-Yemeni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitham_al-Yemeni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Somali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Somali and on and on and on...these are not harmless children. >You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone? No, not alone. There needs to be oversight (and I believe there is) it just doesn't need to be public.
      - watwut 12y ago
        Because they "think" those people are threat based on metadata. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-peo... Or because some analyst needed to prove he is fast worker and decided to check "terrorist" box in some internal software. Or because boss decided give bonuses for catch terrorists and someone wanted a new car. The system with no independent oversight will end up abused in millions of ways, most often by people not caring about doing it right. Heck, even real world cops make tons of mistakes or arrest people just to fill arrested bodies quotas and they do have judges to check upon them, at least in theory. Or, most dangerously, because that person is outspoken politically dangerous person, not a terrorists and not planning anything, but did actually met with some terrorist twice. Say, muslim active in politics just about to do something uncomfortable for administration.

gldalmaso 12y ago

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-dron...

vidarh 12y ago

Where did the US government provide proof that their targets were actively planning attacks on civilians? They didn't. That is the issue. Even a secret in-absentia trial with an appointed defender unable to communicate with the person they are defending would be better than the current system. It would still be a farce, but it would be vastly better. The current system is state sanctioned murder. Nothing less. That none of the people in the chain of command is on trial for murder says all we need to know about the callousness of the US government.

clavalle 12y ago
To what possible end do you think the US would be killing these people if not to eliminate a threat?
- vfclists 12y ago
  Could you kindly provide evidence of the threats are you referring to? You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone? An American citizen who open admits committing a crime gets more due process than a harmless child in some third world country. Do American military men ever have to produce evidence before killing children, as in www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0?
  - clavalle 12y ago
    You didn't answer my question. Why would the US kill these people if they are not a threat? What would the motive be? As for your request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Muhammad_Wazir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Muhammad_Wazir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitham_al-Yemeni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitham_al-Yemeni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Somali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Somali and on and on and on...these are not harmless children. >You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone? No, not alone. There needs to be oversight (and I believe there is) it just doesn't need to be public.
    - watwut 12y ago
      Because they "think" those people are threat based on metadata. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-peo... Or because some analyst needed to prove he is fast worker and decided to check "terrorist" box in some internal software. Or because boss decided give bonuses for catch terrorists and someone wanted a new car. The system with no independent oversight will end up abused in millions of ways, most often by people not caring about doing it right. Heck, even real world cops make tons of mistakes or arrest people just to fill arrested bodies quotas and they do have judges to check upon them, at least in theory. Or, most dangerously, because that person is outspoken politically dangerous person, not a terrorists and not planning anything, but did actually met with some terrorist twice. Say, muslim active in politics just about to do something uncomfortable for administration.