If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty?

[Zalatix]

I'm not making this up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002435184#post26

I'll reserve comment since most of what I say might get my thread auto-locked. Opinions, anyone? I just want to know what the consensus is...

[MrSlayer]

1. Not the fact in itself.

But they're usually pretty sure who they are going after. As far as al-awaki's son goes, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. They aren't going to stop an operation on a major target because your dumb ass is hanging around him. You hit them when you can.

[Zalatix]

3. No trial? We gave Saddam Hussein as much and he supposedly had nukes aimed at us, or whatever.

[MrSlayer]

5. We didn't give Saddam a trial.

The Iraqis did. Besides, we weren't in a position to give the people in question a trial. They certainly weren't in a hurry to turn themselves in.

[Sea-Dog]

13. why would Anyone hand themselves into people that openly torture

eh

[ChunderingTruth]

2. It depends upon the rules of engagement

there was a time that I could literally get away will killing someone and all I had to say was they disregarded my order to halt, I would have gotten a pat and the back a letter of commendation and probably a medal too.

[denbot]

4. My opinion is post #52 just two down from my post you linked to.

No system, organization, or person is perfect, but the U.S. personnel that are tasked with making those decisions are among the best in the world. If you doubt me just ask Osama, no wait that wouldn't work, um, ask al-Awlaki, no wait that won't work either. I know, ask the intended target Ibahim al-Banna, oh shit he's dead too..

Mistakes are made. The term "fog of war" is one of the few certainties of war. Mistakes were not made in this attack. The kid that is the subject of the thread was in a vehicle with al-Banna leaving a al-Qaeda meeting. You don't trust the people making those decisions, fine.

I seriously doubt that you have ever worked with those like them in a tactical environment. I have, and I would trust their judgement, like I trusted my own.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Zalatix]

8. And I will say again, I do not blindly trust anyone. Show me the evidence.

Show me proof that al-Banna resisted arrest with lethal force.

Do you have this proof? Yes or no?

I'm waiting.

[11 Bravo]

127. Way back when, I had the occasion to share a fighting hole with a variety of grunts.

I'm glad none of them were you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

6. Are you actually suggesting...

That when enemy forces fire upon US troops the authority should be brought into arrest them and they should be given a trial?

[Zalatix]

7. We're killing people who did not fire upon US troops at all.

[USArmyParatrooper]

9. Yes, that's what you do in a war.

And they do the same. You don't just wait to be attacked him and counter attack. If you think otherwise don't quit your day job.

[Zalatix]

10. Since when do you execute a kill on sight order on someone who hasn't opened fire on you?

And while you're at it, Mr. Paratrooper, what stops the Government from sending a drone to kill you for ANY reason?

Whoops, no answer for that.

The answer is... if they're not shooting at you, you haul them in for a trial.

[USArmyParatrooper]

11. Do you think literally everyone in the Nazi army

Fired at coalition forces? Do you think there wasn't a single Nazi soldier at Normandy who was new who had never engaged coalition forces before?

Do you not know that there are troopers in every army who will never engage the enemy, people who work in support roles?

[Zalatix]

12. Was al-Banna armed?

Those troops were armed and at the ready.

How does this apply to al-Banna?

And once again what's left to stop a Republican Government from designating YOU as an enemy combatant?

You're a soldier and presumably a Democrat - in their crazy universe that makes you a prime target for a drone. You'll get as much of an evidence hearing as al-Banna did.

[USArmyParatrooper]

14. I don't know, was he?

Do you have specific information that he didn't have an AK-47 with him?

Nobody from the enemy force has to be armed for us to kill them. If they're sleeping in their barracks in their underwear, drop a JDAM on them.

As for me being at target because I'm a Democrat, LOL! Lay off the tinfoil

[Zalatix]

17. Wait, you are asking me for specific evidence of innocence? What country do you think you're in?

Get your head out of the sand.

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. No. You said he wasn't armed.

What are you basing that on?

[Zalatix]

19. I base it upon lack of evidence. If you have any, please show it.

You have shown me absolutely no proof that al-Banna was killed for any other reason besides someone did not like him.

No. Evidence. Whatsoever.

Do you get it yet?

[USArmyParatrooper]

41. Once again...

Do you require proof for all members of all military forces we are fighting? If not, why is this particular case so special?

[Zalatix]

43. I take it you have no proof, once again, that al-Banna deserved to die?

[USArmyParatrooper]

49. Not one from a court of law, no.

Because a trial is not necessary for the US military to target enemy combatants.

1: How do we know the people we targeted at Normandy were really enemy combatants without a trial?

2: Are suggesting ALL military targets must first have a trial?

If you concede my point, you can signal such by refusing to answer the above questions. If your response to this does not contain answer, we can take that as a signal that you know I'm right. The same if you pretend not to see the questions and move on.

[Zalatix]

50. LOL at your attempt to declare victory.

You've got no proof at all that al-Banna was even qualified to be a military target.

You can dodge and duck all you want but in the end you have nothing to show al-Banna met ANY criteria whatsoever to identify him as a legitimate target. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

[USArmyParatrooper]

53. Thank you for proving my point

by refusing to answer the questions.

1: How do we know the people we targeted at Normandy were really enemy combatants without a trial?

2: Are you suggesting ALL military targets must first have a trial?

At this point all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ear and going "lalalala I can't hear you."

[Zalatix]

76. You have repeatedly dodged my questions, and have hidden behind irrelevant responses

I asked you what evidence you had that al-Banna did anything to deserve to die and all you have done so far is run away from that question.

One has to wonder why. It is, after all, at the very heart of this matter.

Also, I offer you post #57 as my OTHER response to you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

78. WRONG

I did answer your question already. I said there was no proof given in a court of law, and I said the same is true for every single other military action that is taken against enemy combatants.

So there it is I answered your question twice.

Now the question again, does every military strike against enemy combatants require a trial? Yes or no?

[Zalatix]

80. A trial isn't required for all strikes against enemy combatants. However we've no evidence al-Banna

was in any way an enemy combatant. So your answer doesn't even apply here, because nothing shows al-Banna was an enemy combatant!

But since you're still not getting it, let me explain it this way.

Suppose YOU are declared an enemy combatant. You know you're not, but what does it matter? Going by your logic you deserve to be hit by a drone and I as an American citizen should just accept that you've been accused of being an enemy combatant.

[img][/img]

Oh, yeah, I know, you are going to argue that it'll never happen to you, because by God you're an American citizen and you obey the law! Gotcha.

[USArmyParatrooper]

83. How do you know there was no evidence?

Do you need to see evidence for every single military action? I shot at people in Iraq a few times. Have you seen proof that the people I shot at were enemy combatants? Maybe you should make some threads demanding to see proof.

[Zalatix]

87. How do you know there was evidence?

Perhaps the reason why I avoided the military and bahrbearian evaded the draft was we don't let others tell us what to think.

[USArmyParatrooper]

90. I don't.

So we both agree that military strikes are carried out without having to provide proof each time to the public. In fact, it would be impossible for a military to even function if it had to provide proof for everything it does.

So why are you making this particular case out to be something special?

PS: I'm glad I got you to back off of the notion that he should've had a trial.

[Zalatix]

92. WRONG. He SHOULD have had a trial. And you admit you have no evidence.

Thank you for admitting that there is absolutely no reason to believe this drone strike was in any way right or necessary.

Well, except for one reason: because the MIC tells me what to think.

[USArmyParatrooper]

94. Flip flopper!

YOU: "A trial isn't required for all strikes against enemy combatants"

So why is this case so special?

[Zalatix]

96. But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument doesn't even apply.

Here is a clue: had you said "a trial isn't required against all SUSPECTED enemy combatants", you would have a point.

[USArmyParatrooper]

97. How do you know he's not?

To which you will say, "how do you know he is?"

To which I will say, how do you know the guys that I shot at were enemy combatants?

You don't. So why are you not demanding that they had a trial?

[Zalatix]

98. You've shot at people you didn't know were hostile?

Great way to put innocent lives in danger, hero.

At this point do you have any toes left?

[USArmyParatrooper]

99. Complete and total strawman.

I didn't say that. I asked how YOU know they were enemy combatants.

And since you don't know, why are you not demanding that they had a trial?

[Zalatix]

100. Actually, since you keep trying to distract the issue with your non-points

I would like to see proof that the people you ALLEGEDLY shot at were out to get you versus defending their own property.

[USArmyParatrooper]

101. LOL

No military, including the United States, carries out or can carry out a war while providing proof and/or putting people on trial before they engage the enemy.

Pointing this out is not a distraction issue, it is completely 100% relevant to the topic at hand.

So what is special about this case that you demand a trial before hand, and what is special about my deployment where you want proof that the people I engaged had hostile intent?

[Zalatix]

103. Your argument has been "Reasons? I don't need no stinkin' reasons!"

In essence you have been saying from jump that our leaders should be able to send out attack drones whenever they want and those of us who ask why can go suck it.

In your world, we don't need to know why. Drones were sent out and some sucker's gotta die, that's all.

You see nothing wrong with that at all. I pity you. And this is why I never joined the military - I would never let someone discipline away my right to question authority.

[USArmyParatrooper]

105. No, that hasn't been my argument.

My argument has been that no military, including the United States, carries out or can carry out a war while providing proof and/or putting people on trial before they engage the enemy.

Do you care to address the above? Don't paraphrase in a dishonest way what I said above, actually address what I said.

[Zalatix]

107. "We don't need no stinkin' REASONS" is 100% EXACTLY what you said.

State the difference between "no military, including the United States, carries out or can carry out a war while providing proof" and "we don't need no stinkin' reasons".

There is no difference.

You expect that when the US sends out an assassination drone, that we citizens are to just accept it and move on. And to that I say not just no, but HELL NO.

If you insist upon selling this BS to me, you might as well get used to a very long life of people telling you HELL no.

[USArmyParatrooper]

110. No, it's not.

And you know it's not, you're just being dishonest.

The REASON, for the strike has already been given.

[Zalatix]

111. "Because we said so" is NOT a reason.

[USArmyParatrooper]

112. "Because he's an al-Qaeda operative"

But hey, just "paraphrase" anything to say whatever dishonest thing you find convenient.

[USArmyParatrooper]

215. YOU are the one dodging.

I already stated I don't personally have proof he was a member of al-Qaeda.

Now here's what you keep dodging. YOU admitted that other military strikes do not require a trial.

Do YOU have proof that those other strikes that don't require a trial were on members of enemy forces, yes or no? (crickets).

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

208. #l. I don't know that the people targeted at Normandy were really enemy Combatants.

Question #2 is an incomplete sentence. I imagine you intended to have a "you" contained within it. May I draw your attention to the Mylai massacre. The trial there was afterwards. I believe you have failed to understand the USA has been taken into several wars under ruse. Do you understand the term "fragging?" Stanley Karnow explains it in his book "VIETNAM A History, The First Complete Account of Vietnam at War." It is what happens when the enlisted find out how thy have been used as fodder for the war machine. When the likes of Rush L. poison the armed services radio with his vile lies, the troops are 'sedated?' I'm waiting to find out what happened to the guy who just killed the 16, mostly women and children. I heard rumor the bank had just foreclosed on he and his wife's house.

I stand with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the NY Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. If I told you who I thought the "enemy" was, I might become one of the "disappeared." (but I'll suggest you read "on the JUSTICE of ROOSTING CHICKENS" by Ward Churchill.) I have tremendous admiration for the Occupy Movement. I worry about the woman in NY who was beaten by the cops last night.

Welcome Home
Vietnam Veteran for Peace

[USArmyParatrooper]

213. What point are you making.

Yes, I know what fragging is. NO, I absolutely would not do such a thing. If I caught someone else trying to do it I would blast him.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

221. I thought I stated it very clearly

May I draw your attention to the Mylai massacre. The trial there was afterwards. I believe you have failed to understand the USA has been taken into several wars under ruse.

Also see my answer to the original post, #209

[randome]

15. We get it. You don't trust the government.

Government is evil. Our President is out to kill us all. There? Sleep better now?

[Zalatix]

16. I bet you believed Saddam had WMD's. Or that the Gulf of Tonkin was not a hoax.

Whatever the MIC tells you, you just believe. To hell with trials or evidence. There. Sleep better now?

[USArmyParatrooper]

20. If someone is a criminal

you arrest and charge the person. If someone joins an enemy military or enemy militia they become a legitimate military target.

[Zalatix]

23. What part of "show me proof" do you not understand?

If someone joins an enemy military or enemy militia I want some proof of this before I accept sending drones to kill someone.

And no, waving your soldier credentials in my face is not going to scare me into accepting shit. Do you get it yet? Proof, or no fucking drones! Do you get it yet???

[USArmyParatrooper]

30. Please spare me the drama queen BS

At no point did I try to intimidate you nor did I claim me being a soldier makes my opinion more valid.

So are you saying members of the military who are engaged in a war must provide proof on every single enemy combatant before they kill them?

[Zalatix]

32. Then spare me the knuckle-dragging "kill em, proof or not" BS

Once more I will demand that you show me proof that this guy was armed or hostile or anything that warrants killing someone summarily.

You have shown me absolutely nothing that shows al-Banna deserved to be killed. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

I am sick of your evasions. From here on all you will get is "show me the proof". I will NOT let this discussion get derailed from that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. No.

I'm not going to shut up about my opinion.

If you can demonstrate that ALL members of enemy forces that are engaged with US troops must have due process before they're targeted then I'll change my position. If you can demonstrate that instead of the Marines attacking Iwo Jima, we should have arrested and charged Japanese forces, then I will change my position.

[Zalatix]

38. Show me the proof.

[USArmyParatrooper]

39. Do you demand the same proof

of all enemy forces that are targeted? Or is this particular case special?

[Zalatix]

40. Show me the proof.

[USArmyParatrooper]

44. Don't worry.

Nobody is going to notice you haven't answered.

Do you require at the same proof for all members of enemy militaries and malitias before they're targeted?

[Zalatix]

46. I told you, I want proof that al-Banna deserved to die. I stand pat on that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

61. And I made a counterpoint

that you never recieve proof for ANY military targets because war doesn't work that way.

1: How do we know the people we targeted at Normandy were really enemy combatants without a trial?

2: Are you suggesting ALL military targets must first have a trial?

Dodging the counterpoint doesn't make your argument stronger. Quite the opposite, really.

[Zalatix]

65. Counterpoint? Uh, no, what you did was offer no proof at all that al-Banna did ANYTHING wrong

least of all something worth being killed over.


You can prove that a military target is doing something wrong.
You can prove that the Nazi's at Normandy were doing something wrong. They died with guns in their hands.

What proof do you have that al-Banna was doing anything wrong? Where was the gun in his hand? You can't even produce that much, and you expect me to believe that bullshit story?

Sorry, but after Saddam's magically disappearing WMD stash? Not just no, but hell no.

[USArmyParatrooper]

67. ALL criminals are innocent until proven guilty

in a court of law. Right?

So are you saying that you no longer want there to have been a trial?

Now you just want a picture of him with the gun?

[sabrina 1]

159. How was Awlaki an 'enemy force'? This case is only special because no one knows why

the US Government targeted him for assassination. They have been asked what he did to warrant the DP, but there has been no real response other than just 'trust us'.

I have a question, 'is this case special because the order to kill him came from a Democratic Administration rather than a Republican Administration'? And since it did, we are expected to blindly trust the decision?

I think it is more of a threat to a democracy to demand that citizens blindly trust every decision made by their government, as history has shown more than once, than to question and demand answers when the life of any human being is at stake.

[USArmyParatrooper]

163. He was a member of an enemy force

that US troops are actively engaged in a war with.

When you're at war with another military (or in this case militia) you kill them on site unless they surrender.

[sabrina 1]

168. But we do not know that. He was a preacher, where is the evidence he was a member of

Al Queda? I have never seen that, other than the government saying so. We did not believe Bush when he claimed that Al Zarqawi was a major leader of Al Queda and after years of that lie being told, it turned out to be the lie we thought it was.

I'm sorry, but it is the duty of Citizens to question their government. You don't have to be in the military to do your duty as a citizen. We are all responsible for holding them accountable. Too many lies have been told, about these wars, about everything, for any person to simply blindly accept something as serious as this.

[USArmyParatrooper]

169. I see.

So did you demand that ALL other members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda that we've killed be "arrested and charged" by law enforcement instead?

How do YOU know that? You don't know that, anymore than you know that the guys that I shot at in Iraq really were members of enemy forces. It's impossible to fight a war if you demand a trial and proof before every military action takes place.

[sabrina 1]

172. Of course I demanded that. Bush was the president, I never believed a word he said.

The US military was in someone else's country, they were sent there based on lies. I do not blame the soldiers, but I sure as hell blamed the lying administration who sent them there and yes, questioned every word they said. And we did that to prevent them from sending soldiers, some of them MY friends and family, into other people's countries who were bound to fight back considering they were being invaded.

If an army landed in this country dropping WMDs on our cities, what do you think the average American would do?

I questioned the claim that Al Zarqawi was an important leader of Al Queda just as I am questioning the same claim now against Al Awlaki. If either of them was, it should not be hard to prove.

As it turned out, we on the Left were correct about Al Zarqawi, he never was anyone of importance, a fact finally admitted to by a US General. But he made a good scapegoat. He was nothing more than a common, petty thief after all and no threat to the US. And I was called all sorts of names and given much the same answers I am getting now.

[USArmyParatrooper]

173. OK, so just so I'm understanding you correctly...

When the country is at war you think before ANY military action takes place we must send in law enforcement officers to "arrest" members of the enemy and put them on trial.

Did I sum that up correct?

[sabrina 1]

176. When a country is lied into war, I do not generally support that war and question every

action taken and word spoken by the liars who lied us into that war. And yes, I suspect that if they tell me someone is a huge threat to our safety, that they are problably still lying. And as it turns out, they were.

What truths did Bush speak about the War in Iraq? WMDs? Al Queda? And are you saying that we are obligated to give blind support to a war we know was based on lies, just because the President who is lying to us, sends the troops and then uses them to try to get our support? Because if so, sorry, I don't flip-flop that way.

That war was wrong, it was a tragedy, the war criminals should have been prosecuted, impeached, whatever but they were not. That still does not change the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings died needlessly. And I did not and still do not support it. And because of that huge and tragic lie, and the failure to prosecute those responsible for it, I do not believe much of anything that we are told that is a consequence of that lie.

[USArmyParatrooper]

178. Got it.

So whether or not we should fly law enforcement officers into hostile territory to "arrest" enemy troops is dependent on whether or not you agree with a war.

Don't quit your day job. Just keep doing what you're doing.

[sabrina 1]

184. I have not quit my day job, but thanks for the advice. I was right just to remind you, about

the Iraq War. Maybe I should have quit my day and found a job in the US Government, since I apparently was able to make better judgements than those being paid those huge sums of money to make these decisions. Not that it was hard, the lies were so obvious.

Btw, how did Abu Ghraib fill up with detainees, Guantanamo Bay, if there is no time to arrest people during war? Who arrested all those people?

And to try to claim that Al Awlaki was in a war zone facing US troops is simply ridiculous. He was in Yemen, we do not have an army in Yemen, we are not at war with Yemen, so there is no comparison. The US Govt. sent in people to assassinate someone, NOT on a battlefield, NOT armed and threatening any US personnel and no matter how many times they are asked why this happened, we have yet to hear a coherent answer.

[USArmyParatrooper]

185. Enemy forces who surrendered?

And I'm not saying that certain individuals can never be found and captured. But it's ridiculous suggest that alone is a means to defeat a well armed, well organized and funded international terrorist organization.

So he was in Yemen. Is it your contention that enemy forces can simply cross boarders so they can operate with impunity? Absolutely not. You don't sit back and wait for them to take the initiative when it's convenient for them. You hit them where they train, where they sleep, where they keep their supplies, everywhere they can be found.

Every military in the world operates that way for a reason.

[sabrina 1]

190. You know the strange thing, well there are many strange things, but

well armed, well organized and funded international terrorist organization.

When questioned about Al Awlaki people all over the ME, never heard of him. He was of no interest to a majority of people in that region of the world. So how could someone who was barely known or of any interest to so many people, be such a huge threat to the US. Who were his followers, what weapons did he have, what is this 'well-armed, well-organized and funded international terrorist organization' that he supposedly was leading when hardly anyone even knew who he was, in fact many didn't even know he was dead?

Edited to add, and they didn't care either.

[USArmyParatrooper]

191. Yes, so strange

he didn't announce himself to everyone, "Hi! I'm an al-Qaeda operative and there's a huge bounty on my head if anyone is interested!"

[sabrina 1]

192. Probably because he was not an Al Queda leader. Not to mention the fact that the people

of the ME no longer have much interest in Al Queda, they have been busy kicking out our old dictator friends and replacing them with leaders of their own choosing.

Al Queda is probably not even known to most young people in that region of the world. It's old, it's the past and it appears only the US and its allies even mention it anymore. The world has moved on and the people of the ME and N. Africa see their future in refusing to allow their governments to be installed, as they have been in the past, by Western Powers. Nearly every journalist who has traveled in the region says the same thing, mention Al Queda and no one seems to know or care what you are talking about.

[USArmyParatrooper]

193. I see.

So what is your theory as to why he was killed?

I'm asking because I can't wait to be entertained by your answer.

[randome]

179. Why do you keep talking about the legitimacy of war?

We're talking about ONE individual. And you still have not answered the question about how you would go about 'arresting' someone in a war zone.

[sabrina 1]

188. Yemen is not a war zone. Do we have troops in Yemen? Are we at war with Yemen?

But in the actual war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq, since you asked about war zones, how did all those people who were in our detention centers get there? Did they just walk in by themselves?

[bahrbearian]

35. You know what I call people who fought in Iraq, Suckers

[USArmyParatrooper]

55. Let the record show

a "Jury" has decided blatant insults toward our men and women in uniform is A-OK on DU.

[Zalatix]

58. Blatant insults? For demanding proof that al-Banna did anything to deserve a drone strike?

I guess I should thank the Jury for now.

BTW what do you think of the murder of Randy Weaver's wife or the MOVE bombings? Both of them would have been the subject of a drone strike in today's America.

[bahrbearian]

62. He was talking to me.

[Zalatix]

66. LOL gotcha. Gotta check the attributes.

[USArmyParatrooper]

63. No genius.

I was referring to the post that contains a blatant insult toward Iraq war veterans.

[bahrbearian]

59. Oh, the Drama, can I get you some Vapors.

[USArmyParatrooper]

64. Noticeably absent from your post

is any sort of denial.

[Zalatix]

68. He should have just repeated post #57.

[bahrbearian]

69. If you are gulible enough to think invading an a country that never attacked us is honorable?

then you are not living up to your oath to the Consitution , we're you serving Bush? because you weren't serving your Country?

[USArmyParatrooper]

72. You're not worth my time.

I've clearly shown I have no problem debating with people disagree with me. But someone with your vitriolic, hateful rhetoric isn't worth a single keystroke.

Bye.

[randome]

75. Are you in the military?

Because if you are not, I don't think it's up to you to determine the validity of someone else's service. You dishonor the men and women who HAVE served this country,

You are evading the question that was raised: how would you go about arresting people in a war zone?

[bahrbearian]

81. I was drafted #11 1970, was 1A , refused to go to Nam

Answer to you question don't go into stupid Wars , started by Chickenhawks. Tell me about your suppossed Honor.

[Zalatix]

84. +1 million for resisting the Draft.

[randome]

86. Your choice does not entitle you to mock those who thought differently.

ALL wars are stupid by definition. That doesn't mean we dishonor those who fought for what they believed were noble causes.

[Zalatix]

88. He wasn't dishonoring anyone.

[PavePusher]

121. The fuck s/he wasn't. n/t

[Zalatix]

123. Point taken. Bahrbearian wasn't bowing down to the almighty soldier

Criticizing them like any other group of people? How dare he. The sacrilege of it all!

Bahrbearian if you're out there, take two tall glasses of the purple Kool-Aid and call me in the morning OR ELSE!!!

[PavePusher]

131. Far cry from "not bowing down" to blatent hyperbolic blanket stereotyping insults.

I will note that your Kool-Aide glass appears in need of a refill.

[Zalatix]

133. Sorry, I decline to drink the kool-aid.

BTW I supported the use of drones 2 days ago. Not that it matters to you, but I'm sure a lot of other people have seen this shit and realized what a load of bullshit this "kill on sight" madness has become.

Cindy Sheehan was totally right.

[USArmyParatrooper]

85. Don't waste your time on him.

Just smile and nod. Smile and nod, and move on.

[sabrina 1]

161. Why is that such a problem, arresting people in a war zone? We have prisons all over

the world filled with people we grabbed off the streets, mostly in their own countries. When did it become impossible to arrest people in a war zone? How did they do it up to now? You have heard of POWS have you not?

[randome]

165. Do you think World War II should have been fought with arrests instead of munitions?

I'm against war at any time but if one is going to be fought, you don't saunter into a war zone and say, "Lay down your weapons! You are all under arrest!"

That is how you get your own soldiers killed.

And that's something that needs to be considered. How many lives of American soldiers do you want to see spent in order to arrest one person in a war zone?

Or are American lives worth less in some way?

It's war. There are no easy answers.

[sabrina 1]

170. American lives are worth no more nor no less than the lives of anyone else.

A child of an Iraqi mother is worth just as much to that mother as the child of an American mother is to her. Yet, since you asked the question, America does not acknowledge that simple fact. That is why we have killed with abandon, so many Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan children and there is barely a peep out of anyone in this country over those tragic deaths of innocents.

The solution to not endangering our soldiers is to not send them to illegal wars in other people's countries. It is a fact that when someone invades another person's country those people will fight for their country. There seems to be a strange expectation in the US that once we invade your country, you should just thank us or something.

We are in the wrong, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and everywhere else we have gone to with our WMDs and we can resolve all of this by simply bringing home the troops. No country attacked us, why are we attacking them?

[randome]

174. I didn't know this was a debate about the legitmacy of a war.

The fact is, rightly or wrongly, we are fighting a war. How can you possibly think that walking into a war zone and saying, "You're under arrest!" would result in anything but the deaths of the people trying to make the arrest.

Maybe if we could teleport the bad guys out of their home territory, that would work. But we're talking about reality here.

It's amazing to think that war is that much of a black and white subject to you.

[girl gone mad]

201. Good god, your ignorance of history is astonishing.

Start here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/German-POWs-on-the-American-Homefront.html

[hack89]

220. Up until the moment they surrendered, the US army was trying as hard as they could to kill them.

They surrendered on the battlefield when their side lost a battle. They were not arrested.

[Zalatix]

203. Few of these people we're going after can be compared to soldiers in WW-II

We're sending drones after so-called "MEDIA ARMS".

That would have justified sending a drone to kill Jane Fonda.

[era veteran]

207. I think your asshat post sucked too.

You own a big brush. Have you ever served in the armed forces?

[Kaleko]

197. Let the record show that the most chilling insults toward our troops

have always come from war profiteers and the politicians they've bought in a well-documented game of revolving doors.

Just one quote among many that should give a proud war veteran pause:

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

~ Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976

[Zalatix]

205. Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. He actually wrote that? Wow.

[Kaleko]

211. Yep.

The idea that those who send our troops into their wars for profit and empire hold soldiers in high esteem is terrifyingly naive. Does anyone here really believe that politicians and bankers don't feel vastly superior to the guys whose limbs get shot off? Kissinger simply confirmed what the big players know and probably snicker about when they're discussing their next moves: We are the grand chess masters of the world, and chess is a game where the pawns are always sacrificed first to protect the King.

[Zalatix]

212. Yes, indeed that is true. Our leaders do treat our troops like suckers.

And we keep giving them a pass for doing so.

[USArmyParatrooper]

217. That's no worse than I've seen on "Democratic" sites

such as DU.

Also, instead of saying the other team is worse how about we lead by example and just not do it?

[Kaleko]

223. Your outrage is understandable.

And by 'your' I mean everybody who took offense here. Believe me, I get it. The thing is, our natural rage at being dismissed and degraded as a human being for our military service should be directed where it belongs. This outrage is precious! It is a fire that will burn off unnecessary dross and truly CHANGE things. It is wasted on some anonymous poster on a website who merely voices what millions more already think but won't say out loud. Democratic or Republican political leanings matter little in a case of intolerable unfairness such as this one. Turn the fire of your righteous wrath onto the 'grand chess masters', the war gamers in their mansions on the Hill. These are the bloodsuckers who clearly, obviously think of soldiers as expendable pawns to be used as fodder in the meat grinders of THEIR failed foreign policies.

[PavePusher]

120. Well, your name certainly explains your vile comment. n/t

[MADem]

186. You know what I call people who insult military volunteers?

I won't tell you--I'd be PPR'd.

Suffice it to say I think very little of your comment.

[MineralMan]

189. You know what I wonder? Does anyone care what you call anyone?

I wonder that, and I don't.

[cliffordu]

196. YEP, I'll bet you do -

but never to their face, right???

This is in response to post #35 on this page, for some reason it keeps kicking up to the OP....

[DevonRex]

199. I have a name for you, too. Nt

[randome]

21. Saddam and WMDs? Be real.

No one with any objectivity believed that.

You, on the other hand, will always believe in the worst possible interpretation of the government. I will not spend my life being afraid unless I have some evidence to support it.

[Zalatix]

25. Killing someone without proof? Get real.

I will not support taking someone's life unless I have some evidence to support doing so.

You, on the other hand, will always believe someone deserves to die as long as you're told that they do. Evidence or no.

[L0oniX]

141. +1

[Zalatix]

147. Many thanks!

[sabrina 1]

156. You are being hyperbolic. No one has said 'our President is out to kill us'.

Not a very convincing argument though, as to why anyone should place blind trust in any government.

Is that what you are arguing for, that citizens should never question their government because we know that the Government would never, ever do anything that might harm citizens?

I think Ben Franklin for one, had something to say about that.

[bluedigger]

26. That's not how it works at all.

Warfare is not law enforcement. Whether or not our response to terrorism is appropriate or not is a valid point of discussion, but you seem to have no idea how wars are prosecuted.

[Zalatix]

29. You seem to have no proof that al-Banna deserved to die.

But I will keep hammering every last one of you until you do cough it up.

Count on that. I can go for years on this. And by God I will get that evidence or I will make damned sure it's drilled in hard and deep that America is killing people WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE that they are in any way dangerous to us.

I am now one solidly FORMER drone supporter.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. So are you suggesting

that every al-Qaeda member, Taliban member, and every member of every enemy force we've ever fought including the Germans in WWII should have been "arrested" instead?

How does this case being a US citizen change a thing? What, foreigners don't get due process in American law?

[girl gone mad]

202. Another who is completely ignorant of history.

We arrested hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants in WWII. No one is suggesting every single enemy be arrested, but in this case an arrest would have been far more appropriate.

[bluedigger]

34. Keep beating that toy drum!

I can't give you what you want as I was not personally involved with the decision, nor am I cleared for the necessary security to have access to the information that influenced the person that made the decision. Your insistence on apprehension and a trial by jury for enemy combatants is absurd.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree that drone bombs are a poor way to eliminate individual personnel targets, and their use should be curtailed. They are too indiscriminate and ridiculously expensive.

[Zalatix]

37. Then you keep on not thinking for yourself.

[randome]

42. Dude, you're not being very fair to those who disagree with you.

You may want to step back and take a day or two off from DU. You're starting to sound wobbly.

[Zalatix]

45. Hey, I didn't start the toy drum comment crap. What makes you think that was any nicer?

[TheKentuckian]

229. I see no reason to support wrongheaded insanity because it is acting consistently

within its own framework.

That is fine for movies and fiction reading not so much for the world.

Look, they redefined the definition of war, battlefields, combatants, and deleted objectives and victory, as such there is no reasonable expectation that the old definitions and acceptable actions, tactics, and strategies would come with the new shit.

It isn't our job to accept insanity because actors use the label "war". I do not accept the Bushshit label of war on these actions and will not extend the same flexibility I would to an actual war defined by thousands of years of precedent that has existed side by side with terrorisim at least the whole way.

If you change all the definitions but wish to keep the former expectations of operation in a new paradigm, we are not expected to have the same mental flexibility and has nothing to do with lack of understanding of war, law enforcement, government, or terrorisim. Using such as an accusation is dishonest as you are changing the meanings of the words and the actions the represent.

[OPOS]

154. Since 1942

When the USAAF started daylight bombing of German cities. or do you believe millions of german civvies were shooting into the air each day? War is dirty business, I can think of few areas where battles fought the modern era didnt result in civilian casualties .

Possibly the North African campaign because of the sheer bleakness of the desert had the least civilian casualties. Now you have someone who has taken a side against his country and taken up with an enemy that deliberately targets non military unarmed persons. I would say he was Hardly innocent, trial or not. the President isnt going to order willy nilly those strikes, and I'd bet my stripes he had far more evidence about the mans actions than you or I will ever see.

The answer is.... send cops to arrest, cops wind up dead. Media winds up questioning why cops dead. Families of cops sent wind up on media questioning why cops dead. People in Know question why didnt you send missile instead. They realize some bright boy thought it was an episode of cops and that simply walking up and saying your under arrest would work with people who think dying will get them 72 virgins and utopia.

[joy to the world]

93. Are you MK Ultra?

[USArmyParatrooper]

95. Who or what is MK Ultra?

I guess that's a no.

[geek tragedy]

22. Guilt is not a relevant concept in armed conflict.

There is only the determination of whether someone is an enemy. No courts, no lawyers.

[gratuitous]

24. Welcome to the funhouse

You will, of course, not receive an answer, but you will be treated to preposterous scenarios that have nothing to do with reality that yes, our military fires indiscriminately at non-military persons, heedless of the consequences, and unaccountable to anyone. The United States used to object in the most strenuous terms to careless military strikes on non-combatants, but that was before we realized that a quaint old document needed to be shit-canned, because it was just too inefficient.

Now, we have judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into the push of a button. We've persuaded ourselves that this is safer for most of the folks involved, and certainly safer for the people who matter. And anyone luckless enough to be under the missile when it explodes is guilty. Sort of like peppering the side of the barn with a slingshot, then drawing targets around the hits. A bulls-eye every time!

I hope this answers your impertinent question. Now please to be waving your flag and cease to questioning, like all the good Americans do. I'm still having some trouble trimming my ideals to our new order, but I'm sure I'll come around soon.

[Zalatix]

27. Cindy Sheehan was right.

I was wavering about her anti-drone protests but now it's glaringly obvious... not one response in this thread has offered an OUNCE of proof that al-Banna deserved to die.

[KG]

28. +

[L0oniX]

143. +1

[NNN0LHI]

31. What may be causing the confusion here is some don't know the definition of a "free fire zone?"

Here is the way it works:

Anyone who runs, is a terrorist. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined terrorist.

If people don't want to have "free fire zones", don't go to war. Simple as that. Just don't do it. That is my recommendation.

If someone gets the itch to go to war think it over real well for about a year or two first and then don't do it. Because there are no winners in war. Only losers.

Don

[excuse not to write]

47. Kinda like, "If the police arrested him, he must be guilty."

A song we've heard before.

[Zalatix]

48. Exactly. Like when they shot Randy Weaver's wife while she held a baby in her arms.

Instead, now they do the same thing - with drones!

[excuse not to write]

54. Randy Weaver and his family were racists

Rec withdrawn.

[Zalatix]

56. But his wife was unarmed! Holding a baby! And she got shot by a sniper!

I could also bring up the MOVE bombing, but fewer people have heard of that. What does it matter? We're talking about killing people who aren't armed and against whom we've got no proof of armed hostilities.

Wait, am I on the DU or..........?

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Well that's entirely different.

Remember, snipers; don't lead the target as much if it's a child or a woman carrying a baby.

[Zalatix]

102. And it's okay to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms if she and her husband are racists.

After all, the mother MIGHT become an enemy combatant later.

[cherokeeprogressive]

114. I never knew racism was punishable by death from afar...

You learn the most interesting things here at the DU.

Go figure.

[jeff47]

51. So what's your plan?

Person A attacks US forces.

Soldiers must arrest him and put him on trial?

You have an odd definition of war.

And if you'd prefer something more like a police action, then your complaint is we're not using the right part of the executive branch. If you're gonna propose we use a different branch, I await your explanation on how the FBI will be given arrest powers in other countries.

[Zalatix]

52. al-Banna attacked US forces? Where? If he did, then who and where?

[jeff47]

70. You're the one who generalized this.

To quote your own title, "If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty?"

So al-Banna doesn't matter. You used "someone".

So what's your plan? Send in the FBI to arrest 'em? Even assuming Yemen would allow the FBI agents to leave with the person in custody, the trial wouldn't last very long since the FBI agents didn't have power to arrest anyone in Yemen.

[Zalatix]

73. How about we just leave the fucker alone? If he's not armed or carrying bombs

then leave him alone.

[jeff47]

79. Well, let's wander into overused Nazi analogies

Hitler spent the majority of his time in power unarmed. We should have left him alone?

One doesn't have to actually be carrying the bomb or gun to kill someone. Heck, we recognize this in our own laws - you can be convicted of murder for hiring a hitman.

So what's your plan?

[Zalatix]

82. How about a more recent example... Saddam Hussein.

Or the leader of Iran, North Korea, and a number of other hostile groups whose leaders we haven't sent a drone after? They're all more dangerous than the people we HAVE sent drones after.

You can be convicted of murder for hiring a hitman but that doesn't justify using a drone to come kill you. Or does it?

My plan stands unchanged. Get. Proof. FIRST.

[jeff47]

106. You can't possibly be serious.

We sent a hell of a lot of drones, airplanes, tanks and soldiers after Saddam Hussein. Or did the Iraq war not happen?

As far as North Korea and Iran, for some reason their leadership is opposed to us flying drones over their countries to kill their leadership. Yemeni leadership has no objection to us flying drones over Yemen.

You can be convicted of murder for hiring a hitman but that doesn't justify using a drone to come kill you.

Depends who you murdered. If it's one random civilian, we're not likely to spend the money for it. If it was 100 people, then we would. Which is much closer to this situation.

My plan stands unchanged. Get. Proof. FIRST.

And your evidence for the lack of proof is.....? Keep in mind there is such a thing as classified information and since there was no trial, there's no requirement to disclose it.

[Zalatix]

109. WTF Hahahahahah my evidence for a lack of proof? Did you really say that?

The burden of proof is NOT on me. It's on those who send out drones.

Or is the foundation of your argument, "Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof!"

[jeff47]

115. Again, you continue to confuse military action with a courtroom

There is no burden of proof for military action. Once Congress gives the go-ahead for war, you get to blow the shit out of everyone you can connect to the war. There's no requirement to show your evidence.

If you want to reign that in, your target is Congress. They're the ones who can revoke that overly-broad authorization.

I do like how you've run away from the Hussein crack.

[Zalatix]

116. "And your evidence for the lack of proof is"... hahahahaha LOL. I'm dying here.

That was funny as hell enough, but now you are talking about Congress giving the go-ahead for war. Exactly when did Congress make the declaration of war for the recent rash of drone strikes?

Hilarious. You're killin' me.

[jeff47]

119. AUF after 9/11

Laying the derision on thick doesn't actually make you correct. It just demonstrates how little you've got.

[Zalatix]

122. Derision? No, I'm just re-quoting what you said.

Such as this whole "AUF after 9/11" thing... are you saying that this is some authorization to launch strikes at random across the WHOLE of the MIDDLE EAST? Last I heard, Osama Bin Laden wasn't based in Yemen; and he's dead, too.

War without end, mayhaps? Middle East = Eastasia?

[jeff47]

124. Boy, you sure are working hard with that shovel.

are you saying that this is some authorization to launch strikes at random across the WHOLE of the MIDDLE EAST?

No. It's actually across the whole world. That's one of the problems people had with it at the time.

Last I heard, Osama Bin Laden wasn't based in Yemen; and he's dead, too.

And that would be another problem they had with it. It was not restricted to any particular individuals.

I think if we go through about 30 more of your posts, you might actually get caught up to reality.

[Zalatix]

134. It'll take more than 30 posts to dig down to your version of reality.

Random strikes around the world, not restricted to any specific people? And you wonder why people have a problem with that?

Again, "And your evidence for the lack of proof" just shows how insane your argument is.

[jeff47]

198. No, it'll take 30 posts for you to actually start reading what people write.

Random strikes around the world, not restricted to any specific people?

Yep! It's a lovely AUF passed in a panic when Congresscritters thought it would be fucking brilliant to sing "America the Beautiful" on the Capitol steps.

Now, we could consider pressuring Congress to pass some new AUF that would actually do some good. Or you could continue to demonstrate you aren't reading people's posts.

Your call.

And you wonder why people have a problem with that?

No, I'm wondering why you can't read very short posts on a message board. Perhaps if you spent a little less time spamming these threads and a little more time reading the posts you respond to, you might find out what people are actually writing. 'course that might interfere with the righteous indignation.

Again, "And your evidence for the lack of proof" just shows how insane your argument is.

Someone who actually read my post might notice I didn't provide any evidence. Nor did the administration, because they didn't have to.

[Zalatix]

200. I'm wondering why you can't understand the words that you write.

The problem here isn't me, it's the crap that you're posting. The administration doesn't NEED proof to bomb someone? Seriously, lay off of whatever you're drinking.

[randome]

125. 'EastAsia'?

Maybe that's your problem. You've been reading too many George Orwell novels. This is not 1984. We have reality-based problems to deal with.

[Zalatix]

135. Your problem is you refuse to open your eyes. This is EXACTLY what George Orwell warned about.

This is his war without end. There is no exit strategy. We'll always be making up terrorist enemies.

Read post #128 - Eferrari's logic is flawless.

[randome]

136. No, my 'problem' is that I don't spend my life being afraid of what COULD happen.

And when I see things that need to be addressed, fear is not the first reaction that comes to mind.

[Zalatix]

137. LOL so your argument here is "just stick your head in the sand and it'll be all okay". Gotcha.

You don't care as long as you're not the victim.

[EFerrari]

128. Arguably, killing civilians far from any battlefield is not "military action"

but state sponsored murder.

And Congress will not revoke the over-broad power the executive claims. There is too much money involved and Congress is bought and sold.

[USArmyParatrooper]

182. Members of al-Qaeda are civilians?

A battlefield is anywhere a battle is taking place. By definition where he died was a battlefield and his side lost.

[jeff47]

195. The proper question is "what's a civilian"?

Used to be you could figure out the civilians, because you were fighting an army. Now? Not so much. The 'bad guys' aren't bothering with such niceities as dressing snappy in the same outfits.

So...was bin Laden a civilian? Well, he wasn't in any military, so he couldn't be a soldier. At the same time, the "rules of war" have some pretty strict definition of what a civilian is. He did broke those rules. Which means legally we could do anything we wanted to the guy. He fell into the legal gray area that was explicitly left by the various conventions. At the time, it was assumed spies operated in that space. Terrorists don't seem like a terribly unjust addition to that space.

Which means from an international law standpoint, you can make a really damn good legal argument that we could do whatever we wanted to bin Laden.

Now this guy may be less clear-cut than bin Laden, simply due to lack of videotaped confessions. But what would you prefer we have done?

Arrest by the US was not politically feasible - Yemen hasn't gone for it in the past, so presumably they wouldn't go for it now. The Yemeni justice system....well let's just say it lacks some of the modern world's niceties when it comes to prisoner treatment. And that's even assuming they'd be willing to arrest and try the guy. That's not gonna happen due to the internal strife that would cause.

So our realistic options were 1) kill him, or 2) do nothing. Do nothing is a fantastic way to get attacked again. So it strikes me that killing the guy is the least bad of a list of all bad options.

(This, of course, assumes we have intelligence to back up our claims regarding this guy's role. Since that information isn't available to the public, I can't make any judgement based on that data or lack thereof.)

[EFerrari]

219. Actually, that gray area stuff was a line promoted by BushCo's lawyers.

The Geneva Conventons deal exhaustively with all kinds of actors, including those not in uniform. When you think about it, there were plenty of un-uniformed combatants in World War 2, like the resistance in every country, for example.

And the default for legal gray areas is not that the government gets to just off people although that is the claim our government is making.

[jeff47]

225. No, they really don't.

To stay civilian you have to remain unarmed. To be military, you have to actually be in the armed forces.

These guys "took up arms" and weren't in the military.

If you take up arms against an army but aren't in uniform, you aren't covered by the Geneva conventions.

[EFerrari]

226. That's incorrect. They are available on line

and not too hard to search.

[jeff47]

227. Then it would have been trivial for you to demonstrate I'm wrong, instead of just claiming it (nt)

[EFerrari]

228. You can go look at the term "unlawful conbatant" at Wikipedia.

That's the clearest explanation I've found. But the text of Articles 3 & 4 are widely available on the intertubes.

One sort of funny effect of the Bush years is that I was forced to sit down and read the Geneva Conventions not once but a bunch of times because his administration was so full of shit.

[Zalatix]

210. Here's something none of these fine folks can answer

what's to stop ANYONE from being killed by a drone for any reason, or no reason at all, with absolute impunity?

[randome]

216. The answer is: nothing.

Do you really think that if someone wants you dead, some kind of paper 'gotcha!' will stop them?

You're being ridiculous.

[Zalatix]

222. Seriously? You still don't get it?

This use of drones completely removes even the semblance of needing a reason to take someone out.

The MIC has you thoroughly convinced that if they send in the drones, it is automatically warranted, and you see nothing wrong with that.

You're the one who is being ridiculous. Brainwashed, in fact.

[TheKentuckian]

57. Anyone who accepts accusation as guilt or by extension targeting as guilt is

thoughtless, simple, and literally a traitor against western civilization aka a Dark Ager.

If this is your train of thought you are a danger to the existence of a free people and a pawn of those who have fought progress for hundreds of years at every plausible step.

You will make us all government property and destroy every damn thing we are supposed to represent and are as myopic, dangerous, and toxic as any possible terrorist.

A "war" against a stateless entity in global battlefield is not even describably similar to bombing Japan, for instance, and the effort to conflate the two is an effort to play off the most simplistic of thought patterns and ignorance.
If you think targeting a member of the SS and an "enemy combatant" or even more so an "insurgent" are even close then you are fucking goofy.

[Zalatix]

60. Actually I am saying that such an argument is BS.

If this is your train of thought you are a danger to the existence of a free people and a pawn of those who have fought progress for hundreds of years at every plausible step.

You will make us all government property and destroy every damn thing we are supposed to represent and are as myopic, dangerous, and toxic as any possible terrorist.

You reflect EXACTLY what I would say if I wasn't worried about a DU jury taking me down.

[TheKentuckian]

230. Oh...I know. I regularly suffer from poor deployment of the rhetorical "you"

Your point was clear.

My bad.

[geek tragedy]

104. So, the 90% of Americans who supported killing bin Laden

are a danger to Democracy?

Silly, overwrought hyperbole.

[Zalatix]

108. I bet close to 90% supported the start of the Iraq invasion, too.

[geek tragedy]

139. No. But the 10% who cried because we were unfair to Osama

represent a pacifist fringe of society, and not the source of all wisdom.

[Zalatix]

145. That 10% questioned the claim about Saddam's WMDs

BTW I was one of the 90% that got duped. I wish I had listened to that 10%.

That 90% sure shrank to about nothing now didn't it?

[TheKentuckian]

231. Since the doctrine is not only no limited to bin Laden or any particular describable people

but because it is unlimited, since it defines all of creation as the battlefield, and since it does not bother to demonstrate targets are targets legitimately then yes but not because they approve of killing bin Laden particularly.

It is because they approve of the whole mess that comes with it they are a definitive danger to democracy.

[MineralMan]

77. Not necessarily.

However a great deal of advance consideration is given to any such order. I assume that it is not a step taken lightly at any time. We're not usually privy to military decisions, though, so we don't see what goes into them.

[hughee99]

89. It depends largely on the president's political party. n/t

[joy to the world]

91. No, and this case with the soldier

stinks to high heaven. "They" are using him as the patsy. The villagers saw a BUNCH of "soldiers" (could have been Xe, for all we know). I am waiting for the Commander-in-Chief to weigh in. Maybe when he gets done holding babies and downing microbrews, he'll address it....

[JoePhilly]

113. Guilt is irrelevant.

You are confusing the manner in which criminal judicial decisions are made with how decisions are made during a military engagement.

The military does not attack individuals or groups because they are "guilty" of some crime, they attack them because those
individuals or groups are believed to be a military enemy.

And so, during WWII, spotters would routinely call in airstrikes or mortar rounds on positions in which they believed the enemy to be. They did not first check to determine if those they believed to be enemy soldiers were "guilty" of anything.

Similarly, the ambush has been a well known tactic during military engagements. With that tactic, you hide and kill your enemy before they get to fire a shot. Which means, that a soldier could be killed on his first day, without firing a single shot. In a sense, he'd be totally innocent. But he'd still be dead.

This guy was a self-admited leader of a military organization that has been deemed an ENEMY of the United States. And he was located in an area where our military could engage him. He does not need to be "found guilty" of some other crime.

In the history of war, soldiers have often surrendered, after which, their rights and protections change. This guy could have surrendered. He decided not to.

[Zalatix]

118. So if you are identified as a threat to America and a drone is called in on you

then what?

[geek tragedy]

126. Not worried about that.

Better chance of being eaten by a shark.

[JoePhilly]

140. While simultaneously being struck by lightening, and winning the lottery.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

130. Obviously then it would suck to be you, if you were such a threat

Now would you mind telling me what you consider to be valid evidence tho since you seem to demand it all the time?
*
some would point to the fact that Ibrahim al-Banna was in charge of the media arm of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as a good enough reason to make him a valid military target.

Others might point to the fact that he was wanted internationally for planning attacks both inside and outside of Yemen as a reason making him a valid target.
*
And two more questions to end my post

1: explain to me/us how exactly you would go about arresting a 'suspected' terrorist in a warzone that was more or less under their control(now I consider him a terrorist but since you don't i added the 'suspected')?

and 2: Who would you send to make such an arrest and how many dead amongst them would you be willing to accept to make a successful arrest?

[Zalatix]

132. Being identified as a threat is not the same as actually being a threat.

"some would point to the fact"

Woah, wait a second, your premise is flawed. How is this "the fact"? Just because you've been CALLED a terrorist doesn't mean you ever were one. That makes your SECOND question moot because of your flawed premise.

Absolutely nowhere has there been anything put forth to show that Ibrahim was any threat to this country, much less one that had to die immediately. A MEDIA ARM? Oh noes that's so scary we're doomed now. NOT. A "Media arm" could be nothing more than someone saying "Al Qaeda isn't as bad as they sound", which would be INSANE to say because Al Qaeda really is bad, but still, I'm not ever expecting to get blown up on an airplane by the likes of him.

Oh, and that is ASSUMING, of course, the "fact" that he was a "media arm" of Al Qaeda.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

171. if somebody is wanted internationally and locally(within yemen)

then its usually safe to assume they have some evidence of his wrongdoing, Yemen officials have called him one of the group's "most dangerous operatives"

But hey, everybody and their dog HAS to be lying and obviously you are correct that Al-banna is a innocent person who wouldn't harm a fly since YOU haven't seen the evidence.

and I'll re-ask my 2 questions removing the specific and instead making it regarding *any* suspected terrorists

1: explain to me/us how exactly you would go about arresting a suspected terrorist in a warzone that was more or less under their control

and 2: Who would you send to make such an arrest and how many dead amongst them would you be willing to accept to make a successful arrest?

[Zalatix]

175. Yup, just like everyone and their dog KNEW Saddam had WMD's.

Edited to add: Oh, and I forgot... 90% of Americans agreed with invading and taking him down, too!

Them crazy 10%ers, what the f did they know???

[JoePhilly]

181. I was against invading Iraq.

So much for me not asking questions and just accepting the government's view.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

183. you are still avoiding my questions tho

you want them to get a trial, but you seem to refuse to explain how you would accomplish that

[JoePhilly]

138. Not just a "threat" ... but a "military threat".

And so ... to rephrase what your response ....

So if you are identified as a military threat to America and a drone is called in on you then what?

And the answer to that question is ... then, you are probably dead.

Bottom line, avoid becoming perceived as a "military threat" to the US.

And certainly don't go around claiming to be a military threat to the US, and then hide in a location where our military might decide to engage you.

[Zalatix]

142. And how do you avoid becoming perceived as a military threat?

Today a military threat is a "media arm" of al Qaeda. How do you know that tomorrow it won't be Occupy Wall Street? Or anyone else that's been designated an "enemy"? Remember this war on terrorism is now WORLDWIDE. That means your back yard if the Government decides on it. And "terrorist" can mean ANYTHING. Especially since you believe we should shoot first and to hell with asking questions.

[JoePhilly]

150. If you haven't figured out how to not be perceived as a military threat, I doubt I can help you.

And btw, exactly where do you get off claiming that I believe "we should shoot first and to hell with asking any questions." Where exactly did I say that? I made no such assertion.

That's simply you making S$%T up. Which suggests to me that you're losing your grip on this argument. Sad really.

Al Qaeda is an actual, and fairly well understood, threat.

And I'm pretty sure that no one in the Occupy movement plans to join Al Qaeda anytime soon, so I think they'll be fine.

Past that, as many others have noted, "threats" that are domestic are handled really quite differently. Lots of questions actually get asked. I know that, but now I'm not sure that you do.

[Zalatix]

151. This is not an argument. You would have to be MAKING an argument first, and you are not.

And if Al Qaeda was even close to well understood, we'd have a handle on them by now. However Al Qaeda is not the only target that will get picked by drones and you know that.

Anyone who pisses off the Government can be a target. That includes Occupy. You can easily slap "al Qaeda operative" on a random person and SEND IN THE DRONES. And you have clearly and unambiguously shown that once someone has had that label slapped on them you have ZERO concern for evidence, and you don't like people like me who demand some evidence. The Government calls them an agent of Al Qaeda and it's settled - send in the drones.

So yes, your argument is in fact, "Shoot first and to hell with questions". If someone is called "an Al Qaeda combatant" that SETTLES it with you. But not me. Not now, not ever, and no matter how much you try to justify it.

You will sorely regret your arguments if Republicans ever take control again.

[JoePhilly]

177. Yes, the Republicans will hit my home with a drone strike.

You seem to live in a world of black and white.

First, having a good understanding of something does not mean you can control it. We understand a great deal about the weather, but we can't control it. But we can often mitigate its effects proactively.

You think that because I believe the government's labeling of THIS particular individual as a military enemy, also means that I have zero concern, or would ask zero questions, in other cases. That is simply false.

For instance, we know that while Bush was President, the US was paying a bounty to tribal groups in Afghanistan to get them to turn in Al Qaeda members. Sadly, this created an incentive for tribal leaders to turn in rivals while claiming they were terrorists when they were not. Trying to sort that out has been a huge mess. But questions are in fact being asked, as they should be. This point goes against your "The Government calls them an agent of Al Qaeda and it's settled - send in the drones" ... which is not what I said, but your black and white world view interpretation.

I do get the sense that there is no amount of "evidence" that would satisfy you. Which is fine. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. And that perspective has nothing to do with whether I "like" you or not. I do not know you in any meaningful way.

As for the Republicans ... I am far more afraid of the laws they might pass restricting women's rights, or mandating religion in schools, or starting a war with Iran, to be worried about them using drones to blow up my house.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Sure it is. Just check out My-Lai, Sand Creek, Dresden, Hiroshima, and other places.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[sabrina 1]

129. No, but that is the argument made by Bush.

Those claims were never accepted by Democrats during the Bush administration. Not for anyone, citizen or otherwise. It was a battle fought throughout that era with some small victories, but great injustices were done to many innocent people as a result of the fact that far too many Americans allowed themselves to be scared into believing it was okay so long as the Unitary Exec called someone a terrorist or an enemy combatant. Legal opinions for the most part, disagreed with that contention, and thankfully, still do. One day these draconian Bush era policies will be rescinded imo since no nation can continue to operate under such policies and continue to call itself a democracy that respects the rule of law.

[L0oniX]

144. +1

[Zalatix]

148. Sabrina, you will be here to say "I told you so" when the Republicans get control of the drones.

Mark this thread and be sure to bring it up when we find ourselves calling the GOP out for doing this shit.

[L0oniX]

146. ...I'm hungry

[cherokeeprogressive]

149. It is NOW. Defensible too.

Say the right words, then wait for the drones...

[Zalatix]

152. Say the right words and wait for the drones. Exactly.

[USArmyParatrooper]

153. Not only are that fear mongering not going to work...

I don't even believe that you believe that.

[Zalatix]

155. Living in militant denial is what doesn't work.

Slap on the "al Qaeda" label, send in the drones, that is what is happening right this minute.

Whether you're afraid, aware, or not.

[USArmyParatrooper]

157. Yes, because we just NOW started killing al-Qaeda and Taliban members?

You said yourself that other military strikes don't require a trial. What makes this particular case so special?

[Zalatix]

158. But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument STILL does not even apply.

[USArmyParatrooper]

160. How do you know that he's not?

And the scores of other al-Qaeda members that have been killed by US forces (that you didn't demand a trial), how do you know they were combatants?

[Zalatix]

162. You already admitted you have no evidence that he is.

And who says that I agreed that anyone was actually a combatant?

See, you haven't proven the most critical part of your argument: exactly who is a proven combatant.

Without that proof, we have no further discussion. Feel free to get in the last word, but you've shot off all your toes.

I will respond to you again when you show proof. Till then you got nothin'.

[USArmyParatrooper]

164. And you admitted other military strikes do NOT require a trial.

Are you saying in those cases YOU have proof they are combatants? Of course not.

That's cool. Whatever excuse you need to run and hide from a debate when you're in a catch-22.

[Zalatix]

166. Prove he's a combatant and that will actually MEAN something.

What? No proof, again? Ah, thought so.

[USArmyParatrooper]

167. Repeating the same nonsense I already addressed

doesn't make the fact that you can't address them go away.

YOU ADMITTED that other military strikes do not require a trial. For those cases do YOU have proof that that they were members of the al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other hostile forces?

Nope, you don't. Yet, I opine the exact same thing about this particular case and you want "proof." That's being hypocritical.

Did the guys that I shot at in Iraq require a trial before I could shoot at them?

Don't worry. I know you won't answer these questions. I just ask them so others can see you can't answer them.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

187. and again...What would you consider as valid proof/evidence

[sabrina 1]

204. Charges should have been filed. Why were they not? Charges were filed against Bin Laden

for the Embassy bombings. Because there was enough evidence to file charges, we were able to see that evidence, no one disputed he was most likely responsible. But no charges were filed against him for 9/11, because as some top military personnel stated, 'we did not have evidence'.

So if the US Govt files charges when they have evidence, we can conclude that if they do not file charges, they have no evidence. And without charges, without evidence, a man was targeted and assassinated and each time reporters and others ask why, there are no answers.

I have asked over and over again of those defending this action, 'what exactly did he do'? I have received responses, but nothing to back them up, that he 'was a threat to the US, that he was planning things against the US'. Fine, then explain what exactly was he planning, and who was he controlling? According to all information we have, he was not even known by most people in the ME, they didn't even know he was dead when questioned about their reaction.

So, until we see some evidence, and there has been plenty of time for that by now, all we know is that the US Government decided he needed to die.

[Zalatix]

206. Ayup, and what's to stop them from deciding ANYONE AT RANDOM needs to die?

We will not ever get an answer to that.

[randome]

214. As opposed to YOU deciding who gets to die?

I think military actions are best decided by the military. Whether or not we should be involved in a military action is an entirely different matter, and that's where civilian overview comes in.

[sabrina 1]

224. I have no idea what you are talking about. I am against the DP, regardless of the crime, so

if it was up to me, no government would have the right to kill. However the topic is not about me, or about what I believe. It is about policies that are anti-Constitutional, anti-International law, and about a Democratic administration continuing and even enhancing Bush policies that once upon a time not so long ago, were opposed by almost everyone who claimed to be a Democrat.

I have never received an answer to the question I have asked many times, of Democrats who are now defending these policies, but I'll ask it again, 'did you support Bush when he was pushing these policies which gave the Executive Branch these kinds of powers'. For some reason it's difficult to get an answer to that question.

[kenny blankenship]

180. Yes, that's conclusive...

asking too many questions has also long been accepted as a pretty good sign.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

209. No, the trial of the Mylai massacre proved that. See my post 208

[Blue_Tires]

218. The Marines used that defense during the trial of the Haditha massacre...

and it worked...