[vault86]

hey, everybody, bush has now given the CIA a "License to Kill"
they can kill anyone who they THINK might be a terrorist or a threat to the country.
while we hope they don't abuse this power, i mean, come on, wtf is bush doing?

[finboy]

Originally posted by vault86:
hey, everybody, bush has now given the CIA a "License to Kill"
they can kill anyone who they THINK might be a terrorist or a threat to the country.
while we hope they don't abuse this power, i mean, come on, wtf is bush doing?

He's defending Vermont. That's his f*cking job.

Seriously, since we're up against "individuals" in this War on Terror thingy, I don't have a problem with directed use of force against "individuals". The alternative is stuff such as carpet bombing, etc. If we have to use force, we should target it as carefully as possible. A license to kill does that effectively.

As for "anyone they THINK", that's the nature of pre-emptive action.

At some point you've got to trust the folks who do that kind of stuff to have some ability and judgement. OK, not the higher-ups, maybe, but the men & women in the field. They know what they're doing, and they don't take killing someone lightly. It isn't an Ian Fleming thing. Really.

Response to PalmBerg:
Reagan or Ford did an executive order banning the targeting of specific individuals. Bush rescinded it.

[palmberg]

Hasn't the CIA always had this authority?

And it's not like there's just one CIA guy running around, deciding to kill people who look like terrorists. There's a fair amount of oversight involved here.

[Axo1ot1]

I was wondering why all the telephone repair men outside my house were wearing dark glasses and bad suits...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by palmberg:
Hasn't the CIA always had this authority?

And it's not like there's just one CIA guy running around, deciding to kill people who look like terrorists. There's a fair amount of oversight involved here.

What's the oversight? I'm serious. I really think we'd better consider it very carefully. This is a pretty important precedent.

Also, what is the burden of proof? Are we really authorizing agents to be judge, jury and executioners? They're just people. They are patently fallible.

There are very good reasons why this policy has been taboo. There needs to be VERY VERY good reasons to remove the taboo, IMO.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There needs to be VERY VERY good reasons to remove the taboo, IMO.

The US has all the reasons it needs, you liberal puke. Blast the terrorists to pieces or put a bullet through their skull.

[Spliffdaddy]

We trust people with our lives everyday. Other motorists, our doctors, 19 yr old police officers toting .40 caliber sidearms.

I'll reiterate the advice I've given many times before -

Don't act like a terrorist and everything will be just fine.

[thunderous_funker]

Tough talk from someone running around impersonating terrorists. Sure hope some half-wit federal agent doesn't mistake you for the real thing.

Do you know many federal agents? They're just cops.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Don't act like a terrorist and everything will be just fine.

Hmm, how do they act? Hanging around titty bars the night before they get on planes?

Can you tell by their dress? Accent? Color of skin?

Hey, aggressive security is one thing. Green-lighting executions and assisinations is quite another.

[nonhuman]

A bunch of people died, let's go kill some more! That'll make things better, all right. Especially when we have no guarantee that the people we're killing aren't just innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What makes American lives so much more important than the lives of everyone else? What assurances do we have that they're not just killing random people and claiming they're terrorists so that it looks like they're making progress in their little 'war'?

The problem with these measures is not that they're unreasonable or unjustified, but that they don't seem to leave much room for error, nor does there seem to be much accountability. If some CIA agent somewhere kills someone who he believes is a terrorist but really turns out to be an innocent, who's accountable? Bush? I think not, it was some agent who killed the person, Bush can't be held responsible for every action of every agent in the field. The agent? Just try and find him, not only will he be good at hiding, but the agency will most likely protect him. What we have here is a mechanism for murder without direct repercussions for those responsible.

[ringo]

What a stupid thing to get pissed off about. The CIA has been killing people for decades. Who cares if Bush admits it?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Hmm, how do they act? Hanging around titty bars the night before they get on planes?

Can you tell by their dress? Accent? Color of skin?

Hey, aggressive security is one thing. Green-lighting executions and assisinations is quite another.

See there, you don't have a clue about how a terrorists acts.

At this point, it seems unlikely that you could be mistaken for a terrorist, in fact I will personally guarantee that you won't be singled out for accidental execution by the CIA.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
in fact I will personally guarantee that you won't be singled out for accidental execution by the CIA.

Protection racket, eh? Ok, how much?

Usama/Atef will likely be channging his name to George Washington's Apple-pie covered penis.

[Spliffdaddy]

dude.

Now I'm beginning to think you're a terrorist. You're acting just like a stereotypical Muslim-militant extremist-Bin Laden-loving-anti-US/Israeli-foreign-policy-hating third-world nimrod. I'm submitting your name for further 'review' by the CIA.

[typoon]

Here's the thing what is preventing other countries from targetting our leaders? If they have intelligence about someone plotting to kill the president I say let them go out and kill that person first.

I don't see anything wrong with if they have intel on a suspect and kill him. Unfortunately sometimes innocents get killed as well, unfortunately there is collateral damage.

terroists aren't overt we shouldne be either when hunting them.

Supposedly the FBI and CIA had intel on Atta one of the terrorists. If they could have killed him I'm sure they might have and prevented the attacks on 9-11. Then again that might not have happened with let's half ass everything Clinton in office.

[nonhuman]

Honestly, I don't see why it's a worse thing to kill the president than it is to kill any other person. If killing is wrong then it's wrong, if it isn't, then it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

[Millennium]

Uncvool. Most uncool.

Well, that killed the last of my respect for Bush.

Pre-emptive law enforcement -to punish someone for a crime which has not been committed- is inherently unethical, and it's a shame that the Constitution won't allow for this to be considered treason. Iraq wouldn't have really been pre-emptive, as it would merely act on what is already common knowledge. But dammit; this goes too far.

Oh, how I pine for the days when law enforcement was back in its ethical position of acting only in a reactive manner, and leaving the duty of preventing crime to those truly responsible: the educators, and the people themselves.

[typoon]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Honestly, I don't see why it's a worse thing to kill the president than it is to kill any other person. If killing is wrong then it's wrong, if it isn't, then it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Is it worse killing a Criminal? By criminal I mean Murderers, rapists, child molesters, gang thugs, The Mob?

The thing you seem to be missing is that a terrorist won't be asking themselves the question you just posed.

If I kill someone is Slef defense is that wrong? I killed them. yes I may regret doing it but was it wrong?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Uncvool. Most uncool.

Well, that killed the last of my respect for Bush.

Pre-emptive law enforcement -to punish someone for a crime which has not been committed- is inherently unethical, and it's a shame that the Constitution won't allow for this to be considered treason. Iraq wouldn't have really been pre-emptive, as it would merely act on what is already common knowledge. But dammit; this goes too far.

Oh, how I pine for the days when law enforcement was back in its ethical position of acting only in a reactive manner, and leaving the duty of preventing crime to those truly responsible: the educators, and the people themselves.

Mohammed Atta was a suspected terroist living in the US. would it have been wrong to pre-emptively kill him and the other Know terroists who were btw on watch lists by the FBI? i don't think that would have been wrong at all. Wouldn't that be considered pre-emptive law enforcement?

[nonhuman]

It doesn't matter if terrorists are going to ask themselves whether or not it's right to kill their victims. If you are going to claim that you believe killing is wrong, then stand behind your beliefs. Saying 'it's ok for us to kill because we're the goodguys' is utter crap. If you set up a standard of judgement, it applies to yourself as well as to everyone else.

[typoon]

Originally posted by vault86:
hey, everybody, bush has now given the CIA a "License to Kill"
they can kill anyone who they THINK might be a terrorist or a threat to the country.
while we hope they don't abuse this power, i mean, come on, wtf is bush doing?

Every countries intelligence agencies have had this for many years. Bush was just giving it back to ours.

Do you think the FSB in Russia or the Mossad or MI-6 have not killed suspected terroists or other such people?

I'm sure they have you just don't hear about it.

[Jansar]

Way to go, Bush! Good decision! (and by the way, he does not allow soldiers to kill whoever they think are terrorists, that's totally wrong...however it's okay to incaracerate them and interrogate them...everybody's getting the wrong idea here)

[rampant]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:


The US has all the reasons it needs, you liberal puke. Blast the terrorists to pieces or put a bullet through their skull.

Shut it, retard.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Uncvool. Most uncool.

Well, that killed the last of my respect for Bush...bleh

oh puhleeze. give it a rest. you haven't yet had a good thing to say about Dubya.

[Atef's corpse]

Terrorists don't have any rights to trial or due process or even sympathy. Do you think the Russians have a trial for every Chechen terrorist they kill? And one of the main terrorists they killed by homing a missile to his cell phone? No way, morons. Mossad and the Israels will whack terrorists, too, as they should.

This is a war, and they are targets for bullets and missiles, not candidates for the legal system. Just another terrorist dead.

[rampant]

Because killing more people needlessly is the best way to save lives.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by rampant:
Because killing more people needlessly is the best way to save lives.

You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. If killing 10 terrorists saves 100 lives, then I'm all for it. If killing the hijackers could have been done before 11.09, then that would have saved thousands.

The eggs are rotten to the core, but they can make an excellent omlet. Break 'em, I say.

[dreilly1]

The real issue here is how much you trust Bush and his administration.

If you trust him, then you think that there must be a good reason for any action, even if they're not saying what it is. I believe killing is universally wrong, but if stopping one person can save the lives of hundreds or thousands, and the only way to stop him is to kill him, than which is correct? Can we say that the loss of thousands of lives is a larger tragedy than the loss of a single life?

If you don't trust Bush, than you likely won't believe that he has the best interests of the country or the world at heart; you think he just wants to launch a lot of missles and kill people so he looks like he is doing something. I won't deny that I haven't wondered about that at times.

I'm not sure how much I trust Bush, but I certainly trust him more than Saddam (or Osama's carcase...)

[Atef's corpse]

That's why I'm happy we live in a country where we have the chance to change the president every 4 years. If Bush is sucking it up bad, then we'll elect someone else. It's only 2 years till another election, impatient infidels, so 'simma down now!'

[voodoo]

A lot af damage has been done in the first two years of the Bush Jr. administration. We may yet see worse things.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by voodoo:
A lot of damage has been done in the first two years of the Bush Jr. administration. We may yet see worse things.

A bunch of dead terrorists doesn't sound bad to me. You just can't stomach decisive action. If terrorists attacked Iceland, you and your citizens would just have to take it in the ass. You're too weak to do anything, so acceptance and pacifism--like in Europe--becomes the only emotion and the only response, because it is the only thing that is possible. America is different, and you're a retard for your sickening pacifism and Chamberlain-like leanings. Makes me want to ralph.

[rampant]

That sort of dialectical thinking is precisely what the masses are led to believe. Polarizations of perceptions - we are good they are evil - let's purge them off the planet. Picture this:

You're a poor youth living in afghanistan - it is hard to find meaning in your life - your family is poor, you rarely get a decent meal, and you have no friends to interact with in your neighbourhood. Life is oppressive, boring, depressing.

A person comes round and tells you about this wonderful camp where there are many men you can bond with - be part of a group - be part of a community - be a MAN! You'll get weapons training, education, food, shelter, and possibly your family will not have to worry about food anymore because you'll maybe earn some money and send it back.

You don't realize that at the top of this pyramid are deluded and violent individuals. You don't have internet access where you can see objective information. You only know what you are taught. A few months later, your family receives notice that you have been blown up by americans. You never harmed anyone, you just wanted a life.

Now obviously, not all of the "terrorists" are this innocent, but there are varying degrees, and I suspect the US army does not discriminate when "neutralizing" these groups.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by rampant:
Now obviously, not all of the "terrorists" are this innocent, but there are varying degrees, and I suspect the US army does not discriminate when "neutralizing" these groups.

Oh but it does. Perhaps not in Afghanistan to a great extent, but in Iraq, yes. Leaflets are dropped, radio messages transmitted, and meetings arranged to explain to the Iraqi officers that resistance is futile, and that death will surely follow should they attack or engage US forces. A pretty strong signal that most would heed well, I imagine.

And efforts were made in Afghanistan to persuade commanders to switch sides, bringing there troops with them. Now I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of making excuses for losers and idiots. The Great Satan rained a judgement of fire upon the apostatic Taliban, and that judgement was swift and powerful. Any stump-ridden Taliban moron could have decided for himself. The ones that are alive--they chose wisely. The dead ones--well, they're like me...six feet under, courtesy of the Great Satan.

[nonhuman]

Yes, and not only do they have a bunch of US propaganda telling them to abandon everything they've ever known and embrace the enemy, they have their own government telling them that the US is an immoral, evil body, and that if they betray their people they'll be killed.

If someone started broadcasting on the radio that the US was evil and that you should join China and fight against it, would you listen? No. So why should they?

[voodoo]

Good point nonhuman.

[pooka]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Good point nonhuman.

Not really.

If China and the U.S. were at war, and Chinese armed forces occupied U.S. soil, and you received report after report of devastating blows dealt by enemy forces and possibly even witnessed their unbelievable firepower, plenty of people would probably struggle with the thought internally.

Maybe it was just U.S. propaganda but I seem to recall Iraqi troops surrendering in great numbers not soon after the start of the Gulf War.

[nonhuman]

Yes, some will, but not the mindless fanatics like Atef's Corpse, which are the most dangerous sort.

[pooka]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yes, some will, but not the mindless fanatics like Atef's Corpse, which are the most dangerous sort.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the mindless fanatics will not surrender in an armed conflict? If they were given the option to stand down and don't/can't/want to then they have to accept the consequences of engagement. It's shitty but that's war.

[nonhuman]

That's exactly my point. Atef seemed to be saying that everyone should have surrendered because the US was broadcasting propaganda telling them to. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect that everyone will do this because, largely, of mindless fanatics who actually think that they are in the right (not that all people who are dedicated to a cause are mindless fanatics...), and also trying to point out that just because they maintain their loyalties to someone other than the US doesn't mean that they deserve to die.

It would be moronic to simply expect everyone to give in to the US because we are supposedly morall superior.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That's exactly my point. Atef seemed to be saying that everyone should have surrendered because the US was broadcasting propaganda telling them to. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect that everyone will do this because, largely, of mindless fanatics who actually think that they are in the right (not that all people who are dedicated to a cause are mindless fanatics...), and also trying to point out that just because they maintain their loyalties to someone other than the US doesn't mean that they deserve to die.

It would be moronic to simply expect everyone to give in to the US because we are supposedly morall superior.

Hmm...I guess maybe I wasn't too clear. You know, Allah speaks to me, and I have tea with the Prophet sometimes, but I really do need 'to crush some tinfoil over [my] antenna,' because the signal is fuzzy at times. I don't expect Iraqi troops to give up, but I do expect their commanders--old enough to remember Gulf War One--not to fight. Like the leaflets say: if they leave their bunkers, they'll be killed.

The Taliban (and Queda) was (are) a criminal regime. Everyone fighting with it was a criminal. It's useless to make excuses for the foot soldiers--the people pulling the switches in the Nazi gas chambers knew full well what they were doing, yet they chose to continue, and their fate was sealed. the Taliban foot soldiers and warlords made their choice. They chose to fight to keep their regime of torture and crime, and they fought against the righteous side. For that, Allah judged them, and that judgement was fire from the sky and tremors on the earth. So be it, and so endeth the Taliban. Good riddance to bad rubbish.