I missed the part where Canada became a non extradition country.

queezyweezel: I missed the part where Canada became a non extradition country.

They don't extradite for capital offenses from what I gather.

Personally, I'd really have no problems with killing him in Canada. I don't think you'd need a drone, though. They still make Moosehead and play hockey. Either of those two things should get the job done.

Well, yeah, but mostly because there wasn't much of a case against McVeigh until well after he'd been in police custody. In fact he was picked up for driving without a license plate, taken to jail when it was found he had a concealed pistol on him, and a guard watching TV coverage of the bombing remarked that McVeigh kinda looked like the bomber.

Then they started connecting the dots.

If he was still conducting or coordinating further attacks against the US they might not be so outraged.

Couldn't we have just fired a drone back at them?

It's so impersonal - like giving your Mum a kitchen appliance for her birthday instead of flowers.

jbuist: Well, yeah, but mostly because there wasn't much of a case against McVeigh until well after he'd been in police custody. In fact he was picked up for driving without a license plate, taken to jail when it was found he had a concealed pistol on him, and a guard watching TV coverage of the bombing remarked that McVeigh kinda looked like the bomber.

Then they started connecting the dots.

Don't go confusing the issue with facts and such.

The same argument that said al-Alwaki had to be taken out by drone means that we can hit people with drone strikes inside the US. This argument has completely missed most people for some reason.

Marcus Aurelius: jbuist: Well, yeah, but mostly because there wasn't much of a case against McVeigh until well after he'd been in police custody. In fact he was picked up for driving without a license plate, taken to jail when it was found he had a concealed pistol on him, and a guard watching TV coverage of the bombing remarked that McVeigh kinda looked like the bomber.

Then they started connecting the dots.

Don't go confusing the issue with facts and such.

Well, there's also the fact that drones didn't exist back then.

So, I think we're all just hanging out in the land of make-believe.

I think Obama should fire the death ray that shoots from his eyes to take out all Canadian terror suspects.

Yemen is a lawless wasteland, Canada is a wasteland, but at least they have laws, police, courts, etc...Canada is a modern Democracy, Yemen is anything but.



Canada



Yemen

GAT_00: The same argument that said al-Alwaki had to be taken out by drone means that we can hit people with drone strikes inside the US. This argument has completely missed most people for some reason.

Why bother with drones when we can just set fire to a compound they're living in and claim they tried to commit mass-suicide?

GAT_00: The same argument... means that we can hit people with drone strikes inside the US.

I don't think anyone buys that.

hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: The same argument... means that we can hit people with drone strikes inside the US.

I don't think anyone buys that.

Yeah. If you take out my neighbor with a drone and knock out my cable... I'm gonna be pissed.

A "number of people" would be outraged if Obama went back in time and personally strangled Hitler.
A "number of people" would be outraged if Obama invented a pollution free, cheap abundant energy source.
A "number of people" would be outraged if Obama solved world hunger.

Until he stops with his Presidentin' while Black/Democrat, he will continue to be viewed by a "number of people" as history's greatest monster.

Quasar: Why bother with drones when we can just set fire to a compound they're living in and claim they tried to commit mass-suicide?

As opposed to letting the crazy bastards pour gasoline all over the compound and light it up themselves, like what happened in reality? Because after opening fire on ATF agents with a legal warrant, the FBI stepping in meant Doomsday to them?

hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: The same argument... means that we can hit people with drone strikes inside the US.

I don't think anyone buys that.

What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

Bunch of people barricaded into a building? Only one entrance? Hit 'em with a drone strike, it would kill too many police trying to get them. Isn't that the same argument made with al-Alwaki? He was too hard to get and it would kill too many Americans getting him?

GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

Yes, but isn't precedent set now? For fark's sake, I came up with this right away. Does anyone have any confidence this scenario won't occur? Killing him like that was a dangerous mistake.

GAT_00: hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

Yes, but isn't precedent set now? For fark's sake, I came up with this right away. Does anyone have any confidence this scenario won't occur? Killing him like that was a dangerous mistake.

I mean, we have the President unilaterally ordering the death of an American citizen without trial, and NOBODY sees a problem with this. This is how far we've fallen as a country?

GAT_00: Isn't that the same argument made with al-Alwaki? He was too hard to get and it would kill too many Americans getting him?

I'm not sure where the bar for "too hard" is, but operating in a foreign country run by a government hostile to your own and raiding a church in BFE, Texas seem incredibly different to me.

GAT_00: GAT_00: hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

Yes, but isn't precedent set now? For fark's sake, I came up with this right away. Does anyone have any confidence this scenario won't occur? Killing him like that was a dangerous mistake.

I mean, we have the President unilaterally ordering the death of an American citizen without trial, and NOBODY sees a problem with this. This is how far we've fallen as a country?

It was either that or let him continue to orchestrate attacks on US citizens. At some point a manhunt can become a shootout.

GAT_00: I mean, we have the President unilaterally ordering the death of an American citizen without trial, and NOBODY sees a problem with this. This is how far we've fallen as a country?

He was acting as a general in a war against the US.

I'd be jumping up and down with rage if he were simply wanted for murder, even if it were a lot of them. But it's just not the case.

Only the Canadians would care, and they don't count, so......

GAT_00: GAT_00: hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

Yes, but isn't precedent set now? For fark's sake, I came up with this right away. Does anyone have any confidence this scenario won't occur? Killing him like that was a dangerous mistake.

I mean, we have the President unilaterally ordering the death of an American citizen without trial, and NOBODY sees a problem with this. This is how far we've fallen as a country?

I have no problem with taking out an enemy combatant outside of US soil. If he was in the states, and they did this, it would be a different story.
If you're living outside of the country and plotting attacks against the US, we may just kill you. It happens, and has happened for many many years. Do you think the CIA/NSA/Etc operate within the confines of US law, and or even the Geneva conventions?
I'm just glad they're our monsters, and not the other guy's monsters.

jbuist: GAT_00: Isn't that the same argument made with al-Alwaki? He was too hard to get and it would kill too many Americans getting him?

I'm not sure where the bar for "too hard" is, but operating in a foreign country run by a government hostile to your own and raiding a church in BFE, Texas seem incredibly different to me.

Survivalists in West Bumfark Wyoming, no roads, open terrain surrounding the location, and well fortified location. This is not an impossible scenario. These type people are considered a legitimate threat. Wouldn't they qualify as for a drone strike here? After all, I'm told that's a needless risk to try to get them out and put them on trial like we do in civilized countries.

hillbillypharmacist: He was acting as a general in a war against the US.

Can anyone actually produce evidence of this? All I've seen evidence of is propaganda.

queezyweezel: If he was in the states, and they did this, it would be a different story.

And what part of the argument used to kill him cannot be applied in the US?

Dan the Schman: It's one thing to be pissed about the execution without trial, it's intellectually dishonest to yap about it setting a precedent to happen within the United States.

I don't see anyone proving the argument flawed other than simply saying 'Well it is!' and getting mad when I don't take that as proof.

GAT_00: And what part of the argument used to kill him cannot be applied in the US?

Like I said, it can be applied, but it's going to be a lot less convincing. Backwoods Yemen is not backwoods Montana.

GAT_00: queezyweezel: If he was in the states, and they did this, it would be a different story.

And what part of the argument used to kill him cannot be applied in the US?

It violates a shiatload of local, state, and federal laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
for starters...

cameroncrazy1984: It was either that or let him continue to orchestrate attacks on US citizens.

This is a lie, and one I am sure the US government would really like people to believe.

Getting Al-Awlaki was a happy accident. The guy we were actually after, another US citizen named Samir Khan, was an editor of a jihadist propaganda magazine. That's it. He had no role in orchestrating any attacks whatsoever.

*not this shiat again* pic

GAT_00: GAT_00: hillbillypharmacist: GAT_00: What part of the argument made to get him couldn't be used here?

You could use those arguments, sure. But they're going to be a lot less convincing when you're talking about someone inside the US. The cards are necessarily stacked well in the authorities' favor with a situation inside the US.

Yes, but isn't precedent set now? For fark's sake, I came up with this right away. Does anyone have any confidence this scenario won't occur? Killing him like that was a dangerous mistake.

I mean, we have the President unilaterally ordering the death of an American citizen without trial, and NOBODY sees a problem with this. This is how far we've fallen as a country?

I've got a problem with people acting like being a citizen should factor into whether or not that was okay. He shouldn't magically be shielded from repercussions because he had citizenship here.

No, I don't have a problem with the government taking out someone who openly advocated performing terrorist attacks on the country while hiding out in another country. Citizenship is irrelevant to that. There's no "but what if it was in the US," because it wasn't in the US. There's no "but what if they start doing it to people for lesser crimes," because they haven't an are incredibly unlikely to. The guy was a terrorist. He was very open about his views. If he'd been willing to come on over and have a trial, cool. Somehow, I doubt that was going to happen.

You want a trial? Come back to America. Don't want to be assassinated? Don't advocate being a terrorist and attacking the US.

kingoomieiii: Quasar: Why bother with drones when we can just set fire to a compound they're living in and claim they tried to commit mass-suicide?

As opposed to letting the crazy bastards pour gasoline all over the compound and light it up themselves, like what happened in reality? Because after opening fire on ATF agents with a legal warrant, the FBI stepping in meant Doomsday to them?

this. Quasar you're officially the Fark Idiot of the Day.

JanusofZeal: You want a trial? Come back to America. Don't want to be assassinated? Don't advocate being a terrorist and attacking the US.

I love how so much of the defense of this targeted assassination involves massively begging the question. People who are denouncing this aren't denouncing the fact that he was killed. They are denouncing the fact that he was summarily executed without any due process.

I can't believe you all can't see the dangerous path this logic takes us down. You deserve to summarily die because you're a criminal. If you don't want to be summarily executed by the whim of the chief executive, don't be a criminal. How do we know you're a criminal? Well, you didn't turn yourself in when we ordered you summarily executed.

Yeah, that's what I would do. Turn myself over to the people I consider the greatest evil in the world, and who also just happened to order me killed on sight. What could possibly go wrong.

I love the fact that Obama now has Republicans complaining that he's being too mean to terrorists.

gilgigamesh: Getting Al-Awlaki was a happy accident. The guy we were actually after, another US citizen named Samir Khan, was an editor of a jihadist propaganda magazine. That's it. He had no role in orchestrating any attacks whatsoever.

[citation needed]

gilgigamesh: I can't believe you all can't see the dangerous path this logic takes us down

I bet you think using a sniper to shoot a suspected bank robber takes us down a dangerous path, too.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I love the fact that Obama now has Republicans complaining that he's being too mean to terrorists.

I'm calling it: at some point in 2012, Obama will come out in favor of breathing.

JanusofZeal: Don't advocate being a terrorist and attacking the US.

BTW, this is perfectly legal activity. If you were tried for some crime stemming from it, you would have an absolute defense under the first amendment, and you would win.

Of course, when the government can simply order you killed on sight, we don't really have to concern ourselves with pesky "trials" and "absolute defenses" and "acquitals".

gilgigamesh: JanusofZeal: You want a trial? Come back to America. Don't want to be assassinated? Don't advocate being a terrorist and attacking the US.

I love how so much of the defense of this targeted assassination involves massively begging the question. People who are denouncing this aren't denouncing the fact that he was killed. They are denouncing the fact that he was summarily executed without any due process.

I can't believe you all can't see the dangerous path this logic takes us down. You deserve to summarily die because you're a criminal. If you don't want to be summarily executed by the whim of the chief executive, don't be a criminal. How do we know you're a criminal? Well, you didn't turn yourself in when we ordered you summarily executed.

Yeah, that's what I would do. Turn myself over to the people I consider the greatest evil in the world, and who also just happened to order me killed on sight. What could possibly go wrong.

BZZZT wrong. Not when you don't turn yourself in. When you publicly make videos, advocate, and plan terrorist attacks. This isn't a farking speeding ticket, people. He wasn't hiding what he was doing.

If you can't understand the difference between being a terrorist that publicly advocates being a terrorist and your average criminal, then you're a god damn idiot.

You can't biatch about not getting due process if you actively hide from and avoid it. A terrorist that is very public about his intentions is not the same as someone who didn't get a fair trial. He didn't get one, because he didn't farking want one.

The logic doesn't apply to speeders, thieves, people within the US, rapists, murderers, or even farkin terrorists that aren't publicly advocating being a terrorist.

It's not like they're mowing down and sending drones after anyone who ever posted "fark america" on twitter.

Your slippery slope logic is bullshiat, because you can't assume every step between killing that guy and just going crazy killing anyone who ever said something bad about America. If you can't see how that guy was an extreme case and not representative of the average case (or even anything within 3 standard deviations of it), you're an idiot. There's no nice way to put it.

gilgigamesh: JanusofZeal: Don't advocate being a terrorist and attacking the US.

BTW, this is perfectly legal activity. If you were tried for some crime stemming from it, you would have an absolute defense under the first amendment, and you would win.

Of course, when the government can simply order you killed on sight, we don't really have to concern ourselves with pesky "trials" and "absolute defenses" and "acquitals".

No. Actually, conspiring to commit murder is not a legal activity. Even less so when it's mass murder. Good try though.

Of course there would be. There are some people against more money!

Nah. I'd be cool with that.

For the record, I'm not really for the government having that much power. I'm not a fan of it. I just don't really see it as a pressing issues. In terms of things that need changing about out government, this wouldn't even make the top 100. It ranks somewhere below "repealing seatbelt laws in favor of laws that make it so others (including government and insurance) do not have to pay if you get in a crash and sustain injuries while not wearing a seatbelt".

These actions are so far outside the norm, and require you being so far outside the norm in terms of being a psychopathic killer before you even pop up on the radar as a possible target, that I really don't give a fark. Trying to expand that case as though it's going to start some big evil path is just ridiculous.

gilgigamesh: Of course, when the government can simply order you killed on sight, we don't really have to concern ourselves with pesky "trials" and "absolute defenses" and "acquitals".

Man, I miss the Good Old Days® when we just threw suspected terrorists in Gitmo and kept them there forever without a trial.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: gilgigamesh: Of course, when the government can simply order you killed on sight, we don't really have to concern ourselves with pesky "trials" and "absolute defenses" and "acquitals".

Man, I miss the Good Old Days® when we just threw suspected terrorists in Gitmo and kept them there forever without a trial.

Especially the suspected terrorists who weren't even anywhere near the battlefield and were just random guys we picked up off the street for looking too brown in their own country.