[reeftool]

The issue I have is that the Govt. just can't declare someone a terrorist and pass a death sentance. While this guy may well be a dirtbag, it sets a precedent. Think about things for a minute. There are people in law enforcement who consider photographers terrorists.

[Wheatfield]

There are still states in this country where a fugitive can be declared an "outlaw " and there fore it is acceptable for anyone to kill them on sight.

One of those laws that was borrowed from Sharia Muslims, I presume.
This is where legal and acceptable diverge.

[gokenin]

don't know the numbers but I am guessing in the past the us citizens have gone and fought for the other side in previous wars and we never attempted to find them and bring them to trial before they were killed in the conflict. Lets assume that this guy takes place in firefight with US troops that are in country are they supposed to stop firing and see if he will volunteer to give himself up to stand trial for treason or can they kill him without asking? Should they be able to do that whats the difference if it is done with a bomb instead of a bullet from a gun?

[seacapt]

If this gentleman is interested in obtaining legal council and a trial by jury or maintaining a status of US citizen I think he needs to come back to the USA and turn himself in. As an international fugitive his civil liberties are null and void.

One of those laws that was borrowed from Sharia Muslims, I presume.
This is where legal and acceptable diverge.

Nope, its one of those laws that was instated in the early days of this country to help deal with people who were known to have done really bad things and were really good at avoiding capture .
Personally I think there should be an International Bounty on some of the known terrorists today dead or alive.

---

Last edited by seacapt; 08-06-2010 at 10:10 AM.

[deadwolfbones]

don't know the numbers but I am guessing in the past the us citizens have gone and fought for the other side in previous wars and we never attempted to find them and bring them to trial before they were killed in the conflict. Lets assume that this guy takes place in firefight with US troops that are in country are they supposed to stop firing and see if he will volunteer to give himself up to stand trial for treason or can they kill him without asking? Should they be able to do that whats the difference if it is done with a bomb instead of a bullet from a gun?

Pretty sure if a guy is actively firing at police officers/soldiers, he's fair game regardless of who he is.

[Wheatfield]

Nope, its one of those laws that was instated in the early days of this country to help deal with people who were known to have done really bad things and were really good at avoiding capture .

They were instituted because there was very little in the way of law enforcement at the time.
Times have changed.
I haven't heard of any sheriffs rounding up a posse to go out and hunt down a cattle rustler for a while now.
Laws that have outlived their usefulness are dangerous laws.

[seacapt]

They were instituted because there was very little in the way of law enforcement at the time.
Times have changed.
I haven't heard of any sheriffs rounding up a posse to go out and hunt down a cattle rustler for a while now.
Laws that have outlived their usefulness are dangerous laws.

I'm not so sure that law has outlived it's usefulness.
If there was a rabid animal in my yard I'd shoot it first before it could get away and hurt innocent people then call animal control second.
But we're not talking about rustlers or rabid animals here this is a known terrorist who has conspired against his country and is in part responsible for the deaths of many innocents. By renouncing his US citizenship he himself has waived the rights afforded to US citizens. It would in fact be better to bring him in alive to stand trial rather than make him a martyr but he isn't going to let that happen so if the opportunity arrises I say take the shot.

---

Last edited by seacapt; 08-06-2010 at 10:27 AM.

[Wheatfield]

I'm not so sure that law has outlived it's usefulness.
If there was a rabid animal in my yard I'd shoot it first before it could get away and hurt innocent people then call animal control second.
But we're not talking about rustlers or rabid animals here this is a known terrorist who has conspired against his country and is in part responsible for the deaths of many innocents. By renouncing his US citizenship he himself has waived the rights afforded to US citizens. It would in fact be better to bring him in alive to stand trial rather than make him a martyr but he isn't going to let that happen so if the opportunity arrises I say take the shot.

Fair enough, and quite frankly, I've had enough of terrorism, to the point I wish you guys would send an armada of B-52's over to the Middle East and turn the entire region into radioactive waste.

However, the law (and morality) disagrees with me.
What does the law say about lynching the guy in question?

[seacapt]

The law says he's an enemy of the state and is on a kill on sight list but answers are niether simple or easy.

[Wheatfield]

The law says he's an enemy of the state and is on a kill on sight list but answers are niether simple or easy.

Are there any applicable international laws that would be contravened by this?
And is this a law of convenience written specifically to deal with this one person or is it a fairly longstanding law?

[seacapt]

Maybe I was mistaken , maybe we are dealing with rabid animals
6 Americans slain in Afghan medical mission - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

[johnmflores]

Maybe I was mistaken , maybe we are dealing with rabid animals
6 Americans slain in Afghan medical mission - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

This is a sad sad story. I've volunteered for medical missions in the past (just a supply-carrying grunt) and hope to do so again. The medical professionals that give their time to these causes are inspiring people.

Speaking of rabid animals though, invading and taking over a country that had no connection to 9/11 didn't make us look like adorable puppies either...

[Wheatfield]

Maybe I was mistaken , maybe we are dealing with rabid animals
6 Americans slain in Afghan medical mission - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

We invaded their country, we ARE the bad guys.
This is how wars are fought by people who want to win wars.
I'm quite certain that our side has killed more than a few innocent Afghani civilians, does that make us rabid animals as well?
The big difference is that we shoot at them from the relative safety of tanks and gunship helicopters.

[seacapt]

We invaded their country, we ARE the bad guys.
This is how wars are fought by people who want to win wars.
I'm quite certain that our side has killed more than a few innocent Afghani civilians, does that make us rabid animals as well?
The big difference is that we shoot at them from the relative safety of tanks and gunship helicopters.

I do understand the points you make here , especially the part about fighting to win which we don't. I also have to say there is a difference "colateral damage" and executing civillian medical staff for carrying Bibles and "spy gadgets". What the hell is a spy gadget?
Like I said earlier there are no easy decissions for most people when it comes to human life yet the more I see of the actions of Radical Islam , the less I see terrorists and murderers as human.
So back to the topic unless Anwar al Aulaqi turns himself in he has to be catagorized as an international terrorist / an outlaw (a fugitive who has forfieted the protections of the law) and therefore if the opportunity for a clear shot presents itself it should be taken.
By choice he gave up his rights as a citizen of the USA and the protectections of the laws of the land.

[Wheatfield]

By choice he gave up his rights as a citizen of the USA and the protectections of the laws of the land.

I find this statement to be interesting unto itself, though I can't quite put why into words yet.
Perhaps tomorrow.