Well there you go. In your view, it is more likely our current government consciously desires to kill teenagers (or at least doesn't care about killing teenagers) than it is that they didn't have 100% perfect knowledge of what was going on in a foreign country at one specific moment. I think that sums up our current disagreement fairly well. I for one have seen zero evidence whatsoever that would lead me to such a pessimistic assumption.They supposedly knew that their target was in that exact place at that exact moment, so how could they NOT know that the other people were there too? Including innocents...so either they didnt care who they killed, which is callous or they accepted that killing innocent children was acceptable.
All those things apply to criminal prosecutions. Are you suggesting that we must criminally prosecute all Americans before we deprive them of life or liberty? Surely if an american criminal is pointing a gun at a policeman, you would not say that the person must be criminally prosecuted and given a chance to address his accusers before the policeman is able to shoot him. So where do we draw the line? What about when the American is in a nuclear-armed foreign country hiding in cave somewhere plotting attacks, and we only get intelligence about his exact whereabouts once or twice a year? Do we have to risk the lives of soldiers by ordering them to physically invade said country and capture the guy alive, to bring him to trial? I think you said before you are in favor of drones, so I'm just wondering where exactly you draw the line?
uh, yea. Thats what we have the Bill of Rights for. To guarantee us against government tyrany. The policeman can shoot him and not kill him, if the gunman turns his weapon on the officer then the officer would be defending himself. If the guy happens to die in the process, then that is fate. It all depends on the intent of the action....ordering someones death and carrying it out without evidence or trial is wrong, someone being killed WHILE IN THE ACT is a completely different situation....you need to learn the difference.
More likely, it saves the life of a terrorist and ends the lives of several terrorist victims.
Why do you and others think that the government takes these decisions likely and is ordering drone strikes whenever they have any inkling whatsoever that the person is a terrorist? You do realize that half the government is controlled by a party that would love nothing more than to impeach this executive, right? Even if you are right and Obama is totally callous and incompetent, surely he is at least rational enough to want to avoid being sent to jail for murdering innocent people...Never said they took the decision lightly, but to make the decision at all is wrong. No one gave that power to the Executive branch to decide who lives and who dies upon their say so.
Oh relax, nobody is justifying anything. I'm just saying Obama doesn't deserve to be raked over the coals for asking for a memo on when drone strikes would be constitutionally legal, or for trying to take out terrorists (even American ones) before they kill innocent people. Give me a break. yes he does. He asked for his administration for a memo to legally justify his actions.
Thankfully, we have never been forced to wait until a terrorist attack (or any crime) actually occurs to punish those who intend to perpetrate such an act. I agree that speech alone is not a good reason to send a drone on someone (unless they are saying they are about to commit a terrorist attack). But what I have been saying all along, and what you guys persist in repeating despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support you in the memo, is that this document permits killing anyone who disagrees with the government. Calm down and try to see through the blind partisan hatred for a second, please.You are right, they can now just kill you for your thought and speech...isnt that great
You guys are terrible at analogies. We are not talking about your next-door neighbor Dave, or hearsay based on some random guy. We are talking about a top US intelligence official putting his name (and likely liberty) on the line to say there is sufficient evidence to believe Dave is a terrorist plotting to kill American citizens. Moreover, the memo requires that capture be infeasible. In your analogy, did you make any attempt to stop Dave by some other fashion (e.g. calling the police)? No. You shot him dead right there. So your analogy fails just based on that.It is the EXACT same thing...absolutely no difference....replace "Dave" with "government informant" and replace "you" with "government"
I'll give you a better analogy. George Washington comes up to you one day as says Dave and his buddies, a team wanted by the government on suspicion of previous, severe acts of violence against random individuals, but currently at large and by all accounts planning more attacks, is going to blow up your town. You don't know where Dave lives, nobody does. You call the state police and the FBI, but they say you are on their own (either because they are scared to act or have been bribed by Dave and his buddies). Some time later, George Washington comes to you and says that Dave is going to be at a cafe in a neighboring town for about ten minutes on Monday. He doesn't know how close Dave is to perpetrating the attack on your town. Again, you call the police and the FBI, but they again refuse to help you. You have several choices. You could walk into the cafe to talk and possibly be shot by Dave and his buddies, and from there they might decide to continue with the attack, killing your wife and children and all your neighbors and friends. Or they might escape and you might not get another chance to stop them before the attack. You could do nothing, and hope this man suspected of previous violent acts is not actually going to hurt you and your town (though George Washington is a pretty reputable guy...), or that the police and FBI will hold him responsible after you and everyone else you love are dead. Or you could shoot him and risk being thrown in jail for murder, but at least you would have stopped an attack on your home and the potential deaths of hundreds if not thousands of definitely innocent people. Your analogy sucks because "Dave" is NOT wanted by government yet, "Dave" is some guy who has done nothing wrong other than exercise his freedom of speech.
What do you do?Wait until they act upon their plan...at that point they did something wrong, at that point they went beyond talking about it and began to implement their plan.