Do you support the troops?

[Flying Pig]

Well, i'm not a lawyer,

My mistake, apologies.

but I think if one is going to engage with terrorists and plot to kill their fellow citizens they have pretty much invalidated their citizenship and all that entails.

I agree totally, but I'd say you need to prove that Mr Durka-Durka has actually been talking to terrorists rather than just growing his beard and taking up his time at home playing Civ, before sending in the police to arrest him, prove it, then punish him lawfully.

[/QUOTE]

Being a citizen doesnt grant you a free pass in plotting to kill your fellow citizens with your terrorist friends. Sorry.

It does however give you the right to demand a fair trial for anything you are accused of

 

[Joecoolyo]

I fully agree. Bradley Manning did a great thing. He helped to expose many horrible things that the US has done, including murder of civilians. May all the innocent victims of American imperialism rest in peace.

I spent a good 15 minutes trying to think of a response to this, and yet, I got nowhere. This statement is so overwhelmingly bad from start to finish that no one liner, block of text, or witty image macro could come anywhere close to putting this where it belongs. Every other possible statement that went through my head would either get me an infraction, or just wasn't enough to cover the entirety of the mistruths, teen angst, and Godwyn worthy Nazi propaganda comparisons all mashed into this one post. So that leaves us here, what could I possibly say that will refute not only the contents of this post, but you're entire world view?

Nothing. That's no longer possible. Any argument I can give to the contrary of this post can easily be refuted by a "you can't trust the government" or "that's what they want you to think". You're at that point in which situations and ideas are no longer based on reality, but rather on what you want reality to be. You've crossed the point of no return, you're now the enlightened one, the one who's knowledge is superior to the rest of the populace. You can't be argued with. You can't even be conversed with. You have achieved nirvana. You have become a confused teenager, angry about his life, and threatened by authority. You have lashed against the system, you have gone rouge, lone-dog, rebelled. You haven't found your place in this society, and in fact, may even have been rejected by it, and so in turn you reject it, and create your own universe, one in which everyone besides you is stuck in the shadows, unenlightened. So that once and for all, you can feel like you have been right all along, and can finally be accepted.

And so, what do we do at this point? I don't know. You can take this for whatever it's worth. All I can suggest is critical, non-ideological thinking can get you far in this world. Rejecting reality, won't.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MobBoss]

I agree totally, but I'd say you need to prove that Mr Durka-Durka has actually been talking to terrorists rather than just growing his beard and taking up his time at home playing Civ, before sending in the police to arrest him, prove it, then punish him lawfully.

Sure, but I dont think that proof need be necessarily presented in a court of law prior to being acted upon. We arent talking about a civilian trial here, but a military operation being conducted.

Tell you what...I will agree that any operation of that type should also have some congressional oversight on it to provide that legitimacy of proof you require as opposed to dragging their ass back to a courtroom. Would that suffice?

It does however give you the right to demand a fair trial for anything you are accused of

Provided your're captured alive and not a casualty in a military attack.

 

[galdre]

Sure, but I dont think that proof need be necessarily presented in a court of law prior to being acted upon. We arent talking about a civilian trial here, but a military operation being conducted.

Tell you what...I will agree that any operation of that type should also have some congressional oversight on it to provide that legitimacy of proof you require as opposed to dragging their ass back to a courtroom. Would that suffice?



Provided your're captured alive and not a casualty in a military attack.

so to hell with right to trial then - funny, I seem to remember taking an oath to defend the constitution when I joined the military

 

[Aleenik]

1. And we both know thats not the standard of proof required to have put others in additional risk. There is no doubt that the release of the video inflamed tensions in the area. Although not directly attributed to that stuff, its entirely possible and even probable that those videos may have caused attacks on US servicemen in the area, fatal or not.



2. And keeping classified information out of the hands of the enemy helps mitigate that danger



3. This is sheer propaganda. There was no 'murder' exposed, nor any instance of a single warcrime exposed. To even allege this is just ridiculous.

1. It's also entirely certain that horrible acts commited in the leaked material were... horrible. And I feel the public should be allowed to know about them.

2. Keeping information about horrible acts commited by the US secret also helps to keep the public ignorant of horrible things done, which appears to be a goal though.

3. The 2007 apache video is just one example of horrible things done, that was found out about because of Bradley Manning. You can find more easily. It mostly just takes googling Bradley Manning. So, I completley disagree that what I'm saying is "sheer propoganda".

 

[Flying Pig]

Sure, but I dont think that proof need be necessarily presented in a court of law prior to being acted upon. We arent talking about a civilian trial here, but a military operation being conducted.

Military operations are conducted upon the enemy, not criminals, unless said criminals are ridiculously well-armed

Tell you what...I will agree that any operation of that type should also have some congressional oversight on it to provide that legitimacy of proof you require as opposed to dragging their ass back to a courtroom. Would that suffice?

Not really - laying aside the legitimacy of using an assassination as a punishment (less hideous in the US than over here) the whole point of habeas corpus is to protect against a corrupt or misled government.

Provided your're captured alive and not a casualty in a military attack.

Arrests aren't supposed to have casualties involved unless things go dramatically wrong. I worked as an AFO for some time and in the overwhelming majority of cases the situation was defused without having to shoot anyone. It's much better that way, especially where there may be people out there who want to make the suspect into a matyr

 

[MobBoss]

so to hell with right to trial then - funny, I seem to remember taking an oath to defend the constitution when I joined the military

Dude, this isnt a civil criminal action, it involves national security and the miltiary. Thats a game changer. Our history is rife with the killing of our enemies that were deemed to dangerous or hard to capture. What your crying about is simply a non-issue and ultimately just a red herring.

Again, if a person is going to plan, or execute terrorist acts against our nation or aid those that do, then we have every right to use our military to negate that threat. And have, repeatedly, and there is nothing in the consitution that says we have to have some civilian trial to convict someone prior to our military taking action to protect the nation.

Now, if we capture said terrorist/criminal/whatever, all find and good. Try them and execute them as appropriate. But dont give me that 'to hell with a trial' crap if we use a hellfire missile to wipe out terrorist leadership somewhere remote. Thats constitutional as well, and precisely what I am talking about.

 

[Sveon]

Yes, corporal! <o

 

[galdre]

our constitution says that civilians have a right to a trial, it doesn't say 'right to a trial, unless..."

 

[Flying Pig]

there is nothing in the consitution that says we have to have some civilian trial to convict someone prior to our military taking action to protect the nation.

There is one hell of a lot in the legal system of any country which says that the government can't turn its military power on its own citizens without one hell of a good reason, with the backing of a court of law. I take it you won't have heard of Peterloo? For the record I'm pretty sure that since the USA was set up far later than 1215 there almost certainly is a little clause about due process somewhere in the constitution.

But dont give me that 'to hell with a trial' crap if we use a hellfire missile to wipe out terrorist leadership somewhere remote. Thats constitutional as well, and precisely what I am talking about.

It's also rather different to what we're taling about, which is the US assassinating US citizens presumably on US soil.

 

[warpus]

Being a citizen doesnt grant you a free pass in plotting to kill your fellow citizens with your terrorist friends. Sorry.

Of course not, but that's no excuse to take someone's citizenship away. If, after a fair trial, a judge decides that the dude's citizenship is to be taken away as punishment, fine, but before that.. nope

 

[MobBoss]

1. It's also entirely certain that horrible acts commited in the leaked material were... horrible. And I feel the public should be allowed to know about them.

I agree war and conflict often are horrible. But that doesnt make them criminal.

So, I completley disagree that what I'm saying is "sheer propoganda".

I've seen that video and rest assured have studied it in far more depth than you have. So have other legal experts. Is it horrible? Sure, because combat can be horrible. Is it criminal? Nope.

Military operations are conducted upon the enemy, not criminals, unless said criminals are ridiculously well-armed

I agree. But even citizens can be 'the enemy' in this age of asymetric warfare. Do you agree with that?

Not really - laying aside the legitimacy of using an assassination as a punishment (less hideous in the US than over here) the whole point of habeas corpus is to protect against a corrupt or misled government.

Military operations arent 'punishment', but rather a means to end a threat to the nation. And sure Habeas Corpus is invoked absolutely, if said dangerous combatant is taken alive.

Look, it seems as if you and a few others here are arguing that deadly force can never be used because the person its being used on has never been 'convicted' of something. Put that way, can you see how ridiculous that is?

 

[Formaldehyde]

so to hell with right to trial then - funny, I seem to remember taking an oath to defend the constitution when I joined the military

our constitution says that civilians have a right to a trial, it doesn't say 'right to a trial, unless..."

Where have you been hiding?

It's also rather different to what we're taling about, which is the US assassinating US citizens presumably on US soil.

Fortunately, we are still protected from such acts for the most part. See my sig for details.

 

[El_Machinae]

First of all, I recommended you look at my post again, just to see what I edited. I edited it some. I didn't change much, but added a few things in.

Responses in bold.

Moderator Action: When replying to a post, please don't reply inside the quote box, but take the time to break up the quote box.
It will keep the forum readable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Please read the sticky at the top of OT.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Regardless of if you agree with the missions they're sent on, soldiers have plenty of courage, and should be admired for that. They should be honored for their commitment to put their life on the line for their nation's interests.

Even if they are being misused by corrupt interests, they still deserve respect and some level of support.

Why? They are all that's protecting you. As wonderful as an insurgency can be, at the end of the day, the common soldier is who defends us, not our own peacekeeper.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: @all

I think the ignore list is a great tool. Please feel free to make use of it. Good luck fighting the temptation to 'view post' lol. HOWEVER, please do not announce your use of the ignore list, or troll members with it. If you're not going to address someone's posts, that's fine. But statements that troll conversations are not appreciated
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[holy king]

why in the freaking world would i support the poor sobs fighting the usa's neo-imperialist wars?

 

[Flying Pig]

Look, it seems as if you and a few others here are arguing that deadly force can never be used because the person its being used on has never been 'convicted' of something. Put that way, can you see how ridiculous that is?

No, I'm arguing that it can never be used on someone who isn't an enemy combatant - with all that the Geneva Convention implies by that - without their being convicted of something/being caught flagrantia in delicto (ie; Op NIMROD in 1980, better known as the Iranian Embassy Seige).

 

[Whomp]

Moderator Action: Lots and lots of infractions delivered in this thread. Either keep the personal stuff out of it or we'll close the thread.

 

[MobBoss]

No, I'm arguing that it can never be used on someone who isn't an enemy combatant

FP deadly force is used on presumed dangerous criminals all the time in the USA by law enforcement. That simple fact refutes your comment above.

Perhaps we are just talking past each other hear, as I get the idea that you may be thinking I am backing something i'm not.