Targeting you own citizens abroad.

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 03:52
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Cant say I worry about this one little bit.

Have joined a army overseas that kills our aid workers in executions, targets terrorist attacks at the UK.

As far as I am concerned - its a war, and they should be taken out without qualm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34184856
 
I say good riddance, they revoked their UK Citizenship the moment they boarded the plane to Syria and turned their backs on their country.

Two less sumbags to be concerned about.
 
The USA takes a slightly different view because they DON'T revoke their U.S. Citizenship by joining another army in another country. Where they run into trouble is if they EVER get caught attacking a U.S. facility or the government facilities of any of our allies for which we have appropriate treaties - NATO, for example.

By doing it that way, we get to charge them with treason and put their sorry butts in jail nearly forever. And if they actually kill U.S. citizens abroad and the local government doesn't want to deal with them, we still have that option. There are laws on the USA's Uniform Criminal Code books to address what happens, and it is not advantageous to the perpetrators in ANY way, shape, or form.
 
Who will be comming in with the refuges? Expatriates, former citizens, radicals? The world is changing that much I know.
 
Cameron has the right idea about taking in Refugees, by wanting to take them from Syrian Refugee camps only and not those that make the trip to Europe, after all they could be anybody, Refugee, Economic Migrant, or closet Terrorist.
 
I say good riddance, they revoked their UK Citizenship the moment they boarded the plane to Syria and turned their backs on their country.

Two less sumbags to be concerned about.
This is not in fact legally correct. You do not revoke your British Citizenship by aiding an enemy. You are in that case guilty of treason and should be tried for it not summarly executed.

I feel ashamed of Cameron's actions in having these people murdered. I have always believed in the right to a fair trial and I deepy regret thatr this view does not seem to be shared by the present government. They claim to in support of "Law and Order" but only it seems when it suits them. What hypocrites
 
I agree Rabbie, they should have politely asked these people to come back and stand trial.

Brian
 
To expand my views further on this. I can see little or no difference between the UK using a drone to target and kill a UK citizen suspected of planning terrorist acts and Putin sending people to poison a former KGB agent who had defected to the UK. The difference is that the UK government justifies the former and condemns the latter. Surely a question of double standards.
 
To expand my views further on this. I can see little or no difference between the UK using a drone to target and kill a UK citizen suspected of planning terrorist acts and Putin sending people to poison a former KGB agent who had defected to the UK. The difference is that the UK government justifies the former and condemns the latter. Surely a question of double standards.

Yes it might be double standards but both killings maybe justified on the grounds of treason and prevention of the death of your own citizens..

Brian
 
Yes it might be double standards but both killings maybe justified on the grounds of treason and prevention of the death of your own citizens..

Brian

Do you not have an equal chance to choose verdict by trial in the UK? Evidence has been wrong before.

It's unfortunate how quick we are to throw pitchforks and cast stones with a guilty verdict these days. Citizens in the US I think have been completely programmed by social media to attack anyone even ACCUSED or questioned of something, let alone ever actually arrested for a crime, where you are still supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right? Look at how many people have been exonerated by later evidence with increasing technological advances in the criminal justice system.
 
Citizens in the US I think have been completely programmed by social media to attack anyone even ACCUSED or questioned of something, let alone ever actually arrested for a crime, where you are still supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right? Look at how many people have been exonerated by later evidence with increasing technological advances in the criminal justice system.
Apples and oranges, in a court room you are innocent until proven guilty. However that rule does not apply in the court of public opinion.
 
The whole Drone concept is not new and might even go back to the German V2 that was very accurate somehow before the digital age.
During the Cold War, I was very much a part of the technical development for what is now called the Smart Bomb. It is mission driven to navigate to a point with a specific set of targets listed in a priority. Probably the big difference is the public notice and awesome videos provided from Drones. Until CNN had live coverage of the first Iraq situation, few had ever witnessed long distance accurate mission driven events.

President Obama will probably get credit for authorizing Drone Strikes in countries where there was no formal Declaration of War. Over a year ago, an organization documented that there were over 400 children bystanders killed as a result of his orders. Many of the terrorist were exposed during family meetings. The old collateral damage story.
In truth, many of the drone strikes may not have ever been publicized, so we really don't know.

This brings up the two evils. Do we condemn actions that are transparent today or condone transparency despite the legal issues?

Back in the first World War, many US Citizens paid their own way and went "Over There" to fight on their own with some country that was involved. Later, the US formally got involved. The problem with the First World War before the US got formally involved was the alliances between various countries changed often and changed suddenly.

The other recent news about US Citizens over seas is the Iran agreement. In this case, a deal was negotiated and it left out US Citizens who are being held hostage. There are so many stories across the globe on this one. It would seem that the good of a political situation outweighs any real concern for US Citizens abroad.

Regarding the remarks of Inviting them back home to stand trial
The US has a history of Bounty Hunters. Out in the Western States, Oklahoma Territory, and Republic of Texas, we were more civilized. A criminal could stand trial and have a bounty placed on their "head". Some bounties justified Dead or Alive. If a wanted criminal turned themselves over to authorities, the "dead' qualification was not an option. History of attacks on US interests and citizens is a key factor in the size of the bounty if they are overseas ... if wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes for example. Still, there was a public trial with evidence for the public to consider.

The trial by social media is indeed disturbing. It is a type of Orwellian 1984 world.
I would have to look it up. About a month ago, the war crimes group added the phrase "...statements against the US or NATO objectives" clause. I wouldn't want to say much more for risk of being assigned to a group.
 
Last edited:
Otherwise known as mob rule.

Yep. I equate it to a group of angry farmers holding pitchforks and torches screaming to "BURN THE WITCH!"

I try to exercise a bit of patience and caution. I would rather be right about a verdict than jump to conclusions. I've seen too many cases where people are accused of stuff they didn't do.
 
This is a link to the report on the killings we are talking about

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...irstrike-killed-isis-briton-reyaad-khan-syria

Now whether you trust your government or not is a separate issue, but I ask you this
Would you have preferred that we wait to see if they kill people before we act?
If the US government had had knowledge of the plot against the twin towers and the only way to prevent it was to kill the people involved would you say no?

This appears to be totally removed from cases such as The Birmingham Six.

Brian
 
Otherwise known as mob rule.

You first need to deal with this little document.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
 
Would you have preferred that we wait to see if they kill people before we act?
If the US government had had knowledge of the plot against the twin towers and the only way to prevent it was to kill the people involved would you say no?

Knowledge is always questionable. Certainly don't wait to act, but don't rush to killing someone who haven't committed a crime yet just based on probable evidence. I would say if we have the ability to kill them, then we have the ability to take them into custody and put them on trial. Death sentences shouldn't be taken lightly, especially without an actual trial to determine them.
 
I would say if we have the ability to kill them, then we have the ability to take them into custody and put them on trial. Death sentences shouldn't be taken lightly, especially without an actual trial to determine them.

I found this sentence laughable, were we supposed to send in a snatch squad?
Maybe we could lasso them from the drone and airlift them out.

An open trial could, probably would, compromise a country's intelligence and security systems and personnel. Sure killing should not be done lightly, but maybe it wasn't , I realise on reading the gun thread that Americans live in fear of their government, but that is not the case here , even if we think them not completely trustworthy on many issues.

Brian
 
I found this sentence laughable, were we supposed to send in a snatch squad?
Maybe we could lasso them from the drone and airlift them out.

An open trial could, probably would, compromise a country's intelligence and security systems and personnel. Sure killing should not be done lightly, but maybe it wasn't , I realise on reading the gun thread that Americans live in fear of their government, but that is not the case here , even if we think them not completely trustworthy on many issues.

Brian

So you trust completely that it's not a mistake?

It's different if you have the evidence that they've admitted what their plans are, such as making a video flat out threatening to carry out attacks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom