Targeting you own citizens abroad.

[Frothingslosh]

I realise on reading the gun thread that Americans live in fear of their government

Hey, not all of us are convinced our government is about to kill us all and stick mind-control radio transmitters in the heads of the rest of us! Also, keep in mind that the Second Amendment was written about 15 years after what was effectively an armed insurrection, in an era when the primary weaponry of the armed forces was little differently than the weaponry available to everyone else, and when there was a lot more need for rifles for hunting and defense.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

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.

Considering who they were and where they were. They are the same targets for US, Aus etc bombing raids anyway. (UK only in Iraq).

So even without the further evidence of a UK terror plot. Good riddance.

With that additional evidence (which of course I haven't seen) I trust those in power enough to make that judgement yes.

I think maybe Syria may be the issue here, cos officially we the UK aren't fighting in Syria.

 

[Rx_]

Consipericy to commit (fill in blank) isn't new. A group of prisoners in an association (e.g. Gang) might provides detailed plans and money to another person to take out (not referencing dating here) their witness before a trial happens. If the person does the right thing and goes to the authorities with this "plan or plot"; the gang members can be arrested and sentenced (perhaps even got to trial inbetween LOL).
The point is, association and intent of criminal activity can be different than the Constitutional Rights.

As far as "wanted dead or alive" for those of you with a Lexus Account, there is something to be said about that on these links.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1a1g7o/was_wanted_dead_or_alive_ever_constitutional/
If actor was not a direct agent of the government they must prove they tried a peaceful surrender or they could be charged for murder just like any citizen.
If the actor is a direct agent of the government, then it is most likely a different story.

Put these together: association, plot, Wanted, Actor was Government...
After the fact, I would prefer that the details would be made transparant. If it gave away security facts, then people with the right levels of clearance should be able to view the facts. Transparancy is important.

Portraying people who don't trust the government as a lunitic fringe allows corrupt individuals in government to use public resources for their own purpose. Anyone who claims all government agents, employees or officals are always absolutely honest might be suspect themselves?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Consipericy to commit (fill in blank) isn't new. A group of prisoners in an association (e.g. Gang) might provides detailed plans and money to another person to take out (not referencing dating here) their witness before a trial happens. If the person does the right thing and goes to the authorities with this "plan or plot"; the gang members can be arrested and sentenced (perhaps even got to trial inbetween LOL).
The point is, association and intent of criminal activity can be different than the Constitutional Rights.

As far as "wanted dead or alive" for those of you with a Lexus Account, there is something to be said about that on these links.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1a1g7o/was_wanted_dead_or_alive_ever_constitutional/
If actor was not a direct agent of the government they must prove they tried a peaceful surrender or they could be charged for murder just like any citizen.
If the actor is a direct agent of the government, then it is most likely a different story.

Put these together: association, plot, Wanted, Actor was Government...
After the fact, I would prefer that the details would be made transparant. If it gave away security facts, then people with the right levels of clearance should be able to view the facts. Transparancy is important.

Portraying people who don't trust the government as a lunitic fringe allows corrupt individuals in government to use public resources for their own purpose. Anyone who claims all government agents, employees or officals are always absolutely honest might be suspect themselves?

The only people I've ever seen to claim all government agents, employees, and officials are always absolutely honest have been those defending LEOs. Thin blue line and all that.