Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

WP: Intelligence chief acknowledges U.S. may target Americans involved in terrorism

Redskins Diehard

By Redskins Diehard
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303968.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last president just wanted to listen to their phone calls...this one wants to kill 'em. Somewhere Sarge is happy with this news I am sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

I don't necessarily have a problem depending on what action they're taking.

Are we talking "performing the final steps of assembling a nuclear bomb"? Or "talking to a Pakistani warlord about joining his army as cannon fodder?"

But overall, I think I agree with you. This is Not Good News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I don't necessarily have a problem depending on what action they're taking.

Are we talking "performing the final steps of assembling a nuclear bomb"? Or "talking to a Pakistani warlord about joining his army as cannon fodder?"

But overall, I think I agree with you. This is Not Good News.

Wait a second....did I say this was not good news? :evilg:

Seriously though, pretty significant testimony if you ask me. And I am sure the people that will be flapping their gums about will have the opposite response they would have had 18 months ago. When a different President was in charge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."

...Which, if they're actively threatening Americans in some significant way, is exactly the same thing that may happen to them here.

The cited article gives virtually no specifics.

Theoreticals are fun -- you can make anything happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
  • Author
Posted
...Which, if they're actively threatening Americans in some significant way, is exactly the same thing that may happen to them here.

The cited article gives virtually no specifics.

Theoreticals are fun -- you can make anything happen!

"Aulaqi is a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of the main al-Qaeda organization, and has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter as well as the Nigerian. He was thought to be meeting with regional al-Qaeda leaders at a compound in Yemen targeted by a Dec. 24 strike. He was not said to be the focus of the strike, and he was not killed. But U.S. officials said at the time that they thought he might have been killed."

I guess they could have given you the time of day....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted

Without specifics on what "action" warrants getting killed this doesn't mean much.

If someone is attending an Al Qaeda training camp I don't think many are too concerned if a 1000lb bomb is dropped on their heads.

If suspected terrorist Bob Smith is shot in a supermarket while buying a family-size bag of Doritos, then it's a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted

i dont' see how this is even a problem, if you are in afghanistan engaging american troops and you get shot and killed so be it. If you are in somalia and we drop a JDAM on you while you are building a bomb, so be it. Don't go to places where you can get blown up or shot and there won't be problems. It's simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted

As is often the case here... I don't really have a problem with the underlying factoid (of course specific details are VERY important here, both on a case-by-case basis, and on general rules of implimentation)

....BUT... many of the trogladite responses HERE defending the practice will make me feel like I am marching in a Klan rally to support the general concept of free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
I think there is a huge difference between being overseas and within US borders. As long as there is a very very very bright line drawn there' date=' I'm not too worked up by this.

Though we are now heading down a very very slippery slope.[/quote']

I agree, there is a huge difference in my mind as well.

We been slip sliding on them slopes for yrs:evilg:

If there is a threat in a area you do not control,removing it is the best option.

Threats here CAN and are handled differently because we can do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted
"Aulaqi is a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of the main al-Qaeda organization, and has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter as well as the Nigerian. He was thought to be meeting with regional al-Qaeda leaders at a compound in Yemen targeted by a Dec. 24 strike. He was not said to be the focus of the strike, and he was not killed. But U.S. officials said at the time that they thought he might have been killed."

I guess they could have given you the time of day....

Whiff. But it's nice of you to repeat the part of the article that specifically doesn't address my point. :ols:

Corcaigh made the same point as me, but in more detail:

Without specifics on what "action" warrants getting killed this doesn't mean much.

If someone is attending an Al Qaeda training camp I don't think many are too concerned if a 1000lb bomb is dropped on their heads.

If suspected terrorist Bob Smith is shot in a supermarket while buying a family-size bag of Doritos, then it's a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Whiff. But it's nice of you to repeat the part of the article that specifically doesn't address my point. :ols:

Corcaigh made the same point as me, but in more detail:

I guess I gave you credit for knowing what Aulaqi is believed to have done. And then to take it one step further assess whether or not that warranted being killed by the government for it. Are you looking for an all inclusive list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

Was this not the case before? Seems like if your nation is at war and you fly to the war zone and play for the other team... it's unlikely that they are going to ask your for citizenship papers before shooting you dead. If you are providing intel to the enemy you're twice as likely to play catch with a UAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...