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

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm also trying to understand the story. So far it seems to be simple common sense.

[mjah]

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?

Credit received and due; thank you very much! [Pockets credit]

The greater point is not illuminated at all by one American who was not killed during an attack which, coincidentally enough, wasn't trying to kill him. In fact, the article doesn't even say why he wasn't targeted. Was it because his actions didn't warrant it regardless of his nationality? Was it because the attack was targeting other, bigger fish at the terrorist meetup, and command wasn't fully aware of all attendee list until after the attack was ordered? Was it because his actions normally would warrant being targeted, but they relented because he was American? This last one would be interesting and somewhat relevant, partially because it would mean that they were still willing to risk his death as collateral damage to a strike. But it still wouldn't shed much more than a feeble light on the operating guidelines themselves.

And there are other explanations that are compatible with the article, which seems poorly researched and/or written. But maybe that's all the info they got -- in which case the lack of available guidelines should have been more prominently noted.

I suspect your "comprehensive list" suggestion is actually impossible to put together because it would require an infinite string of examples in order to be utterly "comprehensive." But nobody's asking for that. There's a set of overarching engagement principles in play which can be related from human to human. They're in use. Blair said so in the article. He just didn't say what they are.

And without knowing them, speculation is nothing more than, well... speculation. Much like the biggest paragraph in this post, it doesn't answer anything except the question, "How little do we know?"

Who's gonna win the Super Bowl? Whee!

Long story short, the article's example does little to address the issue which I and others have raised. Higher-level info would make the article useful, but it's in short supply. So I'm not going to get worked up over it until I know more. And maybe not then, either.

Which reminds me of a joke about Democrats vs. Republicans... but I digress.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Respect to the resident libs in this thread being consistent, regardless of who occupies the white house.

I'm not sure what that means?

Am I being inconsistent in that I think its ok for the military to target us citizen terrorists in war zones?

This is not the same as saying that we should just execute or indefintely detain everyone we've captured.

[NavyDave]

....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.

Actually you come across as one of those human shield extremists trying to do moral relativism with the terrorists and my troops.

[NavyDave]

Some of the posters here actually has me believing the terrorists if tried in NYC can avoid the death penalty because there might be like minded mentally challenged types among the juror pool.

[mjah]

Some of the posters here actually has me believing the terrorists if tried in NYC can avoid the death penalty because there might be like minded mentally challenged types among the juror pool.

There are idiots everywhere.

One thing operating in justice's favor: juries are given clear information about the guidelines used to determine whether or not a dude dies.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Some of the posters here actually has me believing the terrorists if tried in NYC can avoid the death penalty because there might be like minded mentally challenged types among the juror pool.

Federal prosecutors have something like a 98 percent conviction rate.

In what world do you live in where getting a trial means that you are obivously going to walk.

This is a pretty much a hard fact in this country: If you go to trial under a criminal indictment, you are most likely going to be found guilty, and you are most likely going to jail for a long, long time.

The worst thing a defense attorney can do is allow a trial...particularly trial in a federal court.

So, seriously, where are all these bleeding heart juries and lenient judges? I would love to find them.

[NavyDave]

That hard for you to google??

There is always that 2 percent, and as I said there are enough idiots in the "real world" who wouldn't want the death penalty for these monsters.

Taking out these murderers on the battlefield takes bleeding hearts juries and soft judges out of the equations.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Money talks....Felonies are highly investigated and if the DA doesn't think the case is a lock then it becomes NFA (no further action)

The reason they have such a high conviction rate is because the cases they take are 98% to win

[DeanCollins]

Applause from me.

A needed step.

ditto, wouldn't that go without saying? An obviously treasonous act should effectively immediately invalidate your citizenship and related rights. Like pointing a gun at a cop would.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

That hard for you to google??

There is always that 2 percent, and as I said there are enough idiots in the "real world" who wouldn't want the death penalty for these monsters.

Taking out these murderers on the battlefield takes bleeding hearts juries and soft judges out of the equations.

So, instead of letting a jury system that is apparently highly efficient in prosecuting wrongdoers, you would rather we just engage in summary executions on the battlefield.

Because soldiers are apparently incapable of being idiots and can separate the just from the unjust like Jesus Christ himself.

That's a great plan.