Bakustra wrote:Yes, a serious risk to other people.
I’m sorry. I had no idea there are no other people in Yemen. Or that a person armed with explosives FROM Yemen couldn’t board a plane to another country and attempt to blow up people with their
amazing-exploding-underoos.
As a matter of fact in that CNN article it claims that until recently most of the attacks from these guys were done IN YEMEN and Saudi Arabia. Not a threat to others my ass, you callous fuck. In case you are unaware, terrorists pretty much by their definition ARE A SERIOUS RISK TO OTHER PEOPLE.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to spout hysterics over this.
Because you and others have over and over again claimed illegality and unconstitutionality and IGNORED that evidence has been provided over and over again against this claim. If you want to stop your legal claims and just stick to the morality of “Killing is bad, mmmmkay” by all means.
A serial killer is somebody that could reasonably be construed to be an immediate risk to people. However, say, an average murder suspect cannot, unless there is very good evidence to presume that other people are at risk. Without clear risk, then Garner doesn't apply.
Clear risk does apply as I’ve mentioned above. Shall we call that your concession? This ENTIRE argument has been under the premise that clear evidence exists demonstrating this person’s dangerousness. This is an argument about the legality of a kill-or-capture order applied to an American citizen. I have not once argued that this policy should be used if less intrusive means could be reasonably employed. (Ie. a capture only order)
My point with "involved" is to restrict matters to people that the suspect is likely to hurt.
Potential people likely to be hurt: Americans in Yemen, Westerners in Yemen, Yemeni’s working for or supportive of Western interests, innocent Yemeni’s or foreigners that may be aboard planes or in buildings that are targeted by AQ in the Arabian Peninsula. In case you are also unaware, this group has not only carried out attacks but also TOOK RESPONSIBILTY for such attacks. I don’t know what further evidence you need of a person’s dangerousness other than someone that not only carries out such attacks but wants everyone to know it as well.
After all, you couldn't shoot somebody on the grounds that they might be trying to murder people who testified against them if they have no history of violent behavior and have not expressed the desire to do so.
Red herring. This does not apply as we have clearly laid out that the criteria is that this person has committed or intends to commit violent acts as described in the article. It is EXACTLY the criteria claimed by the intelligence official cited in the article.
If the charge is accurate, moron. Without any evidence, then we can't apply Garner either way. Do you believe that classified evidence is good for the courts? Because it isn't, you know.
This has been agreed upon this entire thread. Please keep up. And calling me a moron when not addressing my argument is an ad hominem attack.
I'm just going to stop this right here. Soldiers (unless they are MPs) are not officers of the law. Nor are intelligence agents. Garner doesn't apply to anyone but officers of law. Therefore, it is invalid unless the FBI or MPs are being used for this operation. Further, provide the treaty that indicates that assassination is perfectly legal.
The relevance of TvG in this scenario is the definition provided by the SCOTUS that lethal force is a method of “seizure” And seizure is permitted by the Constitution. It is considered the highest form of seizure. And therefore there is of course onus to provide evidence of its necessity.
"Fighting words", which is the aspect you are talking about, is something that is of dubious enforceability in many cases. See the problems with people phrasing homophobic or racist speeches in such a way as to avoid prosecution while still stirring their supporters to violence.
Red herring. I have made no claims of “fighting words”. And I suspect you are confusing “Fighting words” which are words that provoke others to violence vs. actual threats of violence. Fighting words ARE a grey area regarding 1st Amendment rights. Verbal threats are not. A verbal threat can serve as evidence if deadly force is used. I would not suggest using evidence that relied solely on verbal threats, but it will surely help support a defense of lethal force.
You also have a paltry grasp of logic, but that is unsurprising for someone who would use three exclamation points without irony.
Ad hominem and non sequitur. How is my grammar related to my logic? Provide evidence.
So far in this thread you have:
1)Out right lied.
2)Used numerous logical fallacies.
Please continue.
You see, the problem here is that the onus is not on me to prove a negative, much like how I cannot go faster than the speed of light, or be in two places at the same time, or fulfill any other impossibility. I am constrained by logical principles. The counterterrorism officials have the burden of presenting the evidence of the man participating in violent attacks upon American or allied forces. I do not have the burden of showing that he did not. If they can present such evidence (not to the public, of course, because it would inevitably be classified, but to the courts or to the government, then he is a legitimate military target and I have no complaint.
You are obsessed with an argument that no one but yourself is having. No one is arguing lethal force without evidence is legal. Your argument RELIES solely that no evidence exists therefore making it illegal. You are making the positive claim because the parameters of this debate are that evidence exists. You are trying to reframe the debate insisting no evidence exists. Therefore onus is on you. The information is not impossible to obtain. Just difficult. I would suggest taking up a more defensible position. I’ll throw you a bone. “Killing is bad, mmmkay” I won’t argue with that one.
However, unfortunately for your argument, Tennessee v. Garner does not apply in either situation. If he is a legitimate military target, then there is no need for justification and few involved would be police officers. If he is not a legitimate military target, then he is not an immediate danger to other people, and therefore he cannot be killed under Tennessee v. Garner.
TvG is relevant to refute the claim made over and over that the government cannot kill an American without due process. I have proven this patently false. It also creates very important precedent about the definition of “seizure” which as I’ve also mentioned lethal force falls under that definition.
Are you now arguing that U.S. forces outside the U.S. do not have the right of seizure if they encounter American’s and have probable cause?
I am solely using the fifth amendment's due process clause (and by extension the fourteenth) and the case of Tennessee v. Garner. You are simply interpreting Tennessee v. Garner is such a way that it would allow police officers to murder KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders on the grounds that they are likely to incite deadly violence. If you have some reason to believe, such as case law or a statute, that "fighting words" carries the death penalty or is chargeable as conspiracy to murder/battery, then you would have a point. Unfortunately, the main point is that Garner doesn't apply to the military (except MPs) nor to the intelligence services.
Ok, you are a fucking moron. Let me explain to you why. You are using JACK & SHIT from the Constitution. You have provided not one citation despite repeated request. (Not a logical fallacy but a breach of board decorum to say the least.) This discussion is about someone likely to CAUSE deadly violence, not about someone to INCITE deadly violence. And although TvG was a result of local law enforcement, it still provided 4th Amendment definition of lethal force. Do you now claim that the 4th Amendment does not apply to the military or intelligence services? It’s called precedent.
"
- PeZook
