TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:04 am Okay here's a question....a parent moves their family from another country to the United States, while living here the parent decides his children (daughters) are becoming too westernized, so the parent murders both daughters and flees back to their country of origin! After several attempts to have the parent extradited back to the U.S. and nothing happens so they get away with murder!
In my opinion they should be given the chance to willingly return to the Jurisdiction where the murder took place and face trial under the agreement that they would not be facing the death penalty, however if they do not return they should be tried in absentia and if found guilty have a death sentence placed on them! Then a team is sent to locate and execute said individual and in this way the court order is carried out. No Escaping Justice!

Does the same standard apply to American citizens who violate foreign laws when they travel overseas?

Does it make a difference if the accused is a computer programmer, a journalist, or a diplomat?

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:20 amExamples of this include what I think are valid military targets. In war, military bases are obvious targets. I think any elected politician is also a valid target, from dog catcher up to president. Actually, any government employee is a target, as is any government building other than schools and hospitals. Then we get into all of the civilian structures that are valid targets, like railroad yards, manufacturing plants, financial centers, etc.

I mostly agree with the above. I hadn't considered financial centers before, but I see your point. Traditionally, railroad yards and other transportation key to the war effort, such as bridges and air or sea ports, were considered valid targets. The same for manufacturing plants that could be making weapons or matériel. I'm not so sure about food processing, although the case could be made that an army travels on its stomach. To the last point, financing is vital to war and nations have been borrowing to fund their wars for hundreds of years, so I don't disagree. It's just something I hadn't considered before.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:20 amAnd with all of this as valid targets, I find booby traps, assassination teams, and snipers to be immoral. They just don't seem fair to me.

I don't think they're any less fair than bombs and missiles, especially in many recent US wars where our opponents have little or no airpower. For example, nobody would have blinked an eye if the US had bombed a "palace" with Saddam Hussein inside, during that war. I don't see that as any worse than a drone strike to kill Saddam in transit between secure locations, or a sniper killing Saddam if he was careless enough to expose himself to that threat. I agree with you about booby traps that may kill or maim innocents, but I don't see a big distinction between bombing a fuel depot from the air and (special forces, organized resistance, sympathizers) using a booby trap to get the same results.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think this goes back to your "shades of gray" comment, and where we each draw the line. We're much closer than I originally thought, and I can understand why we may draw that line somewhat differently.

Warm regards.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:13 pmI think we agree more than you think. I was saying that I think assassination is not ethical. I did not specify which side it was unethical for. I agree that we cannot complain about people doing to us what we do to them. I have always hated the hypocrisy of politicians who complain when the other side does exactly what they did when they were in charge and that concept applies to war also.

On this we are in violent agreement.

It seems we're of similar mind on these core principles, although we differ in some details. Thank you for the thought provoking discussion.

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:39 pm

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:38 amOn the other hand, I'm not so opposed to assassination as an instrument of foreign policy, the same as waging war. If it's moral to kill front line troops, then it's moral to kill military commanders. It's more effective to target and kill a military commander than the troops he commands. It's also ethically superior if the troops are conscripts and would rather be home with their families. This also applies to political leaders who declare war or exert control over the military. Killing them is more bang for the buck than killing a grunt, and at worst ethically equivalent, despite what those politicians want us to believe.

I understand your point about the ethics of it, though I personally disagree. Of course, ethics and morals are always a personal option to be decided individually. I find an ethical difference in killing someone in open combat as opposed to a hidden attack from which he cannot defend effectively.

Like a sniper? How about missiles or bombs deployed against ground targets?

If a politician or military commander authorizes the use of those technologies, against opponents who don't have the means to counter them, he has no moral high ground if he's likewise a target of a "hidden attack from which he cannot defend effectively."

If we use snipers to kill "high value targets" by surprise, we can hardly complain it's unfair or unethical for our opponents do the same.

If we use UAV/RMA to deliver missiles or bombs, we can hardly call our opponents cowards for using IED, when that's the technology they have.

The United States killed Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, even though he wasn't on those airplanes. How can a US politician or military commander object to the morality or ethics of being targeted by somebody whose tribesmen were killed, just because he didn't push the button or pull the trigger?

I'm not defending the 9/11 terrorist attacks or saying OBL was innocent. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I agree the man who makes the decision to kill others is responsible for that decision, even if he delegates the dirty work. However, I think that's a standard that cuts both directions.

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:12 amTo address the killings more directly, I will point out that assassination has long been used as a tool by various governments. It has also been long used by our government, even though its public acknowledgement is more recent. In a lot of cases, the assassination has been disguised by a kangaroo court or by other laws, such as the historical policy that an enemy soldier caught in our uniform was automatically a spy and could be executed on the spot. The US has also tried to, as a general rule, to cover it with a trial and capital sentence. This is the kangaroo courts I was talking about.

I disagree with assassination as a policy but I am not sure anyone could ever do anything to stop it.

I understand your point, particularly when it comes to a nation's own citizens who are engaging in activity we would consider protected by the First Amendment.

On the other hand, I'm not so opposed to assassination as an instrument of foreign policy, the same as waging war. If it's moral to kill front line troops, then it's moral to kill military commanders. It's more effective to target and kill a military commander than the troops he commands. It's also ethically superior if the troops are conscripts and would rather be home with their families. This also applies to political leaders who declare war or exert control over the military. Killing them is more bang for the buck than killing a grunt, and at worst ethically equivalent, despite what those politicians want us to believe.