Extrajudicial Killing

[Beiruty]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the probably killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

[rotor]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

[ScottDLS]

The other point of drone killings, assuming they are overseas, is that they are part of an ongoing armed conflict. We can argue whether Congressional authorization for hostilities absent a formal declaration of war is Constitutional, but for the time being it is. In WW2 a very small number of ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) returned to Germany to fight for the Nazis. If hypothetically one of these people were an American citizen and were identified as being a high ranking Nazi, would the Army Air Force have had to offer him a jury trial before dropping a bomb on his headquarters? If the US captured an American citizen (perhaps by birth to US citizen abroad) fighting for North Vietnam, in South Vietnam, would they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of a US court, that he was fighting, before interning him as a POW?

[Beiruty]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

[The Annoyed Man]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

Beiruty, I have a question. Since polonium poisoning was a well known tactic of Russian intelligence, is it possible that Russia wanted Arafat out of the way for some reason or other?

[Beiruty]

The other point of drone killings, assuming they are overseas, is that they are part of an ongoing armed conflict. We can argue whether Congressional authorization for hostilities absent a formal declaration of war is Constitutional, but for the time being it is. In WW2 a very small number of ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) returned to Germany to fight for the Nazis. If hypothetically one of these people were an American citizen and were identified as being a high ranking Nazi, would the Army Air Force have had to offer him a jury trial before dropping a bomb on his headquarters? If the US captured an American citizen (perhaps by birth to US citizen abroad) fighting for North Vietnam, in South Vietnam, would they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of a US court, that he was fighting, before interning him as a POW?

Note, as for the guy was killed in Yemen, he was killed in an attack at his parents (or extended family house) and not on the battlefield. It was per-calculated elimination hit. Back then, I listened to a report on NPR after his killing that many on the left are questioning the legality of such attack.

[Beiruty]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

Beiruty, I have a question. Since polonium poisoning was a well known tactic of Russian intelligence, is it possible that Russia wanted Arafat out of the way for some reason or other?

I do not know. I am not aware of such theory. Israel is a nuclear state and well capable of harvesting polonium. In addition, Russia is well know friend of Israel.
Who did what?
Who provided what?
Who were the actual actors on behalf of who?
Simply, I do not know.

Regards of all of that, the killing is not that important. The after of the fact of the killing is THE important matter.

[rotor]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

I don't know how Arafat died. He was 75. My only question was why you stated as if it was fact that Israel had him assassinated when I could not find anything conclusive to show that. I don't doubt that it was possible for Israel to do it as they have been involved with other assassinations but they as well as all countries including Saudi Arabia and the U.S. always deny but we know it happens.

[Beiruty]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

I don't know how Arafat died. He was 75. My only question was why you stated as if it was fact that Israel had him assassinated when I could not find anything conclusive to show that. I don't doubt that it was possible for Israel to do it as they have been involved with other assassinations but they as well as all countries including Saudi Arabia and the U.S. always deny but we know it happens.

It was mentioned assignation by Polonium. Thus, I remembered Arafat death and probable cause of death by Polonium. As I mentioned, there is no definitive proof. I edited my original post and added. "probable"

[Bitter Clinger]

Yeah, I guess. Like Putin poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium, and Skripal with Novichok.

Add to that the killing of Arafat by the Mossad (Polonium or other radiating matter)

You have definitive proof of that statement?

Definite proof?, I m sorry I cannot claim that. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_ ... h_polonium and get your own conclusion. Note, polonium was found in his remains.

I don't know how Arafat died. He was 75. My only question was why you stated as if it was fact that Israel had him assassinated when I could not find anything conclusive to show that. I don't doubt that it was possible for Israel to do it as they have been involved with other assassinations but they as well as all countries including Saudi Arabia and the U.S. always deny but we know it happens.

It was mentioned assignation by Polonium. Thus, I remembered Arafat death and probable cause of death by Polonium. As I mentioned, there is no definitive proof. I edited my original post and added. "probable"

Arafat was a terrorist who murdered children. If you could have assassinated him you would have done so I am sure.

[Jeff B.]

[/quote]
Irish Bob O’Rourke says he believes in our 2nd Amendment rights too. Go by what MB does, not what they say. They’re neck deep in Hamas and other terror orgs.
[/quote]

Took me a minute to catch up to you there... very nice!

I don't think there's a government in the world that doesn't have some blood on its hands through some "wet work".

You don't want to appear to be a nail.

Jeff B.

[The Annoyed Man]

Irish Bob O’Rourke says he believes in our 2nd Amendment rights too. Go by what MB does, not what they say. They’re neck deep in Hamas and other terror orgs.

Took me a minute to catch up to you there... very nice!

I don't think there's a government in the world that doesn't have some blood on its hands through some "wet work".

You don't want to appear to be a nail.

Jeff B.

And Jeff, I don’t want to appear as condoning assassination as an instrument of foreign policy....with rare exception....for me it’s more of a question of whether or not this particular assassination upsets me much. The answer is, no it doesn’t - at least not much. In hindsight, the world might have been well served if Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had been assassinated. If they had been taken out, possibly a hundred million or more people might have not been killed off. So the balance of one life versus tens of millions is an easy one. But it would be difficult to make that kind of calculus over Khashoggi’s life. He may have been less than a good guy, but he wasn’t that important, either.

[Gator Guy]

To 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.

[srothstein]

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.

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. You have a very good point about the use of conscripts though and it is hard to argue that we should kill troops who are fighting us because they are more afraid of their own supervisors than they are of us.

I will point out that killing leaders and politicians may not be more effective than killing the soldiers. In a military like the Russians have, killing leaders is very effective (well, according to my training). They have a policy of not automatically moving people up so that a company gets stopped when the commander gets killed, until a new commander arrives. This may have changed since my training was a few decades ago. In our military, it has been proven to not be very effective. We train our soldiers to think and show initiative, but even more importantly to automatically move up as needed in combat.

Politicians are a whole different story. I wholeheartedly would like to see more of them on the front lines, though I know it is not practical. Even there though, we have a policy of automatically moving up to keep a functioning government. Look at the chain of succession for the President as one example. Killing the president would do nothing to stop the government, though it might slow it down for a day or two.

[bigtek]

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.

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. You have a very good point about the use of conscripts though and it is hard to argue that we should kill troops who are fighting us because they are more afraid of their own supervisors than they are of us.

I will point out that killing leaders and politicians may not be more effective than killing the soldiers. In a military like the Russians have, killing leaders is very effective (well, according to my training). They have a policy of not automatically moving people up so that a company gets stopped when the commander gets killed, until a new commander arrives. This may have changed since my training was a few decades ago. In our military, it has been proven to not be very effective. We train our soldiers to think and show initiative, but even more importantly to automatically move up as needed in combat.

Politicians are a whole different story. I wholeheartedly would like to see more of them on the front lines, though I know it is not practical. Even there though, we have a policy of automatically moving up to keep a functioning government. Look at the chain of succession for the President as one example. Killing the president would do nothing to stop the government, though it might slow it down for a day or two.

To some extent that's true but I think if the Islamic State attacked the White House and killed 40 people, it would have more political and military impact than killing 40 GIs. I think the same is true if they bombed the Capitol and killed 200 politicians versus bombing a US military base and killing 200 soldiers.

Those giving the orders are at least as culpable as those "just following orders" given. The United States went after Osama bin Laden for 9/11, even though he didn't personally hijack those planes. I don't have a problem with that. However, that's a double edged sword. If that's how the US government operates, then by our own standards, US political and military leaders who authorize drone strikes, "extraordinary rendition" and other sneak attacks on "high value targets" don't have any moral high ground if the shoe is ever on the other foot.