This sounds so religious but it doesn’t serve you very well on the battlefield. Certainly, you don’t try to kill civilians but the reality is some will get killed. If a little boy comes running your way with a grenade unfortunately you will have take him out. We try to sanitize war but the reality is that it is barbaric.
Fuzzyface
Good article. I can't help contrast this with what Putin is doing in Ukraine.
Regina Martin
Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."
Romans 13:3-4 “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Continue reading Romans 13- Verse 9 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, .. ....Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." John 18:36 " Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight..."
TWH
All good and true, but the logic that allows someone to be designated for assassination without any kind of trial is morally wrong. Wrong no matter which political party does it. Only the outcome of a trial-in-absentia, with legal representation for both sides, should justify killing someone on sight.
How do you define “assassination”? Is it an assassination just because one side has the technology to kill from a distance without putting any of its own combatants in harm’s way? Where do you draw the line? Should every enemy combatant on the battlefield who’s actively engaging in overt violence against our servicemen have the right to a trial with legal representation before targeting him can be morally justified?
An assassination occurs when a specific person is targeted for killing. That's a world of difference from the kill-or-be-killed situation on an active battlefield. James Bond had a "license to kill." We can be thankful that he was a fictional character. I don't want my President to be able to have someone killed because he doesn't like him, and I don't want him to be able to delegate that authority.
I have no doubt that this man deserved to be executed, but justice requires that a case be made for that and a trial in absentia be held. There will be plenty of cases that aren't so clear cut, and life is precious.
I'm sure he had a trial of sorts as many were involved in the decision to 'sentence' him to death. I think you are confusing the rights of and procedures for American citizens with that of and for foreign terrorists.
"I'm sure he had a trial of sorts as many were involved in the decision to 'sentence' him to death."
Sounds good, but what makes you sure? We are rightfully skeptical of much of what the government does. This should be no exception. There should be a publicly available list of people, including Americans, who have been designated kill-on-sight, along with justification. And, it's good for us to recognize that Reaper missiles would work just as effectively against trouble-making conservatives as they do against foreign terrorists.
As I said, Zawahiri deserved to be executed, but what about the 16-year-old American-citizen son of a terrorist?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/
-------------------
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki and his Egyptian-born wife, Gihan Mohsen Baker, had an American son, born on Sept. 13, 1995, in Denver, while al-Awlaki was a student at Colorado State. His son's name Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki. He was killed at age 16 in a drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, in Yemen. It, too, was a controversial extra-judicial killing. Some U.S. officials called it a mistake. Even the president [Obama] is said, in some reports, to have considered it a bad mistake.
It is not clear where the young al-Awlaki was when he was killed. Some reports say that he was in a cafe with friends; other reports that he was sitting by the road eating with friends. His family said that he had run away from home and was trying to find his father. He had no known ties to terrorism.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, stated that his death was justified, and that he "should have had a more responsible father."
During military or terrorist operations things don't (and usually can't and often shouldn't) happen the same way as they do in a court of law inside the US.
This sounds so religious but it doesn’t serve you very well on the battlefield. Certainly, you don’t try to kill civilians but the reality is some will get killed. If a little boy comes running your way with a grenade unfortunately you will have take him out. We try to sanitize war but the reality is that it is barbaric.
Good article. I can't help contrast this with what Putin is doing in Ukraine.
Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."
Romans 13:3-4 “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Continue reading Romans 13- Verse 9 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, .. ....Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." John 18:36 " Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight..."
All good and true, but the logic that allows someone to be designated for assassination without any kind of trial is morally wrong. Wrong no matter which political party does it. Only the outcome of a trial-in-absentia, with legal representation for both sides, should justify killing someone on sight.
How do you define “assassination”? Is it an assassination just because one side has the technology to kill from a distance without putting any of its own combatants in harm’s way? Where do you draw the line? Should every enemy combatant on the battlefield who’s actively engaging in overt violence against our servicemen have the right to a trial with legal representation before targeting him can be morally justified?
An assassination occurs when a specific person is targeted for killing. That's a world of difference from the kill-or-be-killed situation on an active battlefield. James Bond had a "license to kill." We can be thankful that he was a fictional character. I don't want my President to be able to have someone killed because he doesn't like him, and I don't want him to be able to delegate that authority.
I have no doubt that this man deserved to be executed, but justice requires that a case be made for that and a trial in absentia be held. There will be plenty of cases that aren't so clear cut, and life is precious.
I'm sure he had a trial of sorts as many were involved in the decision to 'sentence' him to death. I think you are confusing the rights of and procedures for American citizens with that of and for foreign terrorists.
"I'm sure he had a trial of sorts as many were involved in the decision to 'sentence' him to death."
Sounds good, but what makes you sure? We are rightfully skeptical of much of what the government does. This should be no exception. There should be a publicly available list of people, including Americans, who have been designated kill-on-sight, along with justification. And, it's good for us to recognize that Reaper missiles would work just as effectively against trouble-making conservatives as they do against foreign terrorists.
As I said, Zawahiri deserved to be executed, but what about the 16-year-old American-citizen son of a terrorist?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/
-------------------
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki and his Egyptian-born wife, Gihan Mohsen Baker, had an American son, born on Sept. 13, 1995, in Denver, while al-Awlaki was a student at Colorado State. His son's name Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki. He was killed at age 16 in a drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, in Yemen. It, too, was a controversial extra-judicial killing. Some U.S. officials called it a mistake. Even the president [Obama] is said, in some reports, to have considered it a bad mistake.
It is not clear where the young al-Awlaki was when he was killed. Some reports say that he was in a cafe with friends; other reports that he was sitting by the road eating with friends. His family said that he had run away from home and was trying to find his father. He had no known ties to terrorism.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, stated that his death was justified, and that he "should have had a more responsible father."
During military or terrorist operations things don't (and usually can't and often shouldn't) happen the same way as they do in a court of law inside the US.