Results 1 to 10 of 18
Thread: Appropriate military force thread
-
- Join Date
- 05-28-07
- Location
- East Texas
- Posts
- 7,960
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 9
-
01-30-13, 11:30 AM #2
Re: First gun bans...
Illusion, how would you determine if those civilians are or are not part of, or supporting the enemy?
You would not. The operation is certainly not going to stop while you and the rest of the unit begin an investigation into the validity of the enemy support structure.
Again, that is a matter to be investigated later, at a time not directly associated with, or impacted by the operation at hand.
But, I digress, it seems I may have hijacked this thread with principles of military protocols. Please return to your regularly scheduled outrage over somebody, somewhere taking your guns at some unspecified time in the future for purposes unknown, through means as yet undefined.DJ Ms. White liked this post
Staal the Undefeated
-
01-30-13, 03:43 PM #3
Re: First gun bans...
If there's enough evidence, then yes, even if that evidence can't be released to the general public for a period of time. I wish everything could be black and white, and our enemies could be tried in court every time and the guilty would go to jail or death row and the innocent would be set free with our apologies....but in circumstances like this, that's just not possible. We can ride our moral high-horse all we want, but at the end of the day sometimes actions that are morally questionable need to be taken.
Look at it in another way. If the government had the evidence that this guy was plotting terrorist attacks (and had done so in the past as well), and the government HADN'T had him killed because they wanted to bring him to court but couldn't with the undercover operative still there, and one of this guy's plots had actually succeeded....people would be calling for the heads of a shitton of government officials, because they'd have "allowed" this to happen.
In situations like these, the government is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
~MorningfrostDJ Ms. White liked this post
-
- Join Date
- 05-28-07
- Location
- East Texas
- Posts
- 7,960
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 9
-
01-30-13, 05:05 PM #5Re: First gun bans...
No, that is something that investigated beforehand. It's part of the operational intel for any mission. We don't head out on a mission before knowing wtf we're doing very often. That results in dead Soldiers/Marines. Regardless, unarmed civilians are never to purposefully be fired upon. The only reason civilians should be killed is if they take up arms against the military or as collateral damage...usually from tanks, planes and explosives as opposed to gun fire.
-
01-30-13, 05:25 PM #6
Re: First gun bans...
Wrong on both counts. It is the DUTY of every service member to disobey any unlawful order and report said order to those above the individual that gave it. That is why there is an investigation when an unarmed "civilian" is killed by gun fire. As some services members have been finding out killing civilians is illegal and will get your ass thrown in leavenworth.
-
- Join Date
- 11-27-06
- Location
- Denver
- Posts
- 11,452
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 13
-
01-30-13, 06:18 PM #8
Re: First gun bans...
Ask and you shall receive.
Evil - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
-
01-30-13, 06:21 PM #9
Re: First gun bans...
My conscience is perfectly clear. As that video also mentions, there is sometimes necessary secrecy. Kennedy's words early on make a direct mention that it is unnecessary and unwarranted secrecy that causes issues.
In this case, not revealing evidence to the general public that was theoretically gathered by an undercover operative in a terrorist organization is not "unnecessary" or "unwarranted" secrecy. Let's assume they release that information. What happens next? The terrorist group investigates who could've leaked that information, finds our undercover agent and executes him. Let's assume we release the information and pull the agent out before he's found out. What happens then? We've essentially spent a buttload of time infiltrating a hostile organization, only to have to do so again because we pulled the agent out.
Once again, I wish the world were black and white, and that the need for this cloak and dagger shit was gone, but it isn't. Terrorist groups don't play by the rules, they never will. I also realize two wrongs don't make a right, but there are also degrees of breaking the rules. What we did was essentially assassinate a leader in a group that gets its jollys from blowing up innocent people in droves. The fact that he was an American citizen sucks, but there wouldn't be nearly the outcry against this if he hadn't been a citizen.
As far as I'm concerned, you join an organization that blows up innocents, and you lose certain rights as a citizen.
~Morningfrost
-
- Join Date
- 05-28-07
- Location
- East Texas
- Posts
- 7,960
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 9
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks