Appropriate military force thread

[deputyfestus]

I'm familiar with the term, but the U.S. justice system cannot unilaterally try someone in absentia. As your own link says, the defendant must be notified in some way that he is on trial and voluntarily waive his right to being present. Most often this happens when people are on trial and just leave before it's over. The trial continues, and 99 times out of 100 they get convicted.

Also, for a trial to be conducted in absentia, that evidence I mentioned would have to be presented in a public forum. Assuming the evidence was gathered by an undercover source (seems legit, since they didn't get it from the Wall Street Journal), that evidence wouldn't be presentable or releasable until that undercover source were pulled out. And until that could happen, this person would still be a leader in a terrorist organization, planning attacks against the U.S. and other nations.

~Morningfrost

but we can unilaterally assassinate someone?

[Warflagon]

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.

[Morningfrost]

but we can unilaterally assassinate someone?

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.

~Morningfrost

[deputyfestus]

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.

~Morningfrost

I'll leave you and your conscience with this in which the first few minutes addresses your first line in this posting.

[iLLusioN]

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.

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.

[deathgodusmc]

Me? I'm not under orders sir.
If I were, it would be my DUTY to obey and address those concerns at a later time. As I am sure you are aware.

Edit - additionally , it is not the duty of the soldier to weigh moral consequence. It's simply not in the job description.

If you cannot or will not obey the orders of you superior officer, you MAY NOT serve in the US armed forces. For good or for ill. That is the way that it is.

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.

[SmokenScion]

Define Evil, "the Bad guys".

[deathgodusmc]

Define Evil, "the Bad guys".

Ask and you shall receive.

Evil - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[Morningfrost]

I'll leave you and your conscience with this in which the first few minutes addresses your first line in this posting.

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

[deputyfestus]

Min 5:30-:35 outside the narrowest limits of national security. IMO the limits have widened greatly.

Edit: @ frost perhaps I misperceived you as an attorney, I rest my case.