Once declared a combatant, none of the rest of this discussion on rights, fair, not being a threat at the instant he was killed matter, not one bit.. Never has, never will.Cobra Medic wrote:Oh, please. At the moment he was killed he was riding in a car. He wasn't pointing a weapon at the Americans who fired the missiles. He was a probable future threat, no argument there, but he was not an immediate threat. A more realistic domestic example is the gang leader who is connected to the thugs who killed your neighbor but he's miles away from you. So you go to his territory and gun him down because you reasonably believe he might be planning to kill you at some time in the future. That's essentially what America did in Yemen last week.mamabearCali wrote:Hmmm you know if a mugger is standing in front of me and has already killed my neighbors and is now me telling me "I am going to kill you, your husband, your children, your parents" with a gun outstretched to do what he has just said he would do, then I am permitted to end the threat to my family. He was doing precisely that on a national level. I cry no tears for him, he was a snake in the grass and earned the hell-fire missal he got in his lap.
I'm not denying both the al Qaeda member and the gang member are dirt bags. What I am saying is if the killing in Yemen was moral, then it's moral for American citizens to hunt down and kill violent gang members. It's right for those guys in NM and AZ to ambush drug runners coming in from Mexico. It's good for a parent to go after a pedophile who molested her kid but got off on a technicality. In summary, it's moral to be a vigilante when due process can't (or won't) give you justice.
No double standards.
I'ts a single standard, has not changed.. If you are an enemy combatant, to which this dude was, your fair game. The only thing that still applies is, we will attempt to not kill others not so declared when we end your life.
Don't like that reality? don't do things that get on on the need to die list.
