No beating about the bush!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by eodmatt, Apr 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No messing about

    Is this a reasonable thing for the US to do? Does Obama know? Answers please.
     
  2. Just so long as they don't use UK passports.
     
  3. It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
     
  4. Completley reasonable. Pre-emptive action. Lets just hope the Yanks can do it without too much collateral damage.

    On a second note, apparently the draft US National Security Strategy, written by the administration's natioanl security team, does NOT mention Islamic terrorism as a risk?

    And we thought PC has ruined the UK!
     
  5. Difficult one.

    Although on this occasion, it's probably reasonable, I'd be extremely worried if the British government started doing the same.

    It runs against the idea of the "right to a free and fair trial", and I can't help but wonder who else it might be enacted against.

    Terrorists today. Pedos tomorrow. Political opposition somewhere down the line...
     
  6. Is he a criminal or an enemy in war? If the former, the granted, in this case he's a US national, but what gives a US court, civil or martial the authority to try foreigners for offences not necessarily committed on US soil? The legal waters become very murky here.
     
  7. He is neither. He is a traitor. With that, the laws are very clear.
     
  8. You're both absolutely right. What next? dropping Hellfire's from above on anyone slightly arabic and/or an outspoken critic of the US regime irrespective of any involvement in any terrorist-type action?

    I can understand the saying, and it's such a cliche now, 'Taking the fight to the enemy' but fragging individuals in sovereign nations due to intelligence rather than a fair trial sounds like a slippery slope. . .

    Phew! That's alright then, I'd hate to think you would kill anyone in a sovereign state irrespective of nationality who happens to have some incriminating intel on them.
     
  9. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    If he wants a fair trial he can surrender himself to the legal authorities. In the mean time its a question of wanted dead or alive.

    One of the things I really despised about the IRA was their claim to be soldiers fighting a war but their readiness to cry foul when it didn't go well for them - Gibraltar for example. Its not the only thing I despise about them but...

    This character is quite happy to make war on the west but thinks he is entitled to be protected from the consequences.
     
  10. [/quote]

    Phew! That's alright then, I'd hate to think you would kill anyone in a sovereign state irrespective of nationality who happens to have some incriminating intel on them.[/quote]

    And we all know how accurate that can be don't we?

    I can't help but think that we are all being played here. After all, with the demise of the Cold War and the big, bad Sovs, it's good to have an enemy to keep people scared and paying their taxes, right?
     
  11. I have no problem with this. Official sanctions aren't unknown. Only Obozo can tell you if he knew about it though. I would find it surprising if he initiated the sanction action as it's not in character with his phony "Let's everybody try to get along" persona. Shall we sing Kumbaya? :roll:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Not with us Rucker old boy. He fecking HATES us Brits! :p
     


  13. I think your first point is more than a little exaggerated. The article rightly points out the loops through which this had to pass before being sanctioned and that it was reviewed to reassess its legitimacy. Admittedly, I am not a fan of targeted assassination but that it is in a transparent and open manner rather than a covert programme is preferable, as its less open to manipulation.
    Plus, the Yanks don't need targeted assassination, that's why they still (and I do agree with it) retain the Death Penalty for those that abuse and murder.

    As to your second point, would you prefer Extraordinary Rendition of suspects to either CONUS, Guantanamo or just to a CIA blacksite for some water sports before a .45 in the head? Alternatively we could allow suspects to carry out their plans thus leaving us legally solid. Personally, although its distasteful, killing extremists before they commit atrocities is preferable to allowing UK citizens to die. Even if, occasionally, we get the wrong bloke.


    Finally, even traitors deserve a fair trial. Unfortunately.

    Very tricky topic for discussion.
     

  14. Dave

    ths sad bit, 2 years ago we all loved him...great marketing team sold the Yanks a bad bill of goods.
     
  15. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    I don't think that will ever happen
    Since we have multi milion pound trials when suspected enemy combatants have sandbags placed over their heads

    Or Dismiss two Royal Marines for slapping a bloke with a wellie