US defends 'targeted killings' of US citizens

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by retread2, Mar 5, 2012.

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. "Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," he said.


    I agree with the overall concept but get the feeling the definition of words like 'feasible', 'imminent' and 'terrorists' are going to get looser as time goes on.
     
  2. Nothing new. The US has had an assassination policy since... oh... at least since the formulation of the CIA.
     
  3. The sceptics have always had an 'open season' policy on wanted men/women.

    rewardbilly-lg.jpg
     
  4. Nothing new...... so have the Brits. Op Flavius? Was any right thinking Brit outraged over that?
     
  5. Interesting point - but Gib is/was some sort of British territory. Unlike the Republic of Ireland which is the parallel I was suggesting in my first post.

    Better first parade the bus, just in case ...
     
  6. There was "shoot to kill" etc and the Septics were often upset by British behavior on their favorite island but I can't recall us bumping a citizen off on a "hate speech" basis alone. I can think of a number of clerics who might have been suitable candidates for the Hellfire experience.
     
  7. We couldn't get a look in at that sport, we were well down the pecking order when it came to bumping off gobshites. Turn your back and they were all trying to have a pop. :)
     
  8. And you think it never happened in UK or to UK citizens?

    Ownership of a British passport doesn't necessarily make you a good citizen. Sometimes it is propitious to remove an obstacle, lance a boil, whatever, to the benefit of the fight against terrorism.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. With any luck the government will always be the good guys.
     
  10. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    That's a naive and foolish statement. The government is NEVER the good guys. The government, of any country, is a collection of politicians and senior civil servants who are highly ambitious and power hungry. They are generally ruthless and will do whatever they can to further their position. There are only 2 things that keep them "good" - external scrutiny and each other. The threat of external scrutiny is declining as western citizens lose interest in the political process and the press generally fails because it is too embedded in the establishment. The result is that the only thing keeping these people in check is the threat that one of their own will expose them for their own advantage. The cousins should be seriously worried about this development but won't. "If you tolerate this then your children will be next."
     
  11. I think you might've missed the sarcasm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    It's the written word on a screen. Whatever you're feeling and however sardonically you type it it won't come across here. If you don't know that try flirting by text. Damn difficult
     
  13. Why isn't there a sarcasm emoticom?

    Seems then Bob Dylan was right - Never trust anyone over the age of 30!
    WE police the Politicians - or would if the majority of teeth suckers could be bothered to vote.
     
  14. Shit! I better start making plans then.