Are people okay with the American military essentially kidnapping people?

[Thanatos 2,847]

The US military captured a high profile terrorist subject off the streets of Libya recently.

 

They did so without permission from the Libyan authorities.

 

Now, put yourself in Libyan shoes, or if you can't, put yourself in American shoes and flip the situation.

 

Say a group of Libyan special forces kidnap someone they claim to be a terrorist- in public, say, off the streets of Buffalo, New York, with weapons they are not permitted to carry in the US, and then ship him over to Libya to face justice.

 

To add more to this discussion, the American military is holding/held him, (not sure if he is still there), in international waters on a ship for a week while they interrogated him, in defiance of the regulation that he must be brought to a federal judge within 48 hours of his capture.

 

Do you guys think this is okay for the government to do? That it must be done because of the new "war on terror" and what all it entails?

 

I will give full disclosure here, I can't condone this action. But I do want to have a serious discussion if people feel like this is okay for our government to do.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Bucman 891]

This should read "American government essentially kidnapping people?"

Military is just acting on government orders. Not okay with us just going around and kidnapping people. We need to stop pretending to be the world police.

[OSUViking 505]

I don't condone this in the slightest. I do believe that military fugitives, whether they are terrorist or not, deserve a trial. I think the military tribunals that hold their trials be mostly transparent, save information that may hurt national security.

 

 

It hurt me deeply to say that last line. I seriously think "national security" is a term coined just to allow the government to contain its own information and secrets.

[Thanatos 2,847]

This should read "American government essentially kidnapping people?"

Military is just acting on government orders. Not okay with us just going around and kidnapping people. We need to stop pretending to be the world police.

Title was not meant to be directed against the military or anything. My father was in the Navy for a long time, I come from a military family through and through.

 

But it does lead him to be not only okay with this action of the government, but also he believes that what Edward Snowden did makes him a traitor. I am beginning to question whether his military training makes him incapable of knowing when it is morally correct to disobey those who are in command over you.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I'm fine with it, including if the roles were reversed. If what that person did was an act of terror, go get him/her. Don't have any use for terrorists.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're certain someone committed an act of terror, just execute them and go on with life. No use in this world for terrorists. Of course, if I had it my way, murderers, rapists, and criminals of that kind(again, assuming it's certain they did it) would all just be executed. Don't see any reason we should be feeding, clothing, giving shelter to, etc, etc to people of that nature.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I like hearing that we've captured a high profile terrorist, but I think doing these things just ensures that we'll be attacked again in the future. We're uppity, entitled assholes. There's a reason people hate us, and all we do is add fuel to the fire.

[OSUViking 505]

I'm fine with it, including if the roles were reversed. If what that person did was an act of terror, go get him/her. Don't have any use for terrorists.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're certain someone committed an act of terror, just execute them and go on with life. No use in this world for terrorists. Of course, if I had it my way, murderers, rapists, and criminals of that kind(again, assuming it's certain they did it) would all just be executed. Don't see any reason we should be feeding, clothing, giving shelter to, etc, etc to people of that nature.

 

The problem here is that it pretty much gives the government the right to execute or capture anyone they claim to be a terrorist. At this point, the government can say Joe Schmoe is plotting an attack against the White House and no one will question it - unless someone leaks information saying the state saw him as a simple threat to their interests and wanted him removed.

[blotsfan 2,112]

The US overstepping its bounds in the name of stopping terrorism? Stop the presses!

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'm fine with it, including if the roles were reversed. If what that person did was an act of terror, go get him/her. Don't have any use for terrorists.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're certain someone committed an act of terror, just execute them and go on with life. No use in this world for terrorists. Of course, if I had it my way, murderers, rapists, and criminals of that kind(again, assuming it's certain they did it) would all just be executed. Don't see any reason we should be feeding, clothing, giving shelter to, etc, etc to people of that nature.

So if the Libyan special forces came over to America, and kidnapped an American off the streets of New York, in public, because they claimed he was a terrorist, you'd be okay with that? I find that hard to believe.

[NaTaS+ 958]

I do not agree with willy nilly dropping into other countries and arresting people without going through the proper channels. Our government has become something that is entirely corrupt, pompous and acts as if rules do not apply to them. There is little we can do about this. "Change" right, Obama. Whatever suit is put in front of us at election time is corrupt already. It doesn't matter who we elect, they're going to be a puppet.

 

I don't see how people believe Snowden to be some sort of hero when he is giving our government secrets to other countries. Are people daft enough to think that other countries do not have technology in place to spy on its citizens or believe this sort of spying hasnt been going on for generations? What Snowden did was compromise legitimate spy data that is used to protect our country.

 

I would have been ok with the release of information that the government spies on innocent people --we should already have known that, but proof is nice -- but dude took his briefcase full of secrets and toured different countries and if you don't think those governments didn't get more info from him that's not been released, you're naive.

[Maverick 791]

One of those tough ones for me. I think it's good in the respect that I'm sure we've captured some terrorists that we might not have been able to by doing so, but if you play the "put yourself in their shoes" role I certainly wouldn't find it just.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

 

I'm fine with it, including if the roles were reversed. If what that person did was an act of terror, go get him/her. Don't have any use for terrorists.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're certain someone committed an act of terror, just execute them and go on with life. No use in this world for terrorists. Of course, if I had it my way, murderers, rapists, and criminals of that kind(again, assuming it's certain they did it) would all just be executed. Don't see any reason we should be feeding, clothing, giving shelter to, etc, etc to people of that nature.

So if the Libyan special forces came over to America, and kidnapped an American off the streets of New York, in public, because they claimed he was a terrorist, you'd be okay with that? I find that hard to believe.

 

 

If they were certain/had proof that he or she was a terrorist, yes. Perfectly fine with it. I don't want people like that in my country, I don't care if we take them out or if the country that his or her act of terrorism was directed towards/inflicted upon does it.

[Thanatos 2,847]

...

 

So you're okay with giving governments carte blanche to kidnap a foreign citizen off their country's soil, so long as that government is "certain" they are a terrorist.

 

Can you not at all see the absolutely horrendous ramifications this could have?

[Maverick 791]

What if it's known that country's government is corrupt and won't give us permission to do so regardless of the terrorist being a sure threat?

 

That's why I don't think there's a general response - and this is becoming my mindset on a lot of issues in life. Most of the time there's too many different factors for there to be an absolute answer.

[blotsfan 2,112]

One of the biggest things I've hated about the Obama administration is how much its swayed me to Favre-like thinking.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

...

 

So you're okay with giving governments carte blanche to kidnap a foreign citizen off their country's soil, so long as that government is "certain" they are a terrorist.

 

Can you not at all see the absolutely horrendous ramifications this could have?

 

If it's certain the person is a terrorist, why should I give two fucks what happens to that person/who takes him?

[KempBolt 498]

 

...

 

So you're okay with giving governments carte blanche to kidnap a foreign citizen off their country's soil, so long as that government is "certain" they are a terrorist.

 

Can you not at all see the absolutely horrendous ramifications this could have?

 

If it's certain the person is a terrorist, why should I give two fucks what happens to that person/who takes him?

 

 

How would you be certain that said person is a terrorist w/out due process?

 

Imagine this: You're walking down the street, you see another pedestrian walking towards you, and two cops grab him from either side, throw him down, and shoot him in the head. You look shocked, and they say "Don't worry- he was a murderer and a rapist. We're certain." Would you just decide that they must know what they're doing and be fine with it? Because I would be wondering why they didn't just arrest him and give him a trial to confirm his crimes, and then execute him if that's what the law deems to be the appropriate punishment.

[southgadawg 52]

Definitely a lot of issues brought into question here. I believe that the United States Gov't should protect it's citizens but it is very difficult sometimes in this "modern" world that we are living. Radicals and others can find ways to strike here from on the other side of the world and hide in areas that are not friendly to the United States. In my mind that should NOT give them protection. Teddy Roosevelt was said to "Speak softly and carry a BIG STICK". That "stick" was the American military. It was not afraid to go across the world even then if it was decided that there was a danger to the American public.

 

Neither you nor I am privy to all the details of what has occurred. It is certainly a rough situation. I will say that on the question of should another country enter the U.S. and do likewise?.....Wasn't that more or less what the terrorists on 911 did? They attempted to strike at people who in their mind were a terror to their own thinking. Their own way of life. That drew out some repercussions for sure (and would certainly again).

 

Definitely troubled times we live in.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

If our government & military weren't doing things outside of our borders that they shouldn't, these terrorists wouldn't exist. At least not to the extent that they do. People don't hate Americans because we have freedom. That notion is on its face absurd and gets human nature totally wrong. They hate us because we're meddling unsolicited in their affairs. Imagine how outraged Americans would be, as Thanatos said, if a foreign country kidnapped an American because they believed him to be a terrorist.

 

But to actually answer the question, I'm not okay with it. It's a terrible, terrible thing.

 

Edit: accidentally a word

Edited October 16, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Maverick 791]

That post screams naivety.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Care to elaborate?

[Maverick 791]

"If our government & military weren't doing things outside of our borders that they shouldn't, these terrorists wouldn't exist. At least not to the extent that they do."

 

That might be why people you talk to in Europe don't care for American's attitudes. But to think that's why terrorists exist and hate us....no. Our constant intervention doesn't do the U.S. any favors, but the primary motive is religion. The 'R' word has caused violence for centuries, what makes the 21st any different?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Where were these Muslim terrorists prior to the last 40 years? And the centuries of religious fighting has carried with it things like imperialism and land-grabbing. Terrorists today just want to kill Americans.

 

Edit: Who cares if Europeans don't like our attitude? They don't plot terrorist attacks against us.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Maverick 791]

And that question is referring to what part of my post? Never said Muslims were the ones committing these acts for centuries.

 

You missed the point of the attitude comment. But since you stated Europeans don't plot terrorist attacks on us, I guess I'll forget that Chechnya is in Europe...

[Guest Phailadelphia]

When you say Europe, how many people do you believe think "Oh right, Chechnya" ?

 

Edit: It doesn't matter who it was waging religious wars for centuries. You may not have singled out Muslims, but this thread is largely about extremist Muslims even if it hasn't been said explicitly. If the current crusade against America by Muslim terrorists was a religious crusade, it would have been going on for as long as the country has existed. It shouldn't be too difficult to see the relationship between US foreign policy over the last 40 years and a sharp rise in Muslim terrorism. Something had to trigger it. Simply saying "religion caused it" is not an adequate diagnosis. Surely it's a factor, but it's certainly not a trigger.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Phailadelphia