Bush Grants CIA License to Kill

Associated Press


New York — U.S. President George W. Bush has given the CIA permission to kill about two dozen top terrorism suspects around the world whom it believes are plotting to attack American interests, a report said Sunday.

Full story here.


While I don't expect anyone to have great sympathy for terrorists, I have to wonder how well the US would take it if other countries were sending operatives to kill American citizens in California or something, whether they were criminals or not. I have to suspect it wouldn't be all that popular, which makes this move pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

While the justification is that the targets are enemies of the state, doesn't that go against the Geneva convention and several other treaties? The article says it doesn't go against the long-standing presidential order against assassination, but how do you take a law like that and say "well, just this once"....?

I'd guess that they gov/cia is always doing stuff like this, but this time the press found out about it.

*end conspiracy theory*

Assassination is when you kill a target that has primarily political value - what the CIA is doing here is killing combatants with military value.

Killing Saddam would be assassination - he doesn't represent a military threat. Killing avowed terrorists is good old fashioned military action, which is fine.

James Bond has a License to Kill, and I don't see anyone bitching about that. ;)

Seriously, though, he's telling them to kill suspects. What happened until innocent until proven guilty? Though in a situation like this I guess it would be kinda hard to prove anything without a doubt...

Personally, I think Bush has been handling this whole terrorism thing like shit. The Bush administration (according to Newsweek) is going to be spending $150 million in the upcoming year to promote abstinence to teens. $150 million. Unreal! Personally, I'd tell kids to fuck their brains out and use that $150 million to feed the homeless and to beef up homeland security. I hate it that Bush is letting his religious views creep into his politics, just like he did with stem-cell research. What happened to seperation of church and state? Asshole. I can't wait to vote his ass out of office. When's his term over again?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
The Bush administration (according to Newsweek) is going to be spending $150 million in the upcoming year to promote abstinence to teens. $150 million. Unreal! Personally, I'd tell kids to fuck their brains out and use that $150 million to feed the homeless and to beef up homeland security.

---

Nah, just let them have sex, but use that $150 million to setup more abortion clinics...

*runs out*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Seriously, though, he's telling them to kill suspects. What happened until innocent until proven guilty? Though in a situation like this I guess it would be kinda hard to prove anything without a doubt...

---

Our citizens are innocent until proven guilty. We don't owe terrorists shit. 2004, by the way.

What do you guys think of Gore dropping out? Kind of cowardly, if you ask me, getting out of the way so some other Democrat candidate can take the loss next election.

Lieberman gets to take the loss next election. Better him than Gore. Bush has the next election sealed up, and I think that Bush giving the CIA the authority to kill the suspects is fine, they'd just do it anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
[While I don't expect anyone to have great sympathy for terrorists, I have to wonder how well the US would take it if other countries were sending operatives to kill American citizens in California or something

---

They do. That's why US citizens get killed all over the world, including in our own country. As Stone generally suggested: fuck these terrorists, and I for one can't wait until each one of them gets a bullet in the head. A reactionary strategy results in more dead Americans and more dead American allies. Proactive is just fine by me.

As for Gore: he's finally demonstrated to the public that he can think. Short of disaster in Iraq or an utterly crushed economy (neither of which is likely to be the case as the election draws closer), he would almost certianly lose. I guess he'd rather be remembered as having been "cheated" out of the presidency than having been clobbered.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Our citizens are innocent until proven guilty. We don't owe terrorists shit. 2004, by the way.

---

Good point. And thanks for the year. :)

And Bush's approval rating is pretty low nowadays...maybe, just maybe, someone will squeak out a win. But I doubt it...

Ordinarily I'd be appalled by the arrogance in a move like this, but considering the targets and the potential threat they have already proven themselves to be, I feel no sympathy. Thousands of Americans, Christians and Jews are already long dead at the hands of fanatical, Muslim and other religious extremists around the world since the early 1980's.

These lunatics kill in the name of god (certainly not the one I know and love) and make a brutal mockery of the religion of Islam. Killing without cause is wrong, but killing to insure that the rest of the world can live in relative peace is certainly justifiable. I don't think the people in Kenya would be opposed to these measures.

And Stone is speaking plain truth. These terrorists planned the willful and deliberate murder of thousands of human beings. Why the fuck should we care what they think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Master of 7s
Thousands of Americans, Christians and Jews are already long dead at the hands of fanatical, Muslim and other religious extremists around the world since the early 1980's.

---

I hear that terrorists have killed some other people too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite What happened until innocent until proven guilty?

---

Isn't it guilty until proven innocent for people whom aren't american, and are caught, and tried outside of america, for crimes against america..

Sounds good to me. :)

If someone messes with us, we don't owe them any favors. The terrorists are murderers and don't deserve to be covered by the Geneva Convention. It's all about self-defense... better for terrorists to die than for thousands of innocents to die later.

If a terrorist suspect tries to flee, shoot to kill. They are too great of a flight risk... who knows what they would be planning next if they escaped. I don't care what Amnesty International thinks in such a situation. The odds are good that a suspect who would try to escape is guilty as charged.

How do you prove somebody is a terrorist without a trial that contains some evidence of them being one? Just like the CIA missiled those guys cooped up in a car a couple of months back in the Middle East. Sending a missile at a few guys you "think" are terrorists in a car, not a tank or armored carrier, is pretty dumb in my mind. The same goes here.

These people who they think are terrorists I should hope have solid evidence to prove such things. Sure they are all probably anti-american, but being hateful doesn't make somebody a potential killer. I guess our own civilian murder suspects could be done the same way too. After all, just about everything is being considered a terrorist act these days. May as well include all murderers in there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gameoverDude
If someone messes with us, we don't owe them any favors. The terrorists are murderers and don't deserve to be covered by the Geneva Convention. It's all about self-defense... better for terrorists to die than for thousands of innocents to die later.

If a terrorist suspect tries to flee, shoot to kill. They are too great of a flight risk... who knows what they would be planning next if they escaped. I don't care what Amnesty International thinks in such a situation. The odds are good that a suspect who would try to escape is guilty as charged.

---

Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, as far as I understand, anyways - the Geneva Convention only covers soldiers who follow certain rules that discern them from non-combatant civilians. You have to wear a uniform, act like a soldier, so on, not hide yourself amongst civilians, and that gives you the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

If you don't do that, then the rival side is excused of a lot of things - because you basically brought them upon yourself. If you hide amongst non-combatants, and those combatants get killed, it's YOUR responsibility, you endangered them, so on.

Let me tell you guys a little story.

Its about a guy called Salman hamdani.
He dissapeared the day the twin towers collapsed.
FBI started harrasing his family and claimed they had proof that he was involved in the terrorist attacks.
The FBI tought he was part of a NYc cell that had prepared the attack and that after the attack was succesfull that he had fled the country.
The harrasment of the family and neighbours continued until six months AFTER the WTC attacks when Salman´s body was found mangled in the WTC rubble.
Salman was an American Muslim of Pakistani descent and a police cadet.
When disaster hit the towers he rushed to the scene and helped people escape certain death, in the end it cost him his own life.
People who were rescued by him after regaining theyre senses contacted the authorities to notify them of the fact that that guy on the terrorists list had helped them escape, yet the authorities didnt change a thing until finnaly his body was recovered.
Now Salman is on the 9/11 heroes list.

Now come back and tell me that indiscriminatly killing people becouse they are SUSPECTS is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Now come back and tell me that indiscriminatly killing people becouse they are SUSPECTS is a good thing.

---

I'd rather mistakenly kill one non-citizen than to have a single American die.

All though I agree, the logic doesn't fit in that story, seeing as how he was an American citizen..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich
All though I agree, the logic doesn't fit in that story, seeing as how he was an American citizen..

---

No, I know. I was simply replying to that limited paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
I'd rather mistakenly kill one non-citizen than to have a single American die.

---

And that people is why there is so much anti US sentiment in the world.
Kill now worry about it later.
The US has a history of killing innocent people abroad and then not even apologising.
But hey, youre life is worth more then mine right?
Oh wait, americans think my life aint worth shit so why not end it now.
Hmm wait a sec why not go gloriously and take a few people whos lifes DO matter with me.
Sounds like a plan.

Sigh, so tiring.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
I'd rather mistakenly kill one non-citizen than to have a single American die.

---

Its plain to see people, if the FBI despite evidence to the contrary and eyewitnes reports that stated this man was a hero still labeled this American police cadet as a Terrorist and claimed they had evidence to back it up, if this is possible with an American citizen inside America how can you be even halfway sure that some of those people are terrorists who deserve to be killed no questions asked?

Our lives ARE worth more than yours to our government, if we're American citizens and you're not.

That's why we live here, and we don't live in your country, why we pay taxes, so on.

Quote:

---

If you hide amongst non-combatants, and those combatants get killed, it's YOUR responsibility, you endangered them, so on.

---

you meant those "non-combatants" get killed, right?

I'd love to see the US handle hostage situations in the states in this manner.

"what? they've taken 100s of people hostage. blow them up, its their fault that we have to kill those 100s of people."

As for people being mistakenly killed,its equally messed up wherever they're from. =\

Good.