Should the POTUS be able to kill the families of terrorists?

One of the questions that has been resonating in recent weeks against the Trump campaign is the fact he said that even the families of terrorists are at risk for attack. He has been hammered by his own party...HARD. The funny thing is that n April 14, 1986 the US an attack against Qaddafi, who was a world leader, and there was a 15 month old daughter and two sons who were killed or inured.

Operation El Dorado Canyon. Who ordered it? None other than the Crown prince of the GOP Mr Ronald Reagan. So, why has this not been in the news huh? Because there are things that might sound great as a soundbite or in a debate that are just the cost of peace and war in the world.

www.history.com...

How about Mr Obama and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a US drone strike. His father was Anwar al-Awlaki. They were killed at different times.

www.motherjones.com...

Why are Reagan and Obama not appearing for 'war crimes'? Obama killed a US citizen.....

a reply to: matafuchs

Depends, in part, on whether or not they are human shields.

I will point this out.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Trump supporter.

OK, that out of the way because I am about to make a slightly pro-Trump comment. One thing Trump is doing now that will help him should he gain the election and become president (*sigh*). Because he is taking a very tough rhetorical line that is giving the entire world the vapors now and because he is refusing to be backed off of it but instead doubles down on it when people try to shame him, it makes it that much more likely that people will believe that he really means what he says.

So if, for example, he were to draw a red line in Syria like Obama did. It becomes more likely that those in Syria will take him at his word that if they cross that line, he will do what he threatens if they cross it. This makes it paradoxically LESS likely that they actually test him by crossing it. Or only one person is actually stupid enough to test him to their sad detriment.

Then everyone else settles back into b****ing, moaning and complaining that room reeks of sulfur when Trump has recently vacated it, but like talk a big game is all they do.

a reply to: matafuchs

So because youre a Trump supporter, your line here is effectively "other presidents have done it"

No, no president should be able to do that. And when a government reserves the right to classify who is a terrorist and who isnt, it could only be a matter of time before YOUR family is targeted.

Trump has come out several times and flat out said he would target the families of terrorists, we dont need a man like that in office.

Also Raegan is dead, thats why hes not appearing for war crimes.

No, but then I am against extra-judicial killings. I like court-rooms.

That said, my capability to complain about it is balanced by the removal of some really nasty people.

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't know if he should be killing anyone, but I am a naive pacifist so who knows.

a reply to: matafuchs

One thing about ISIS and other terrorist groups in the middle east is they train their children at a very young age to kill anyone who doesn't follow their radical form of Islam. Children have been used as suicide bombers! How do you stop a radical belief when children are growing up and following in the footsteps of their terrorist father or mother? It's like playing the game whack a mole, terrorists will continue popping up no matter how many times you hit them.

This is why I think our military operations in the middle east are futile. Our bombing sometimes kills non-terrorists and their innocent children. If a family loses a child due to collateral damage, all we've done is created more terrorists and hate towards the U.S. and it's allies. It's why we should have never stuck are noses in the middle east in the first place!

Killing entire families is not what America is all about. They're innocent children being brain washed into believing a radical ideology at a very young age. I don't have an answer on how to stop it, but I can understand why Trump would think that way. I really think the best thing to do is pull our troops out and let these people sort out their own internal problems.

a reply to: CrazyWater

But you give him so much free advertising with your avatar...

Look, I was simply asking the question. It does not matter if I am a Trump supporter. I am really looking to see what the view is for those on here.

a reply to: matafuchs

No, they shouldn't be allowed. It was a shame when Reagan killed Quaddafi's infant daughter in a missile attack. No, she wasn't specifically targeted, but they should have known firing on Quaddafi's palace surely contained his family.

Tuesday, April 15, 1986

Reagan: Airstrike against Libya victory against terrorism
By HELEN THOMAS, UPI White House Reporter

WASHINGTON, April 15, 1986 (UPI) -- The blistering U.S. airstrike against Libya was a victory in the global battle against terrorism, President Reagan said Tuesday, warning the United States is ready to repeat its message ''in the only language Khadafy seems to understand.''

As Reagan pledged he will not relent in his campaign to ''eradicate the scourge of terror in the modern world,'' reports from the Libyan capital of Tripoli said that Moammar Khadafy's 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the bombing and two of the Libyan leaders's sons were seriously hurt.

100years.upi.com...

a reply to: UnBreakable

In war, things happen.

Are you saying that if you knew that the head of ISIS was right there and you could remove him in a campaign that you wouldn't ... because he happened to move around with his family? What if he moved around with his family entirely because he knew you wouldn't order his removal because of their presence?

I am sorry, but if I'm fighting a war, then I am taking out military targets. One of them is the opposing side's leader. If I get the chance, I will take him out no matter whom he has by his side. As an opposing leader myself, I should be aware that my enemy is likely planning the same and if I love my family, I am doing what I can to protect them.

Geneva Conventions bar Donald Trump's idea of killing terrorists' families, as Rand Paul says

All four Geneva Conventions from 1949 contain "Common Article 3," which applies to "armed conflict not of an international character." What does that mean? The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2006 case Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, ruled that "armed conflict not of an international character" means a war that is not fought against a sovereign state. (A sovereign state simply means a country with a recognized government.) Since groups like ISIS are not considered sovereign states, that means that Common Article 3 applies to the current war on terrorism.

According to Common Article 3, people who are taking no active part in the hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever … violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

Why is this even a discussion?

I don't support tracking down terrorist families... but at the same time, if the family is around when said terrorist is exposed for assassination, then o'well....

The problem I have is that are not unleashing our military. I don't like war and believe we shouldn't be playing world cop. Personally, I think the middle east can rot until they figure out how come into the 21st century.

With that said, if and when our military is called on to go to war. I want them to go to war to win. PERIOD. I want to unleash holy roman hell on the enemy. Salt the earth. We play for keeps. None of this tip toeing around and fighting with hand behind our backs. When one of our soldiers kills an enemy and takes a piss on the corpse after the firefight, I want our President to stand behind them.

The rest of the world needs to know we don't go to war for just to be going to war. However, if we do get dragged in, there will be hell to pay. In some ways, our enemies, particularly the nut jobs in the middle east need to know that we are in fact crazier than they are...

a reply to: matafuchs

Of course the potus or anyone else for that matter should not be able to gain retribution via the death of terrorist family members. That would be like killing my granny simply because I committed a crime. Following that type of insane logic should we also execute paedophiles family members for there crimes against society?

That being said I think America, and my own nation do indeed kill the familys of terrorists via the numerous air strikes, point of fact they are directly responsible for the next generation of terrorist because of such actions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because we are talking about enemies who do not follow said conventions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because we are talking about enemies who do not follow said conventions.

So? Criminals don't follow the law either, does that give us carte blanche to break the law back to them? It's called being the better man and if we want to stand as a moral authority in this world, breaking the Geneva Conventions isn't the way to do it. Look how much our international neighbors loved us over the Iraq fiasco.

YES..but only "off the record". Terrorists and would-be terrorists should know this, but punishing immediate family members should never officially be made part of the USA's war on terror.

a reply to: matafuchs

Should the POTUS be able to kill the families of terrorists?

No. Just no.

No one should be killing anyone, and no one should be given permission to kill anyone. I don't care who they are what they've done or who they're related to.

I was once appalled at how many people think they have the right to decide who deserves to die... Little did I know that we'd soon be fighting over who we have the right to kill.... and who our president is allowed to kill. First it was Muslim terrorists... now it's whoever the prez decides is domestic terrorists. Which includes me, and lots of other ATSers.

Good to know I suppose that so many folks thinks it's okay for the prez to kill me and my family, as well as you and yours.

Doesn't that give everyone the warm fuzzies???

a reply to: Krazysh0t

All right, considering that the people in question see nothing wrong with making schools, hospitals, etc., into places to store weapons and ammunition or from which to carry out strikes. They have been known to ride to and from attacks dressed as red cross or ambulance workers in ambulances. They have been known to use human shields without compunction.

How do you fight a war sticking meticulously to the conventions against an enemy who uses that to his every advantage?

It's like the colonists who used guerilla tactics to beat the British who still wore their bright red coats and fought in straight, orderly lines in open fields.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: matafuchs

Depends, in part, on whether or not they are human shields.

Because that would make the difference if it were your family. Sarc/

I know civilian casualties are inevitable in war.

To be so cavalier, though..

a reply to: ketsuko

Well if you want to argue to break the Geneva Conventions because it is too inconvenient for us to follow them then we better drop the moral superiority schtick we feed the rest of the world.