OK. Fine. Define "terrorist."

[Taverner]

And I want you to define that in terms of who we get to kill, without arrest, due process or any trial.

And who makes that decision.

I'm waiting.

[rucky]

1. Everybody who disagrees with me. n/t

[Taverner]

2. LOL

[jberryhill]

19. Yeah, but that rule only applies to Internet forums.

[HopeHoops]

3. Do you mean "terrorists" or "terrrists"?

The former is any person or group intent on instilling fear in a population via threat of pain, suffering, and destruction - like Republicans.

The latter is anyone non-white or at least Arab-looking if you're Dubya.

[louslobbs]

24. It's just so hard to choose......let me see..........this is so difficult, do I get a second guess?

Lou

[Skidmore]

4. Didn't Congress give the Office of the President permission in the law

to conduct war on terrorism wherever and by whatever means necessary? I do believe I read something like that about 10 years ago.

Perhaps another question to be asked is "Was this man a traitor who used terrorism?"

[leftstreet]

5. Anyone who threatens to destabilize or destroy western imperialism

Do I win a laptop?

[lunatica]

6. Do you think there isn't evidence against known terrorists?

[Taverner]

12. That's just it - I don't know

I would like to know - and a court of law would make this available

[louslobbs]

25. There was alleged evidence against Iraq. n/t

Lou

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Someone who doesn't raise the debt ceiling?

Can't really speak to the authority or competence of those making the charge; I just assume they were a little caught up in the moment.

:shrug:

[louslobbs]

26. +1 n/t

Lou

[elleng]

8. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political
purposes

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Anyone some tyrant wants to kill

Yup. That's the current working definition in the US.

[trumad]

10. Blue collar terrorism or White collar terrorisim?

[jberryhill]

11. Are you saying criminals are never lawfully killed by law enforcement?

They should have left Charles Whitman on that tower.

He had enough ammo to shoot a lot more people.

[Taverner]

14. Whitman - different story

If a killer is in the act of killing, you try to stop the act

Should we blow up anyone who we think might kill?

[treestar]

16. No, only if they are in Yemen and swear they are members of

Al Qaeda and that they have no desire to be tried in our legal system.

With suicidal terrorists as we know Al Qaeda to be? We're going to try to arrest them first?

[jberryhill]

18. It's not a matter of "think might kill"

John Dillinger killed a lot of people during his bank robberies.

He was not engaged in one when he was apprehended by the use of deadly force.

However, he was at large, was on notice he was wanted, and was an apprehension risk.

Bonnie & Clyde - same story.

Another example was the guy who shot several cops in WA not too long ago.

This is not unusual with violent criminals at large. Here, we had his expressed intent to continue killing.

If you are wanted for murder, your best move is to turn yourself in, because deadly force may be used if you are a capture risk.

[Taverner]

20. Great. Let's give the state the power to kill anyone they think might.

You know, I'd worry about those Democrats.

They might kill someone some day...

[jberryhill]

21. You mist have missed the "not"

Read Tennesee v Garner as one example, and get back to me.

[Taverner]

22. Look - Plessy v. Ferguson was a precedent. That doesn't make it right.

[jberryhill]

28. Okay, if you want to argue "legal" or "moral" then let's pick

But it is undeniable that there are rules about the use of deadly force in the context of deadly criminals at large. We can have a good argument about what those rules are and whether they were met in this situation.

If you want to argue moral, then we can dispense with the proposition in the OP that the definition of some word is the dividing line between right and wrong here.

It's fine and laudable to believe there was something morally wrong here. That's a perfectly legitimate opinion. If we ran our government on moral opinions, we'd have some kind of theocracy, and I can guarantee that you wouldn't want to live under "moral majority" rule any more than I would.

It is absolutely right to be concerned about what happened here and what it might mean. But I get so tired of the moral absolutist approach to these things.

But what you can't ignore is the observable fact that deadly crime is a dangerous occupation and sometimes results in the use of deadly force to stop it - even here in the US in the context of at large deadly criminals. I would be more impressed if there was the same concern about the fact that Whitman, Dillinger, and countless other dangerous criminals did not get trials, and I'm not seeing a huge distinction between this and what most people accept as normal rules on the use of deadly force.

[treestar]

13. It's defined in the legal procedure

Each individual person does not get to define it for themselves and demand that Washington do their bidding.

I noticed you have not even tried to look it up anywhere. Or even try to find out the WH's basis for thinking it legal.

It's just a knee-jerk "this looks like something I can use against the President." And the less informed you are about it, the more passionate you get to be.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Someone who has a bomb but no air force. n/t

[DCBob]

17. Of course that is not easy thing to do but it has to be done.

Ignoring it would be catastrophic to this nation and the world.

[hootinholler]

23. I would even have trouble accepting the root incitement of the militant pro'life' crowd.

It's clear that a jury makes that decision.

[Major Nikon]

27. Someone who intentionally targets innocent civilians with violence...

or the threat of violence in an attempt to achieve a political goal.

That's my definition, but other definitions vary widely.

As far as "who we get to kill", I'd say anyone who would not be practical to apprehend without great risk to a significant number of lives (civilian or military) and there would have to be an imminent threat to the US and/or its citizens if immediate action were not taken.

As far as "who makes the decision", that would have to be the President who is the highest military authority.