Is Targeting Reputed "terrorists" a Legitimate Use of Power?

I'm beginning to question whether a nation ought to act as policeman, prosecutor, juror and hangman. What is your opinion?

"I'm beginning to question whether a nation ought to act as policeman, prosecutor, juror and hangman. What is your opinion?"

I'd give one, but I think I heard a buzzing sound earlier. So instead I'll post a picture of the great American flag:



after all, no country that has an eagle for an emblem can do wrong

I take it you are being satirical about the matter of no nation with an eagle symbol can do no wrong? It has to be judging by the record. Plus the fact it isn't the only country to have had this or still has.

In response to the thread starter's point I have some unease about unilateral deciding of issues such as targetting people. If a dictatorship does it it is immoral but a democracy doing it is fine? Odd contradiction of values and principles I reckon?

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm

your link is incorrectly formated, you added an extra http to it when pasting it so now it leads to a parked site. You should correct it Jb

The term "War on Terror" has become unfashionable with some, but for me it can be apt.

If a country is invaded there would be little controversy about it resisting the invaders, there would be little talk about whether it was or was not a right for that country to fight and potentially kill those that had invaded it. In the end it depends on who did what to whom first.

It is surely very similar for a country attacked by Terrorists; the fact that individuals are more apparent is surely just a nuance which misses the identity of the original wrong-doer.

What I do have an issue with, however, is the apparent lack of respect for sovereign nations when people are "taken out" without at least asking the permission of the countries whose territory are usurped. example, the US target bombed a person in the UK all here would be furious. .... A bit like the Russians who have harboured assassins and quite possibly sent them out in the first place.

A different point is regardingo the Thread's question which uses "terrorists", implying doubt. The existence or doubt is certainly crucial but whether it is present or not is another matter; we can all try and look on both sides of the argument but some of these " "terrorist" " people are self-declared wrong-doers..

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I'm beginning to question whether a nation ought to act as policeman, prosecutor, juror and hangman. What is your opinion?

Seems to happen whenever the judical system isn't too likely to produce the desired outcome, for whatever reason. Or why do you think so few of the world's most dangerous terrorists poor sods that rot in Guantanamo Bay were ever put on trial?

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

your link is incorrectly formated, you added an extra http to it when pasting it so now it leads to a parked site. You should correct it Jb

Thanks. Done.

Originally posted by string:

A different point is regardingo the Thread's question which uses "terrorists", implying doubt. The existence or doubt is certainly crucial but whether it is present or not is another matter; we can all try and look on both sides of the argument but some of these " "terrorist" " people are self-declared wrong-doers..

Did you look at the Chomsky piece? I'd not quibble over the 'terrorist' tag...I think that Chomsky has a point worth noting, however.