Over the past decade we have seen a new type of warfare evolve. This is a war not necessarily against enemies on foreign soil, but rather a war on US citizens on domestic and foreign soil
Under president bush, Iraq, Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda network were taken down.
Under Pesident Obama, we have seen people killed before they can become a threat. The US government has even killed US citizens on foreign soil with no due process.
This brings up several ethics questions.
Is it right to kill someone before they commit a crime? Isn’t the whole justice system built around bringing people to justice “after” they have broken the law? So what happens if the government starts arresting and or killing people just because those people were talking about breaking the law?
There is a difference between talking and doing. Can the justice system sentence someone to death without a trial, and without a crime? If there was no other crime besides talking, can the person be deemed a threat?
Where does society draw the line? Do we arrest, convict and imprison the husband who talked about hitting his wife? If so, how long should the person be held in prison?
Would it correct for society to imprison everyone who talked about breaking a law, but never actually committed a crime?
Instead of trying to predict the future like in the Minority Report, the government relies on intelligence agencies like the CIA.
But what is the real difference between the cia trying to predict crimes like in the Minority Report, and using physics like in the movies?
There is old question that if someone could go back and kill hitler before he came into power, should we? But on the other hand, what if we are wrong about the predictions, and an innocent person was murdered.
Is it acceptable for society to err on the side of caution? If so, where do we drawn the line?
Will it be acceptable for police officers to shoot and kill someone due to repeated calls for family violence?
Will it be acceptable for police officers to kill people who had a little bit too much to drink? After all, its better to put the person to death before they can harm anyone else. So if someone tries to get in their car after downing a few drinks at a bar, the police should just shoot and kill that person?
Lets say a wife likes to cheat. So law enforcement should lock her in prison? That way her husband does not catch her cheating and shoot her and her boyfriend? Or is better to lock the husband up so the wife can run around as much as she wants?
If the government is given free reign to kill people before they commit a crime, who is at greater fault? The person for talking about how they want to commit a crime, or the government that acts on those words?
After all, where does society draw the line in protecting others?
Now that the National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law, anyone accused of being a terrorist can be detained by the military.
If the government wanted to, this opens up a whole new range of abuses. We just thought what happened to Randy Weaver and his family was bad. Randy Weavers wife was shot and killed by a sniper, and nobody went to prison over it.
With the new law, I doubt there would even be congressional hearings on the murder of US citizens.
Who in the government has the right to detain or murder US citizens at will? Is this “really” a law that should have ever been presented before congress? What would the founding father have to say about a law that allows the government to detain people without due process?
In most states the accused person has to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of being arrested. But now, just declare the person is a suspected terrorist and the persons rights are waived. The US is no longer the land of the free. As our freedoms and rights are slowly being stripped away.