Does not matter where this sits, you can run but you cannot hid. At some point you need to decide on which side of the fence you sit on terrorism and make a stand.
I spent twenty years in the USN, and twenty-five more working part time for the USN as a civilian. I've been standing for decades.
And just how would you suggest we go about meeting the mission of the United States Navy to protect and defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans and to protect our country against her enemies" also on land against terrorists without ruffling a few feathers along the way.
Where do you get the idea that I think that? You're reading what you want me to post, not what I put on the screen. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The domestic ones are very plentiful these days.
I don't think the US Navy has any problem "moving freely on the oceans", and as far as protecting our nation against her enemies, ask the sailors on the USS Ross and USS Porter that let Syria know, chemical weapons are a no/no.
I think "shoot on sight" wouldn't ruffle any feathers, right? I mean just because the Constitution requires due process doesn't mean we have to extend that to some who doesn't look like Dwight Yokum.
Well it might "ruffle the feathers" of those that support the terrorist but that doesn't bother me. Indeed I rather regard it as a positive thing. Just like hitting the Syrian planes "ruffled some feathers" in Moscow and Tehran.
These are not my words they are given to new entrants as their mission so anyone serving wit the USN should be living up to those aims, you make comments on my thoughts on this issue but still have not answered how you would deal with this ever growing problem. I have always tended to look on life from a sporting perspective and on this issue I go for that old adage of not waiting for a foul just get your retaliation in first.
By the time Thanks Giving comes around we are, with luck, going to have a turkey with no need of plucking, let the feathers fly.
Indeed but just because one is making sure that due process is followed doesn't mean that feathers won't be ruffled. "Shoot on sight" is a bit extreme in most cases although for some individuals I believe it's warranted nor does it necessarily violate Constitutional rights or due process. I did misunderstand/misinterpret your post upon rereading it and I think I'm pretty much in agreement with the point you were trying to make. In spite of waxing sarcastic myself fairly often I sometimes am rather oblivious to it in the posts of others. In this case I wish I could blame it on beer consumption but I hadn't had any for a couple of days ...
I worry when people suggest we need to give up liberties to be safe. And "for some individuals"? Profiling?
Profiling isn't aimed at specific individuals it's aimed at anyone who fits certain characteristics. It can be effective in many situations as long as the correct profiles are used. It can also be misused or used in a way that is a violation of constitutional rights. By individuals I mean named individuals. Clyde Barrow might be a good historical example. There are lots of others some better some worse. I also get nervous when people start suggesting such trades but I didn't mean to suggest that I was advocating that.
When the individual has been clearly identified the forces involved are authorized to engage the target without warning. Pretty much the same as firing on the enemy during war time. Said authorization though shouldn't be given without considerable evidence and thought,
So, shoot on sight and considerable evidence and thought. I used to shoot because they were shooting at me. Or they were about to shoot at me. Or they had the ability to shoot at me.
Now who is putting words in to the mouths of others, nowhere have I said anything about what you should be doing. Your certainty on my qualifications, something you know nothing about is of no interest to. It is the certainty of how we approach and deal with terrorism that is at issue here. As for profiling well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably is a duck so stand by with the orange sauce.
If you are going to put an individual on a "Shoot on Sight" list yes that requires considerable thought. Declaring war is not something one should do without thought either although in the face of something like Pearl Harbor the thought doesn't take a lot of time. Declaring war essentially places all uniformed personnel of the opposing side on a "shoot on sight" list. That doesn't mean you shoot without thinking though.