Arrow

[Aimless]

Anyone else watching this show? I found it by accident and had low expectations, assuming it would be like Smallville and focus heavily (unhealthily ) on gaybait Stephen Amell's torso. To my surprise I've found it to be well-made and very entertaining. The writing is competent wrt dialogue and plot, the characters interesting and surprising but mostly consistent (with the possible exception of straightbait Katie Cassidy and her torso), not too irrational for too long, and the action is top-notch. Reasonable amount of mystery and conspiracy that promises at least two seasons' worth of goodness.

[Being]

First 2 or so episodes were good. He actually killed people. Any more it's all been just take them down without killing them if you can. I mostly watch it for the back story now.

[LittleFuzzy]

Only bit of it I've seen was the wind-down at the end of an episode a few weeks ago and at the time they were focusing on Amell's torso. Literally, he was doing upright crunches. Looked fantastic but not what I'd tune into a show for.

[RandBlade]

Been watching it but a few episodes behind now. Never read any Green Arrow comics so only previously knew the character from Smallville.

Won't class it as a spoiler as Lewk's already mentioned it (and its from the start) but I really dislike the fact he's willing to kill. Superheroes should stop the criminals but never kill.

[Ominous Gamer]

Been watching it but a few episodes behind now. Never read any Green Arrow comics so only previously knew the character from Smallville.

Won't class it as a spoiler as Lewk's already mentioned it (and its from the start) but I really dislike the fact he's willing to kill. Superheroes should stop the criminals but never kill.

Not a fan of punisher then?

there is a current trend that superheros are fallible, just like people. Green Arrow has killed in printed form, and there was a huge arch that spanned multiple different publications when wonder woman killed a high profile enemy.

[RandBlade]

Don't know the punisher.

In Smallville Green Arrow was killing at first until he was stopped doing so by Clark. I guess it's part of his character then doesn't mean I have to like it.

EDIT: Not counting of course when a villain is killed in action, rather the deliberate killing (murder) in cold blood is distasteful and not heroic.

[Enoch the Red]

Don't know the punisher.

In Smallville Green Arrow was killing at first until he was stopped doing so by Clark. I guess it's part of his character then doesn't mean I have to like it.

EDIT: Not counting of course when a villain is killed in action, rather the deliberate killing (murder) in cold blood is distasteful and not heroic.

Are you saying the members of the Seal Team that killed Bin Laden were not heroic because it was a deliberate and planned kill mission?

[Ominous Gamer]

Are you saying the members of the Seal Team that killed Bin Laden were not heroic because it was a deliberate and planned kill mission?

In the comic book universe, if such a team had an endless arsenal of non lethal takedown and transportation methods... Correct.

This is after the all a genre that locks away villans who have the ability to unwind time in a negative zone no mans lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ties_in_comics

Off topic, our real world already has a hard enough time understanding how to care for its "heroes". Especially the ones who took out bin laden

[Enoch the Red]

In the comic book universe, if such a team had an endless arsenal of non lethal takedown and transportation methods... Correct.

This is after the all a genre that locks away villans who have the ability to unwind time in a negative zone no mans lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ties_in_comics

Off topic, our real world already has a hard enough time understanding how to care for its "heroes". Especially the ones who took out bin laden

Are these the same heroes that, because they are unwilling to kill, have captured super villains break out time and time again to unleash mass murder, mayhem, and destruction the world over?

[RandBlade]

Are you saying the members of the Seal Team that killed Bin Laden were not heroic because it was a deliberate and planned kill mission?

Seal Team aren't self-appointed vigilantes.

[Hazir]

This is the show about the millionaire playboy who gets lost for a couple of years and then returns 'reborn' as a dark crusader with bow and arrows? It sort of never caught me; the first episodes were ok-ish.

[Veldan Rath]

Only bit of it I've seen was the wind-down at the end of an episode a few weeks ago and at the time they were focusing on Amell's torso. Literally, he was doing upright crunches. Looked fantastic but not what I'd tune into a show for.

Shhh..they might take away your Gay ID Card.

[Enoch the Red]

Seal Team aren't self-appointed vigilantes.

That line gets a little fuzzier when you are talking about clandestine actions taken by the United States within a sovereign state that we aren't currently at war with. Either way, I would hardly consider it distasteful to kill someone who is either actively killing or plotting to kill hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians. Regardless of whether or not the deed was done by a private citizen, Seal Team 6, or a masked super hero.

[Wraith]

I've seen the show, it's decent. So far it seems smarter than, for example, Smallville was. I actually found it pretty refreshing that they haven't been afraid to explore the moral gray areas in play here.

They do seem to find a lot of excuses for the lead actor to take his shirt off, though.

[Lewkowski]

Been watching it but a few episodes behind now. Never read any Green Arrow comics so only previously knew the character from Smallville.

Won't class it as a spoiler as Lewk's already mentioned it (and its from the start) but I really dislike the fact he's willing to kill. Superheroes should stop the criminals but never kill.

Huh? Haven't watched it yet but a super hero with brains (ie kill the bad guy) sounds like a good premise.

[RandBlade]

That line gets a little fuzzier when you are talking about clandestine actions taken by the United States within a sovereign state that we aren't currently at war with. Either way, I would hardly consider it distasteful to kill someone who is either actively killing or plotting to kill hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians. Regardless of whether or not the deed was done by a private citizen, Seal Team 6, or a masked super hero.

We may not be at war with Pakistan but we are at war with Al'Qaeda and the military was justified in its actions - if Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty and complain let them but for some reason they didn't, I wonder why?

Seal Team's actions were conducted during a military mission under extreme circumstances and a war-footing. Had Osama been captured, taken to Gitmo and then shot by Seal Team (excluding an escape attempt etc) then it'd be murder too.

Huh? Haven't watched it yet but a super hero with brains (ie kill the bad guy) sounds like a good premise.

Vigilantes shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner ... again I draw a distinction here between self-defence and murder ... and between unappointed vigilantes and police/military.

As for dealing with the bad guys, the reality in the real world is that once the bad guy is caught they stay behind bars (or get executed in the US). Can't think of any real Joker-equivalents in the real world but the closest examples I can think of are people like in the US the Unabomber, Charles Manson etc and in the UK Ian Brady. All have been kept secure since being caught ... its not either realistic or Batman's fault that Arkham Asylum is about as secure as a day nursery.

[Enoch the Red]

We may not be at war with Pakistan but we are at war with Al'Qaeda and the military was justified in its actions - if Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty and complain let them but for some reason they didn't, I wonder why?

I absolutely agree the military was morally justified in their actions. But I also don't find the killing of mass murderers to be distasteful.

Seal Team's actions were conducted during a military mission under extreme circumstances and a war-footing. Had Osama been captured, taken to Gitmo and then shot by Seal Team (excluding an escape attempt etc) then it'd be murder too.

It was a kill mission. I'm not sure why it would matter if he was killed in his compound in Abbottabad or in a shallow grave outside Guantanamo, the parameters the Seals were given were clear.

[Flixy]

So the executive branch can just kill anyone they have in custody and think is a mass murderer without a trial? That ought to save a lot of money on trials and death row.

[Enoch the Red]

So the executive branch can just kill anyone they have in custody and think is a mass murderer without a trial? That ought to save a lot of money on trials and death row.

I'm sure the majority of the time a terrorist in custody would be considered a massive intelligence source, so I doubt that they would see value in killing them. Do I think that the executive branch kills presumed and would be terrorists without a trail? Frequently. Let's be honest, the Seals could have taken bin Laden alive if those were their orders.

[Wraith]

So the executive branch can just kill anyone they have in custody and think is a mass murderer without a trial? That ought to save a lot of money on trials and death row.

The military can't operate on US soil.

[Aimless]

The military can't operate on US soil.

I don't think he was only referring to the military, fairly sure he was also talking about costumed heroes

[Wraith]

I'm not sure anyone in this thread is talking about costumed heroes anymore.

[Flixy]

He said it'd be okay to kill people in your custody, I never said only the military would do it. And yeah, terrorists are killed more often, but (hopefully) in cases where they can't be arrested at that time, or at least not while in custody. As mentioned in the other thread, there's a difference between killing in a war, and killing POWs. He said it's okay for prisoners to be killed without a trial, as long as they're guilty. Which I thought a trial was for..

[Veldan Rath]

Define POW. Yes, this is a trap.

[Flixy]

Do I have to? I wasn't talking specufically about POWs, but people in custody in general, whether they are POWs, criminal suspects, or enemy combatants. They aren't a threat by that point, so killing them deliberately, without a trial, would be murder.

[Enoch the Red]

He said it'd be okay to kill people in your custody, I never said only the military would do it. And yeah, terrorists are killed more often, but (hopefully) in cases where they can't be arrested at that time, or at least not while in custody. As mentioned in the other thread, there's a difference between killing in a war, and killing POWs. He said it's okay for prisoners to be killed without a trial, as long as they're guilty. Which I thought a trial was for..

I'm seeing a distinction without a difference here. If the mission is to kill someone, not capture them, or put them on trial, why does it matter if it is done with a guided munition, or a Seal team? Does it matter if it does done within the first second after getting eyes on the target, or can it be done a minute later? What if the target is unarmed, as bin Laden was?

[Flixy]

I'm seeing a distinction without a difference here. If the mission is to kill someone, not capture them, or put them on trial, why does it matter if it is done with a guided munition, or a Seal team? Does it matter if it does done within the first second after getting eyes on the target, or can it be done a minute later? What if the target is unarmed, as bin Laden was?

Sure there's a difference. He was a leader of an organization which is at war with the US (maybe not technically, so don't burn me on that, please ) and caused a lot of US (and non-US) deaths in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. This means he has to be taken out, which can be done either by a bomb or by a mission like this. This is a military decision - at this point he's not in custody, he is the enemy, as far as I'm concerned he's fair game. Since they went for the Seal mission, if he had surrendered himself and was taken into custody, at that point he's no longer a threat to the US, since he is taken out - so no need to kill him either (military speaking).

Or, to use an analogy: it's perfectly fine to fire at an enemy soldier position and try to kill them, but once they surrender you are not supposed to kill them. Same goes for police: they can take down a suspect if he is (or appears to be) a threat, but once he's arrested he can't be summarily executed, even if it's obvious he's a mass murderer.

And since you specifically mentioned you'd think it is a-okay to kill him once he is in a prison, just because he is a mass murderer, that worries me, to be perfectly honest. And while I don't mind the seal team being somewhat triggerhappy (he's a dangerous guy, and there were weapons there, etc), if they are sent there to kill him even if he clearly surrenders, that worries me too. So the outset of your question is something I don't agree with - the mission should be to take him out, be it dead or captured, and obviously if you throw a bomb you eliminate one of those options.

[Veldan Rath]

Do I have to? I wasn't talking specufically about POWs, but people in custody in general, whether they are POWs, criminal suspects, or enemy combatants. They aren't a threat by that point, so killing them deliberately, without a trial, would be murder.

Ah...but all the above ARE treated differently according to the law.

[Enoch the Red]

Sure there's a difference. He was a leader of an organization which is at war with the US (maybe not technically, so don't burn me on that, please ) and caused a lot of US (and non-US) deaths in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. This means he has to be taken out, which can be done either by a bomb or by a mission like this. This is a military decision - at this point he's not in custody, he is the enemy, as far as I'm concerned he's fair game. Since they went for the Seal mission, if he had surrendered himself and was taken into custody, at that point he's no longer a threat to the US, since he is taken out - so no need to kill him either (military speaking).

Or, to use an analogy: it's perfectly fine to fire at an enemy soldier position and try to kill them, but once they surrender you are not supposed to kill them. Same goes for police: they can take down a suspect if he is (or appears to be) a threat, but once he's arrested he can't be summarily executed, even if it's obvious he's a mass murderer.

We aren't talking about an armed soldier. We are talking about a man who was unarmed at the time the Seal team broke into his house and shot him. The mission was explicitly a kill mission.

Put another way, had bin Laden been alone, obviously unarmed, and in an area where he could be exfiltrated, would it be murder to send the Seal team explicitly to kill him?

And since you specifically mentioned you'd think it is a-okay to kill him once he is in a prison, just because he is a mass murderer, that worries me, to be perfectly honest. And while I don't mind the seal team being somewhat triggerhappy (he's a dangerous guy, and there were weapons there, etc), if they are sent there to kill him even if he clearly surrenders, that worries me too. So the outset of your question is something I don't agree with - the mission should be to take him out, be it dead or captured, and obviously if you throw a bomb you eliminate one of those options.

Let me be more clear. I'm not sure I see a moral difference between a kill order, (and the execution of that order) and a death sentence. Maybe there's some nuance I'm missing, but once he's been put on a kill list, functionally is there a difference if you kill him immediately or after he's in custody?

If you are asking, do I believe that bin Laden's death required a jury trial, an appeals process, and all the rights and benefits afforded to a citizen of the United States? No, I don't. However, that's the exception, not the rule.

[Flixy]

Ah...but all the above ARE treated differently according to the law.

Killing ANY of them would be illegal, though. Which is why I avoided your question, because I have no clue what legal category he would be in - but either case, murder isn;t legal.

We aren't talking about an armed soldier. We are talking about a man who was unarmed at the time the Seal team broke into his house and shot him. The mission was explicitly a kill mission.

Put another way, had bin Laden been alone, obviously unarmed, and in an area where he could be exfiltrated, would it be murder to send the Seal team explicitly to kill him?

Yeah, I do think so. Which means this mission might have been murder in my opinion, but since I don't have access to, you know, the specific orders of top secret missions, I can't really comment on that

Let me be more clear. I'm not sure I see a moral difference between a kill order, (and the execution of that order) and a death sentence. Maybe there's some nuance I'm missing, but once he's been put on a kill list, functionally is there a difference if you kill him immediately or after he's in custody?

If you are asking, do I believe that bin Laden's death required a jury trial, an appeals process, and all the rights and benefits afforded to a citizen of the United States? No, I don't. However, that's the exception, not the rule.

Well, I do agree with you that there's no difference between killing someone immediately or later, if the only plan is to kill him (aside from obvious things like interrogation etc). Of course if you do kill him right away it can remain a bit vague whether or not it was a kill mission, since none of us were actually there observing, while killing him after while he's in custody leaves no doubt (and would probably cause a bit more problems for your government).

My starting point is that a flatout kill mission is wrong to begin with. The difference with a death sentence being due process, yeah. To be honest I don't mind that he's dead, though it does somewhat worry me as a precedent. You say it's an exception, the reason laws don't have exceptions (unless they are in the law, of course) is that it can be a slippery slope. What makes him an exception, to you? Try to define that in a way that can't be expanded.

Also you guys have an executive order that prohibits assassination, which is what we're basically talking about.