I...If Imabadguy over in Somolia or Yemen is talking on a cell phone or exchanging emails with his comrades about how they can load up a truck with C4 and fertilizer and start carrying out coordinated or uncoordinated attacks on our military or civilian assets and infrastructures, seems like some solid evidence to throw a Hellfire through their window.
Although I
think I understand your point, I find this sentence disturbing. Is this the new standard we should be using to strike? Does the mere act of planning a future terrorist attack warrant killing someone? Or were you talking about bombing Mr. Imabadguy who has already planned and carried out past terror attacks? The latter, I find justifiable, the former sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion. I agree, we don't need to wait until they strap on C4 and charge the gate before we shoot, but there still needs to be a minimum threat assessment before we just start striking targets for what
we think they're going to do, or even what they say they might do. It's a very fine line.
On the subject of leaks, I find this continued flagrant disregard for the safeguarding of information to be not only despicable, but extremely counterproductive to our military's ability to operate efficiently in secure settings. Every time crap like this gets "leaked" by "whistleblowers", another layer of administrative bureaucracy gets added which makes it harder to get, maintain, and use clearances for jobs critical to defending and maintaining our way of life. In addition, it adds to the enemy propaganda machine against us. I do not, and will never understand why people see this as anything less than aiding and abetting our enemies.
