This is why I shouldn't have neighbors...
- Thread starter DirtMcGirk
- Start date
Yeah, this kind of stuff is infuriating. Even if I wanted this power to reside in an executive branch that was totally trustworthy (and none are) I definitely don't want this power in the hands of President Bristol Palin in the future.
I still don't get the uproar... We've killed HUNDREDS of thousands of US citizens in the past. Or rather, we've killed hundreds of thousands of US citizens who have taken up arms against the US in the past. This has been the case from the Revolutionary war onward, with it happening at least during WWII if not more recently. We didn't check with German units to see if there were possibly any Americans serving in them before we started shelling.... Same with the Civil War, Revolutionary War, etc. If you take up arms against the US, if you are part of an organization that is trying to attack the US, and you can't be taken into custody in a readily available manner, you are going to be killed.
Should we have not killed a senior Al Qaeda operative just because he was an American? Obviously taking him into custody would be preferable, but what if that's not possible? We just say "oh well, have fun trying to attack the US, you have immunity"? Seriously?
Should we have not killed a senior Al Qaeda operative just because he was an American? Obviously taking him into custody would be preferable, but what if that's not possible? We just say "oh well, have fun trying to attack the US, you have immunity"? Seriously?
As seen by the American right-leaning public:
Mr. Dumbass does it: Decisiveness in the face of wishy-washy mealy-mouthed communist-pacifist bureaucratic weaklings who hate America and want to coddle its enemies.
Mr. Wishy-Washy McBlackski does it: YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO OUR PLEDGES! ONLY WE CAN DO THAT TO OUR PLEDGES!
Edit: And vice-versa...(much of) the mid-left cries about neo-fascism until 2008 but then cheers their badass minority president for the cojones to blast people overseas.
Hypocrisy and political opportunism bother me. Which makes it hard to live.
Mr. Dumbass does it: Decisiveness in the face of wishy-washy mealy-mouthed communist-pacifist bureaucratic weaklings who hate America and want to coddle its enemies.
Mr. Wishy-Washy McBlackski does it: YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO OUR PLEDGES! ONLY WE CAN DO THAT TO OUR PLEDGES!
Edit: And vice-versa...(much of) the mid-left cries about neo-fascism until 2008 but then cheers their badass minority president for the cojones to blast people overseas.
Hypocrisy and political opportunism bother me. Which makes it hard to live.
Last edited:
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure no one wants to be your neighbor.
I recommend you start executing Americans citizens immediately..... sooner or later you'll run out of them and not have this problem.
Hell you might even win the Nobel peace prize for it!
I recommend you start executing Americans citizens immediately..... sooner or later you'll run out of them and not have this problem.
Hell you might even win the Nobel peace prize for it!
Yes, yes. Entirely an issue solely endemic to America.
Thats okay Dave, we will vote you there. I wouldnt want to go out alone...
"The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport."
(Insert sardonic laugh here.)
"The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport."
(Insert sardonic laugh here.)
That's one better than I would do.
^^^^ And he's a lawyer. Increased limits on those these days...
Too many people will want lawyer wall mounts...everyone will be gunning for one.
The competition is healthy I feel JohnE
If you can just show me the declaration of war, you'd save me a bunch of time taking apart your logic here.
gwb nods head in approval?
#historyfail? There was never an official Declaration of War during the Civil War...
And there were a whole bunch of horrible atrocities committed by both sides. I'm not sure that helps your argument a lot.
Never mind the fact that you're conflating a civil war with something that pretty clearly isn't an internal issue at all...
Nice dodge. The fact of the matter is that when confronting someone who has taken up arms against the US, if we weren't able to bring them to justice killing them has always been a viable and legal option. I'm guessing that you would've wanted every Union soldier to try to take Confederate soldiers safely into custody and read them their Miranda rights (which didn't exist at the time)?
Wow, arguing like Bill O'Reilly now? Wasn't expecting that.
What I would expect is a trial, for treason, before a death sentence is leveled. Not a Star Chamber.
And if it's impossible to capture someone for trial? What then?
Then I guess you're kind of screwed, unless you can present evidence that would make the country he is in extradite him. Like every other criminal case.
Or charge him at the ICC in absentia. It was good enough at Nuremberg. Of course, the US at the ICC just can't make up the rules and say that the evidence is, "Trust us!" so that might be a bit of a problem.
Interesting note:
Is Italy justified in shooting a missile into an American neighborhood to get this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Townley
Jesus Christ, the CIA has some bloody ****ing hands. And these are the people you want in charge of the evidence used to push the button?
Is Italy justified in shooting a missile into an American neighborhood to get this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Townley
Jesus Christ, the CIA has some bloody ****ing hands. And these are the people you want in charge of the evidence used to push the button?
I thought it was pretty clear that the laws we are discussing do not apply to crimes such as conspiring to commit murder, or whatever he was convicted of in Italy.
Right, because I'm sure the government of say..... Yemen is going to hand him over for trial. Or, in the case in some place like Afghanistan where there *is* no functioning government, that's going to be a little hard.
So what you're saying, just to be clear, is that if we can't grab him in person, he literally has FREE REIGN to attack the US, and there's absolutely nothing we can (legally) do about it. So if we're trying to kill Al Qaeda operatives somewhere, but one of them is a US citizen who's helping plan the attack, we have to say "hold off, boys, don't fire that missile, we have to endanger the lives of ~40 SEAL team members just to try to make sure that we can grab him unharmed"?
I just want to be clear on what you're actually proposing here.
edit: Or, to use a real-world example, if John Walker Lindh was involved in an attack against US forces, are we really supposed to *not* fire back because he's a US citizen? Or bomb an Al Qaeda camp because he might be there?
So what you're saying, just to be clear, is that if we can't grab him in person, he literally has FREE REIGN to attack the US, and there's absolutely nothing we can (legally) do about it. So if we're trying to kill Al Qaeda operatives somewhere, but one of them is a US citizen who's helping plan the attack, we have to say "hold off, boys, don't fire that missile, we have to endanger the lives of ~40 SEAL team members just to try to make sure that we can grab him unharmed"?
I just want to be clear on what you're actually proposing here.
edit: Or, to use a real-world example, if John Walker Lindh was involved in an attack against US forces, are we really supposed to *not* fire back because he's a US citizen? Or bomb an Al Qaeda camp because he might be there?
Last edited:
Also, since when has Michael Townley taken up arms against Italy?
And the evidence of this is where?
That's the sticking point: There isn't any. Or there is. But it's all secret. He's a bad guy. Trust us.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/behind-the-drones-lots-of-bureaucracy/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/02/13/inside-the-killing-machine.html
You're just reusing the "ticking time bomb" torture excuse here.
That's the sticking point: There isn't any. Or there is. But it's all secret. He's a bad guy. Trust us.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/behind-the-drones-lots-of-bureaucracy/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/02/13/inside-the-killing-machine.html
You're just reusing the "ticking time bomb" torture excuse here.
Besides the attempted murder in Rome that he was convincted in absentia for? I dunno...
And attempted murder somehow equals "continued acts of war against a sovereign nation" how?
It must be nice to live in your world where everything is black and white, there are no extraneous circumstances and we can always send Eliot Ness in to arrest all the bad guys (while reading them their Miranda Rights). We've never previously had concerns before with killing Americans who had taken up arms against the US, whether it was a declared war (Americans serving with Germany in WWII) or an undeclared war (as noted, Civil War). If you take up arms against the US (and not even his father is claiming that Al-Awlaki wasn't part of Al Qaeda, or that he was actively plotting to attack the US), you can expect military retaliation. If our military can capture you (ie, John Walker Lindh), great. If not, you're targeted just like any other enemy fighter.
Sorry, "taking up arms against the United States" trumps just about every other right that he might have had at some point.
Great. I look forward to a drone attack wiping Oliver North from the face of the earth then.
And, by the way, taking up arms should actually require taking up arms. You're essentially arguing that the founding fathers should were morally abhorrent, you realize that?
Let's go back to MikeD's thought experiment: Had that been Gonzalez out there making that speech, you'd still be nodding your head?
Last edited:
Huh?
I would have been perfectly fine if Gonzalez had been out there instead of Holder making that speech. I didn't agree with much of what Bush did, but that was because I disagreed with the substance, not the fact that he had an (R) after his name.
By the way, you still haven't answered my Civil War analogy; What exactly should we have done with Confederate soldiers during the war, tried to take them into custody so we could bring them before a judge? Risked American lives to do so? Tried each one of them in abstentia so that when they got shot in battle we would have given them their due process first?
And yes, it's a ridiculous question, but so is the idea that we have to go out of our way and risk American lives on a foreign battlefield just because the person waging war against us is also an American citizen...
It's a civil war, and entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. There were no POWs? Just summary executions of captured troops?
This is a little like arguing that the GOP loves black people because Lincoln was a Republican, I think.
This is a little like arguing that the GOP loves black people because Lincoln was a Republican, I think.
Not really, it's asking the question of how to deal with someone who's waging war against the US when it's not possible to bring them in for a civil (or even military) trial. You've stated that if it's not possible, we just have to... just leave them alone and let them do whatever they're going to do. My civil war question was extrapolating that to a larger scale, something that we can't just shrug off or ignore.
And I'm pretty sure that legally there's not much difference between a individuals participating in a civil war against their government and individuals in small groups waging war against their government. The only difference is in the scope of the conflict.
And I'm pretty sure that legally there's not much difference between a individuals participating in a civil war against their government and individuals in small groups waging war against their government. The only difference is in the scope of the conflict.
Evidence of the above is evidence for a trial.
And if it's some facebook posts or some info from a goat.........well..........that's why the entire legal system of this country was setup the way it is.
There are things I can prove and there some things I know. After my teens I learned which ones to act on ya know?
Which has not appeared besides assertions.
We also killed his 16 year old kid two weeks later. That was probably a good move, like the Christian God he follows, Obama just doesn't kill the offender, but he also visits his wrath on future generations.
(And yes, 16 years old, not a kid. Unless he was here, white, and dealing coke. Then he's totally a juvenile, especially if he comes from a good family.)
WhenI am King, heres how we will roll.
1. When Silver (Just for example...) is declared an enemy of the state, we go public with it.
2. I will appear on the idiot box, in flowing white robes with half nekkid chicks around me, white russian in hand, appropriate music playing, and declare you so.
C. I will not only announce that you have been denounced, but will elucidate the reasons why, and also that you will be hunted with the full force of the US military and law enforcement entities.
II. This is of course after we have secured the borders, fixed the ghettos, schooled the childrens and stopped the rent from being so d@mn high. Hopefully Cubs will have won a World Series by then too...
1. When Silver (Just for example...) is declared an enemy of the state, we go public with it.
2. I will appear on the idiot box, in flowing white robes with half nekkid chicks around me, white russian in hand, appropriate music playing, and declare you so.
C. I will not only announce that you have been denounced, but will elucidate the reasons why, and also that you will be hunted with the full force of the US military and law enforcement entities.
II. This is of course after we have secured the borders, fixed the ghettos, schooled the childrens and stopped the rent from being so d@mn high. Hopefully Cubs will have won a World Series by then too...
And that would be a huge upgrade from the current policy of, "We'll kill whoever we want to, and we're not telling you the reasons why. He's bad. Trust us."
Vote for me for King!
You don't vote for King. You have to wait for some watery tart to throw a sword at you in some farcical aquatic ceremony. Then you're King.
