|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 15, 2011 11:42:49 GMT -5
So in other words, Qaida is the bad guy and USgov is the good guy? Screw the law, I'm doing what's right? What will you do when USgov isn't the good guy anymore, or whoever is the target isn't a universally recognized bad guy? Will you then still be okay with it? Independent from whether this specific assassination was justified or not, it sets a dangerous precedent. That is basically it. Saying that something sets a dangerous precedent is just another way of stating the slippery slope argument. Yes, if the US starts to target people that I think we should not be I will have a problem with it. |
|
|
|
Post by anon87311 on Oct 15, 2011 11:53:06 GMT -5
skipping the rest of the topic, the guy was taken out. Right or not, it happened. I agree with the policy, as A, he renounced his citizenship(or so I've heard from a few places), B, he was conspiring with an enemy army to kill innocent people. Fair, next.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 15, 2011 11:57:41 GMT -5
he's a member of al qaeda. he gave up his citizenship long ago Not quite. No. There is no "not quite", no "mitigating circumstances" , no " oh but wait". There is only this guy who decided to become a member of a terrorist organization and fight against his country of birth. And yes, he gave up citizenship long ago. He became an enemy combatant and paid the ultimate price Ironbite-I'd be saying the same thing if something like this happened on US soil. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 15, 2011 12:08:29 GMT -5
He was still legally a citizen and was denied his right to due process. Saying you're no longer a US citizen doesn't make it so and committing treason doesn't mean you're not a US citizen. By all means, charge him with treason, but do so in the manner the constitution says to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Oct 15, 2011 14:05:15 GMT -5
So I guess we can all agree that Obama's still working hard to earn that Nobel Peace prize, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Oct 15, 2011 15:07:28 GMT -5
Earn it? They already gave it to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Oct 15, 2011 15:54:33 GMT -5
(that's the joke)
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 15, 2011 19:43:14 GMT -5
You can't just claim that someone you don't like* isn't an American citizen through some non-legal process- and therefore no entitled to the protections he is entitled. That's just silly. Did Adam Yahiye Gadahn lose his citizenship and get extra-legally executed when he was accused of treason? No, because accusation is not and never will be proof. Your argument that accusation is proof is the doctrine of every tyrant from Nero to McCarthy. You must prove accusation in court (unless they're wearing a uniform, on a battlefield or shooting someone). It is absolutely unacceptable for one person to be judge, jury and executioner. That power will, by definition, be misued, because to employ that power is to misuse it. What Obama did was murder, the premeditated killing of a person who was not directly threatening another life at the time of his killing. It's likely that the target never directly threatened anyone's life, and it's likely that he couldn't. To kill him was murder. Right or not, it happened. I agree with the policy, Do you agree with the policy because it happened (anything that happens must be good)? If not, why did you put that part in? Morality is in large part the judging of actions that have already occured. Right or not... I agree with the policy, This is the doctrine of terror, genocide, mass-murder- the doctrine of the technician designing the gas chambers, of Adolf Eichmann 'just doing his job' and ending millions of lives. He didn't think about right or wrong either, it was the policy and he didn't think about the morality. That's not acceptable. That's the banality of evil. It is evil not to think about the moral nature of your actions, or of someone else's actions. That's worse than making the wrong moral choice- not making a choice at all. *Who never openly joined Al Qaeda, by the way- he was just alleged to hold and preach terroristy religious doctrine. So even those shaky grounds are invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 16, 2011 0:35:40 GMT -5
"What Obama did was murder, the premeditated killing of a person who was not directly threatening another life at the time of his killing. It's likely that the target never directly threatened anyone's life, and it's likely that he couldn't. To kill him was murder."
Hey Fred? did you miss the part where the guy had made statements that he wanted to see Americans dead? Because more than a few of them were certainly on the news channels in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 16, 2011 0:45:42 GMT -5
"What Obama did was murder, the premeditated killing of a person who was not directly threatening another life at the time of his killing. It's likely that the target never directly threatened anyone's life, and it's likely that he couldn't. To kill him was murder." Hey Fred? did you miss the part where the guy had made statements that he wanted to see Americans dead? Because more than a few of them were certainly on the news channels in the past. He said nasty things. You can't executed someone without trial for talking. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 16, 2011 0:58:12 GMT -5
Sounded like premeditation, at least from what I read of his statements. Pre-emptive strike sounds fine and dandy to me, since his convictions were certainly strong enough to speak such words rather openly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 16, 2011 1:44:39 GMT -5
Sounded like premeditation, at least from what I read of his statements. Pre-emptive strike sounds fine and dandy to me, since his convictions were certainly strong enough to speak such words rather openly. Was he 1) A uniform-wearing member or commander of a recognised millitary force from a country the US has declared war on? 2) A combatant on a battlefield? 3) Directly threatening someone's life by having breakfast? 4) A convicted criminal? If a person is killed without any of those four being fullfilled, it's murder. Also note that the family claims he was never a member of Al Qaeda, and never planned any attacks. Whether or not he was should have been proven in court. It's a bit thoughtcrime to start shooting people for saying things we don't like without trial, with only the say so of the president. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 16, 2011 2:07:07 GMT -5
as regards 1, outright no. 2, he was happily giving instructions to others (as far as my understanding goes) who were willing to kill on his word, 3, there's no evidence one way or the other that he wasn't planning things over breakfast, and 4, from what I understand, he fled the US before criminal charges could be filed. That's the extent of my knowledge of this.
For the record: Do I think there needed to be more substantial evidence? absolutely. At the same time, if one of the people he ordered were to actually attack this country, even if it were a lone (failed) suicide bomb attempt, that worries me far more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Oct 16, 2011 2:21:06 GMT -5
He was still legally a citizen and was denied his right to due process. Saying you're no longer a US citizen doesn't make it so and committing treason doesn't mean you're not a US citizen. By all means, charge him with treason, but do so in the manner the constitution says to do it. So, what about all those Confederate soldiers we murdered without trial back in the Civil War? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 16, 2011 2:42:56 GMT -5
He was still legally a citizen and was denied his right to due process. Saying you're no longer a US citizen doesn't make it so and committing treason doesn't mean you're not a US citizen. By all means, charge him with treason, but do so in the manner the constitution says to do it. So, what about all those Confederate soldiers we murdered without trial back in the Civil War? Battlefield, uniforms, threatening life, recognised army... |
|
