1918me Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Not really. It's not like y'all have bothered to give it to anyone else. The hypocrisy of the hand-wringing over this shit is astounding. As a non-American, I again find myself thinking you people should fuck the hell off with this "it's different cause he's american and special" shit. Yeah, I can see where there might be some hypocrisy there. Obviously I'm not trying to say that he's metaphysically superior because of his nationality or something, but in the context of US executive action, constitutionally, he kind of is. However, I'm of the opinion that a state's highest priority should be to its citizens, and even if that citizen is causing danger to the state, I think that his rights should be respected insofar as he poses no immediate danger. Otherwise, this kind of thing could continue to happen, in more benign cases, slippery slope, etc. I think he deserved what happened, despite the fact that he was American, but I don't think a trial could of have hurt in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Not really. It's not like y'all have bothered to give it to anyone else. The hypocrisy of the hand-wringing over this shit is astounding. As a non-American, I again find myself thinking you people should fuck the hell off with this "it's different cause he's american and special" shit. As an American, I again find myself thinking you should just fuck the hell off from the US Politics thread :cheers: But in all seriousness, it doesn't matter to you because as a non-citizen you have little to lose from this. Obviously the assassination of US citizens by the US government is mostly going to be a concern for US citizens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Yeah, I can see where there might be some hypocrisy there. Obviously I'm not trying to say that he's metaphysically superior because of his nationality or something, but in the context of US executive action, constitutionally, he kind of is. However, I'm of the opinion that a state's highest priority should be to its citizens, and even if that citizen is causing danger to the state, I think that his rights should be respected insofar as he poses no immediate danger. Otherwise, this kind of thing could continue to happen, in more benign cases, slippery slope, etc. The Constitution doesn't really specify a difference in due process rights for citizens and noncitizens. If the government doesn't have to follow the 14th amendment for noncitizens, then there is nothing (except for public outrage?) requiring them to follow it when it comes to citizens. That is, if the U.S. can have Shryke killed with a drone, they can do it to you too under the same legal framework, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 As an American, I again find myself thinking you should just fuck the hell off from the US Politics thread :cheers: See, you start saying things like that and people will think that you don't understand international message boards, the practical reach of US politics, the possibility of non-citizens living in a country (though I know Shryke also lives outside the US), or how they all fit together in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 The Constitution doesn't really specify a difference in due process rights for citizens and noncitizens. If the government doesn't have to follow the 14th amendment for noncitizens, then there is nothing (except for public outrage?) requiring them to follow it when it comes to citizens. That is, if the U.S. can have Shryke killed with a drone, they can do it to you too under the same legal framework, right? Well, to be fair, I'm against this kind of action against the citizens of any country, at least when the security of the state isn't immediately endangered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 There's some weirdness about non-citizens are treated under U.S. law, but it's important to acknowledge that the Constitution grants due process and equal protection to all persons under the U.S. flag, not just to citizens. In fact, if you look at the Constitution, you see that it's actually very careful in specifying rights that are for citizens only (such as the right to vote) and rights that cover all persons regardless of nationality. The fact that this principle has been disrespected in the past doesn't justify disrespecting today; appeals to hypocrisy aren't really a good argument for denying civil liberties to anyone, U.S. citizen or not. Why is it important? Why should anyone give a shit? At the end of the day, he's just another terrorist/"terrorist" the US government blew up. Attempting to pretend it's someone more or differently right or wrong because he had a US passport or something is absolutely completely "enemy combatants" levels of absurd. Don't get all squeamish all of a sudden about drone striking because of a few pieces of paper. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence. But in all seriousness, it doesn't matter to you because as a non-citizen you have little to lose from this. Obviously the assassination of US citizens by the US government is mostly going to be a concern for US citizens If you had any awareness of the issue at all, you'd realise that, in fact, it's mostly certain kinds of non-US citizens who have to be concerned about this. Since that's mostly who's getting blown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Why is it important? Why should anyone give a shit? Why is it important that the U.S. government can kill anyone it wants at will? I realize that this is a probably facetious question but I'm lost as to what you're trying to say. My point was that the distinction between citizens and non-citizens of the U.S. when it comes to extrajudicial killings is immaterial. There is no real basis in law for it that I know about and there is no reason why the Awlaki case is more serious than any other targeted assassination since the government's power to kill him is the same power used to kill non-citizens. That is, the problem is with extrajudicial killings, not with citizen vs. non-citizen of the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 :bang: So many assumptions to unpack. -Why are you so confident that they are "card carrying" members of Al Qaeda? They showed you the card? Oh, of course, a government official said so and you just blindly believe them. So much for evidence, let alone proof. -You realize we are talking about people not in military action? Read Paul's statement above - he explicitly says he opposes killing citizens "not in combat." The government is claiming the authority to kill an American citizen in his sleep if they want to -If those accused of terrorism or treason are fair game for the government to murder without trial, why not any accused citizen? Why not just launch drone missiles at tax evaders, drug dealers, or Roman Polanksi? Perhaps i'll take al-Awlaki's word for it, in the one of the videos he posted where he openly discusses his Al-Qaeda affiliations and calls for murder. Or his correspondence with Major Hassan and the underwear bomber. Awlaki being a terrorist isn't, and really shouldn't be, a controversial conclusion. I'm sure Paul opposes whatever his libertarian fanbase wants him to. Not that he's really had much issue with drones when it counts. Or his full throated support of droning someone for armed robbery. Awlaki was free to surrender himself back into us custody any time he wanted to. His targeting was not based upon any crimes he had committed, but the ongoing danger he presented as a high-ranking al-Qaeda member. This alarmism never really works when you consider the facts of targeting occurring when said terrorist has removed themselves completely from US jurisdiction and has no intent on providing any feasible way to be returned to it. If an American joins an enemy army, can they not be shot on the battlefield? Paul's statement doesn't hold water when Awlaki made it his business to plan how to kill people. Oh, and Rand has praised drones before in Yemen and Pakistan: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/06/sen-rand-paul-ill-end-filibuster-once-obama-says-no-to-drone-strikes-in-the-u-s And his position on the Awlaki strike wasn't a full throated condemnation, either. Pointless hyperbole on "what about tax evaders" doesn't really help the case, either. The test is the danger posed coupled with apprehension odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Yeah as a non American I'm not really down with the US getting to kill anyone (as long as they aren't a US citizen) anywhere (as long as they are outside the US). Outrage over al-Awlaki but being down with the rest is someone distasteful from this perspective, although I think you are opposed to the drone strikes fulls top RG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 On the first part, I'm curious why you think so. Paul has not been shy about criticizing the Bush administration - during those years he even gave speeches for his dad saying Cheney invaded Iraq for Halliburton :laugh: Granted, Rand wasn't in office yet but his consistent harping makes me believe that he has genuine principles as far as civil liberties are concerned (to be clear I don't mean civil rights or social equality, I mean the protections from the government given by the Bill of Rights). For what it's worth he was also one of the only (perhaps the only, I can't remember) Senate Republicans that didn't support sabotaging Obama's deal with Iran I'd like to hear the details of those speeches before I comment further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 If the American citizen 'deserves due process', even though he's an enemy combatant, then every single enemy combatant deserves due process. That's how our due process works and I think it's a HUGE grey area, especially in this day and age. We're not giving due process to those in Guantanamo, we're not giving due process to the people we bomb in random buildings, we didn't give due process to Bin Laden. Should we have? Maybe. Is this 'American' not given due process and killed by a drone any different? Absolutely not. He's not a special case, he's just another case of using drone strikes to kill people that we've declared enemies to the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 If an American citizen joins a foreign group whose mission statement includes Death To America and Americans and takes up arms against the US government and its citizens, then he/she deserves no due process. They are in essence giving up their citizenship when they, you know, declare themselves an enemy combatant of that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 He's not a special case, he's just another case of using drone strikes to kill people that we've declared enemies to the state. And people in their vicinity, who we then retroactively declare enemies of the state unless proven otherwise. Even if they were hanging out in a cafe with them. Or were hanging out in a cafe with someone the CIA thought was them but wasn't. That's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Awlaki being a terrorist isn't, and really shouldn't be, a controversial conclusion. Yes it should. Presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of criminal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Yes it should. Presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of criminal law. In this instance he openly admitted to being such no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Koch brothers doing their thing: trying to fight the bipartisan Detroit bankruptcy settlement because it doesn't fuck over poor people enough. It’s against that backdrop that the Koch brothers’ new crusade against a landmark bipartisan settlement of Detroit’s bankruptcy crisis seems particularly greedy and cruel. After much controversy and debate, Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has agreed to provide $195 million in state funding that will limit pension cuts to no more than 4.5 percent and protect the Detroit Institute of Art from liquidating its collection. “This is a settlement. This not a bailout,” Snyder said. “And I want to be very, very clear about that.” Not so fast, Gov. Snyder. Americans for Prosperity has built a shiny web site, shamelessly named StrongerDetroit.com, that shrieks “NO MORE BAILOUTS.” It has committed to contacting 90,000 Michigan conservatives to get them to tell their Republican representatives to buck Snyder and (what rhymes with buck?) Detroit. The group promises to run ads against any Republican who votes in favor of the bankruptcy settlement. Remember, Snyder is no bleeding-heart liberal; far from it. He has come under fire from Democrats and civil rights advocates for his heavy-handed use of executive power to put the finances of struggling Michigan cities, including Detroit, under state control, often usurping the power of African American elected officials. In 2012, he flip-flopped on campaign promises to oppose an anti-union right to work law, signing the bill much loved by the Koch brothers. As the New York Times’ David Firestone notes, even leaving aside the long history of racism that hobbled Detroit, the state bears some blame for the city’s fiscal troubles, cutting revenue sharing while the city’s own tax base eroded. Demos found that those revenue sharing cuts accounted for one-third of the city’s revenue losses between 2011 and 2013. Of course Detroit bashing has long been a staple of right wing rhetoric, in which the city’s troubles are solely the fault of poor choices and corruption by its African-American leaders and the moral faults and bad behaviors of its African-American residents. Dog-whistling about Detroit continued during the 2012 GOP primary, you’ll recall, when Newt Gingrich declared: “I know how to make the whole country look like Texas. President Obama knows how to make the whole country resemble Detroit.” http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/koch_brothers_detroit_abomination_stunning_avarice_and_cruelty_reaches_new_low/ In a sane society, these fuckers would be hanging from lampposts already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 In this instance he openly admitted to being such no? So once you get a confession you skip the trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 In this instance he openly admitted to being such no? Irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Koch brothers doing their thing: trying to fight the bipartisan Detroit bankruptcy settlement because it doesn't fuck over poor people enough. http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/koch_brothers_detroit_abomination_stunning_avarice_and_cruelty_reaches_new_low/ In a sane society, these fuckers would be hanging from lampposts already. Every time their pops up in the title of a news article, I feel like banging my head against a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 So once you get a confession you skip the trial? If you have a feasible way to get him to trial, I'd honestly love to hear it. Irrelevant. No, Tormund, it really isn't. When he makes videos openly calling for Muslims to kill Americans and talks about his glorious Al-Qaeda resistance while participating in Terrorist actions, it's a shut case. If he wanted his trial, he could have surrendered himself at any time. It's like saying a man who opens fire at police and gets gunned down for it is denied his due process. Awlaki was participating in an ongoing, hostile conflict and was killed to prevent innocent people from being killed in terrorist attacks. If you have literally any other suggestion on how to deal with him that doesn't involve unreasonable danger to American lives, I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.