| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 02:53 KwarK wrote: b) American citizens are killed by the police all the time when necessary without a trial (resisting arrest, threatening officer or a member of the public etc) You're not really going to equate assassination to shit happening during a civil arrest, are you? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
On February 11 2014 03:05 xDaunt wrote: You're not really going to equate assassination to shit happening during a civil arrest, are you? I'm saying that the right to a fair trial before your peers is already not an absolute right but rather something that is given only if doing so doesn't threaten the lives of the public or of public servants. That nobody views those killings, which happen out of necessity but without a fair trial, as assassinations, even though they are extrajudicial. If this guy is attacking American citizens then I don't see the moral problem, there is already an acceptance that sometimes people need to be killed first without a trial and then subsequently justify it. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 11 2014 02:53 RCMDVA wrote: I think the US Senate needs to revoke his citizenship. (maybe this is only for naturalized citizens) The problem is...if I went and joined the Canadian Army...then they can drop a drone on me no problem. You automatically renounce. That makes up a bunch of folks who are renouncing their citizenship's in the US. Dual-citizen folks who are going to back to work for their home county's government...so they are forced to renounce. Al-Qaida isn't a nation/country...that's the conflict with the law. The right to nationality is considered a human right, so there's an issue in renoucing an individual's citizenship when he has no alternative citizenship. This might be one of the least important considerations in this discussion, but I thought I'd just point it out. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
What I don't get is why his status as a US citizen is important here. If he wasn't American, but still was living in a sovereign nation that refused to allow US forces to invade its space and kill him, wouldn't there still be the same issue? The US has done quite a lot of grey-zonish drone attacks in different countries, without the countries agreement, but somehow it doesn't really seem to be an issue. The concept that people who don't share your own nationality have less rights than you is sad and makes no sense but seems to be common practice among most countries. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
Maybe i just don't understand something here, but how can something be ok to do to someone who is not your citizen, but not ok if he is? I just don't think that nationality should be defining the rights a human has in the 21st century. Or are americans really better than other people, and there are situations where it is ok to kill someone, as long as they are not american, but as soon as the person in question is an american it is no longer ok? I would be very critical of a government killing ANYONE outside of its regular judicial process, no matter if he is german or not. But i guess we already had people who felt that people are more important based on their nationality here before. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:38 Simberto wrote: Consistent with what? Maybe i just don't understand something here, but how can something be ok to do to someone who is not your citizen, but not ok if he is? I just don't think that nationality should be defining the rights a human has in the 21st century. Or are americans really better than other people, and there are situations where it is ok to kill someone, as long as they are not american, but as soon as the person in question is an american it is no longer ok? I would be very critical of a government killing ANYONE outside of its regular judicial process, no matter if he is german or not. But i guess we already had people who felt that people are more important based on their nationality here before. There's your problem right there. Like it or not, rights are determined by nations and protected by nations. If America wants to afford additional rights to its citizenry, that it's business. The differential treatment has nothing to do with the relative superiority of its citizens; it's merely a function of the state to protect its people. Rights mean nothing if there's no one to enforce them. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Just wait till he visits some other AQ operative, bomb and declaring the guy collateral damage seems rather straight forward. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:47 xDaunt wrote: There's your problem right there. Like it or not, rights are determined by nations and protected by nations. If America wants to afford additional rights to its citizenry, that it's business. The differential treatment has nothing to do with the relative superiority of its citizens; it's merely a function of the state to protect its people. Rights mean nothing if there's no one to enforce them. But you know what the UN is, right? It's not like supranational agreements on human rights don't exist, just because the US ignores them occasionally. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:53 Derez wrote: But a handful of american citizens have already been killed by drone strikes, some as collateral damage and at least one directly targeted. Nobody really cared. Just wait till he visits some other AQ operative, bomb and declaring the guy collateral damage seems rather straight forward. The citizens they already killed were in Yemen which allows the US army to kill anyone whenever for any reason. The guy they wanna kill this time is somewhere where the army doesn't have such a free reign. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote: But you know what the UN is, right? It's not like supranational agreements on human rights don't exist, just because the US ignores them occasionally. You're not really going to place your faith in the UN to be the great guardian of universal human rights, are you? Do we really need to list all of the assclown nations that have been on the UN human rights committee or otherwise list the countless failures of the UN to do anything for persons having their rights violated? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:53 Derez wrote: But a handful of american citizens have already been killed by drone strikes, some as collateral damage and at least one directly targeted. Nobody really cared. Just wait till he visits some other AQ operative, bomb and declaring the guy collateral damage seems rather straight forward. people did care and the strike standard was tightened as a result | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:47 xDaunt wrote: There's your problem right there. Like it or not, rights are determined by nations and protected by nations. If America wants to afford additional rights to its citizenry, that it's business. The differential treatment has nothing to do with the relative superiority of its citizens; it's merely a function of the state to protect its people. Rights mean nothing if there's no one to enforce them. Yeah, i know that sadly that is how things work out in reality. I just find it weird that apparently there are people who actually embrace that thinking. I can accept that a government acts that way. I can not understand that people think that way. Thus, i simply can not understand why the american government apparently has to deal with a lot more internal fallout when killing american citizen with drone strikes, when compared to killing other people with drone strikes. Because that means that apparently there is a big group of people in america who thinks it is absolutely fine to kill people in other countries, as long as they are not americans. And the only way for that to make any sense is if those people think that americans are worth more than other people. Once again, i know that that is how this sadly works out in practice all the time. I just can not understand how someone can actually think that that is good, and not just something that you would rather not know about. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote: Don't confuse what some supranational organization purports to be and do with what it actually does and is capable of doing. It is the native country that will ultimately protect or fail to protect its citizen's rights through threat of force and allies willing to exert force on their behalf. It's member nations did remember to preserve their national rights during membership in the UN (and if they were smart, knew its relative impotence). UN's genocide convention put social and political groups as possibilities for genocides to be carried out against, the Soviets under Stalin made sure that the final definition excluded them ... to ensure Stalin would never be found guilty of genocide. All this talk on agreements and supranational laws remains diplomatic empty talk, with large helpings of self-congratulation, still dependent on sovereign nations taking action.But you know what the UN is, right? It's not like supranational agreements on human rights don't exist, just because the US ignores them occasionally. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote: But you know what the UN is, right? It's not like supranational agreements on human rights don't exist, just because the US ignores them occasionally. Actually, supranational agreements on human rights don't exist, you're thinking of international agreements on human rights, and the distinction is important. Heck, I'm not even sure you can call something that's supranational an "agreement" (more likely you'd call it a law). Maybe you can argue that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is jus cogens (more or less a norm that is above international law), but that's a very controvorsional opinion. Also, the UN is an international organization, not a supranational organization. The UN is not a world government and was never created to be one. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
