| 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 07:24 Paljas wrote: breaking news, the usa doesnt give a fuck about human rights In fairness, we care more than most and we do actually put our money where our mouth is from time to time rather than just give lip service to the idea like oh so many European countries. | ||
KwarK
United States44295 Posts
On February 11 2014 07:27 xDaunt wrote: In fairness, we care more than most and we do actually put our money where our mouth is from time to time rather than just give lip service to the idea like oh so many European countries. Oh please. You forced a decent proportion of your black population into camps where they are forced to work for private companies without compensation. No country is perfect but you're gonna have to look further afield than western Europe to find a country that has a worse current record. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 11 2014 07:19 Sbrubbles wrote: 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. Semantics aside, the essence of it is that we already have international laws, and I think it's a good thing. Every person, no matter what country that person belongs to or resides in should have the same rights. Especially the right to a fair trial in case of the mentioned terrorist suspect. I think that an Orwellian level of language bending is at work at how the US utilizes the word 'war'. War on terrorism , on drugs, and don't forget Christmas. A war at it's core is an armed conflict between two nations, fought by armies. Using drones to kill people living in caves isn't a war, that's just an assassination. And ironically when countries are going to war, it's not considered war. In that case it's a 'no boots on the ground mission' or something along those lines. In fairness, we care more than most... In over 30 states the death penalty is still legal if I'm not mistaken, which is a direct violation of the Declaration of Human rights, how exactly does the USA 'care the most'? | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 11 2014 07:31 KwarK wrote: Oh please. You forced a decent proportion of your black population into camps where they are forced to work for private companies without compensation. No country is perfect but you're gonna have to look further afield than western Europe to find a country that has a worse current record. they are compensated. and then the majority of their compensation is used to pay for their room and board. CAPITALISM! | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44295 Posts
On February 11 2014 08:47 zlefin wrote: what I don't get, is how the guy's conduct isn't just plain treason. I mean, working for al Qaeda and planning attacks on americans sounds like pretty straight-forward treason to me, though I haven't read the exact wording of it in the constitution lately. The problem is how to get to him. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On February 11 2014 08:59 zlefin wrote: If he's a traitor, what's wrong with sending the CIA in to do the job? Americans have certain rights that we expect the government to honor. One of those being not assassinated by the government without a trial and due process and that. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
If we had cops around to arrest him then we wouldn't need the drone. But we don't have that option. And waiting for his AQ projects to come to fruition isn't acceptable. Again, the options lead straight to drone. Perhaps we could demand his surrender and that he stop the AQ projects and also offer the ability of a peaceful surrender. But I seriously doubt the peaceful surrender option would go anywhere. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:03 MstrJinbo wrote: Americans have certain rights that we expect the government to honor. One of those being not assassinated by the government without a trial and due process and that. Certain actions are considered as renunciation of citizenship, not just an official document. When your citizenship is gone, there is more leeway when it comes to your constitutional right to a trial and being faced by your accusers. Edit: I'm trying to find the source. I'm fairly certain this is true, but don't take my word for it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44295 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:03 MstrJinbo wrote: Americans have certain rights that we expect the government to honor. One of those being not assassinated by the government without a trial and due process and that. Oddly enough in this case apparently you have the right to executed by the army but not the CIA. | ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:05 Introvert wrote: Certain actions are considered as renunciation of citizenship, not just an official document. When your citizenship is gone, there is more leeway when it comes to your constitutional right to a trial and being faced by your accusers. Edit: I'm trying to find the source. I'm fairly certain this is true, but don't take my word for it. Renouncing you citizenship doesn't waive your right to due process. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:16 MstrJinbo wrote: Renouncing you citizenship doesn't waive your right to due process. I believe in certain circumstances it does. This was a really big debate sometime last year, I just wish I could find the sources I'm looking for. If you are engaged in hostile military activity then you have waived the right to due process. However, if you are a terrorist fundraiser just sitting in a coffee shop on American soil, then you still have that right. This was a big debate last time Obama used a drone on a citizen, I think it was last summer? The grey area is what constitutes as bad enough activity to bring about such a situation. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:03 MstrJinbo wrote: Americans have certain rights that we expect the government to honor. One of those being not assassinated by the government without a trial and due process and that. I disagree. If they're not on our soil, and the nation who's soil they are on is unable or unwilling to extradite; and there is an ongoing threat, Then I don't think there's a legal issue really. Is the individual given any notice in the past? I suppose there might be an issue there, but if an individual is given notice, and fails to surrender themselves, I don't see a problem. I don't see a reason to treat this American any differently than any other Al Qaeda member. Or just hold a trial in absentia. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:05 Introvert wrote: Certain actions are considered as renunciation of citizenship, not just an official document. When your citizenship is gone, there is more leeway when it comes to your constitutional right to a trial and being faced by your accusers. Edit: I'm trying to find the source. I'm fairly certain this is true, but don't take my word for it. I think renouncing citizenship is a specific legal act and the government woul want to keep it that way so they can continue using treason laws. (Because if by just virtue of an act you 'renounce' American citizenship you can no longer be considered a traitor, just a foreign spy, which cuts down on the number of things you can be prosecuted with.) What I think you are thinking of is that certain activities -- even by US citizens -- cause such an imminent danger to other US citizens that due process does not apply. Which goes into your debate of what exactly is imminent danger. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:24 Sub40APM wrote: I think renouncing citizenship is a specific legal act and the government woul want to keep it that way so they can continue using treason laws. (Because if by just virtue of an act you 'renounce' American citizenship you can no longer be considered a traitor, just a foreign spy, which cuts down on the number of things you can be prosecuted with.) What I think you are thinking of is that certain activities -- even by US citizens -- cause such an imminent danger to other US citizens that due process does not apply. Which goes into your debate of what exactly is imminent danger. I believe there are now laws on the books that consider certain actions as, at the very least, expressing intent to renounce citizenship. If they do that, then action can be taken more quickly than coming to a determination on treason. I think it's reserved for extreme circumstances, where you don't plan on bringing him to trial anyway. It's basically a way for the government to more easily act. If it feels that it would rather put you on trial, it can still do that. But if you are serving as an officer voluntarily in a foreign militarily force, then you have lost/renounced citizenship. Same as if you are engaged in military action in a force at war with the US. With that in mind, the only concern I would have would be the political ramifications of action on foreign soil. http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/18/terrorism-citizenship-constitution-politics-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html | ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:24 zlefin wrote: I disagree. If they're not on our soil, and the nation who's soil they are on is unable or unwilling to extradite; and there is an ongoing threat, Then I don't think there's a legal issue really. Is the individual given any notice in the past? I suppose there might be an issue there, but if an individual is given notice, and fails to surrender themselves, I don't see a problem. I don't see a reason to treat this American any differently than any other Al Qaeda member. Or just hold a trial in absentia. So let's throw out a hypothetical. We take in a North Korean separatist. We refuse to extradite him to North Korea. So North Korea is totally within their rights to try him in absentia, and kill him in a drone strike in a Burger King parking lot so long as they gave notice that he needs to turn himself in? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44295 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:35 MstrJinbo wrote: So let's throw out a hypothetical. We take in a North Korean separatist. We refuse to extradite him to North Korea. So North Korea is totally within their rights to try him in absentia, and kill him in a drone strike in a Burger King parking lot so long as they gave notice that he needs to turn himself in? Doing so would be a violation of US sovereignty and grounds for war. That's the problem the US is having right now. The debate over whether or not they can legally kill citizens is already done and answered. The problem now is how to do it when the host country doesn't want you to without causing diplomatic bullshit. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
More on point though, hypotheticals aren't so useful in describing or understanding military/foreign conduct, particularly when it comes to the US. Much of our most controversial actions abroad are practically impossible to reciprocate on the part of other nations. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
|
EPT
