|
On February 07 2013 08:25 Brawny wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:18 3772 wrote:
Laws of war? Fuck that. Everyone has a right to due process, despite any bullshit any government might be trying to push. You sound like typical patriotic bigot (yes, I use patriot as an insult, since it's just sugar coated nationalist). Everyone has a right to due process? Alright, every time a soldier wants to shoot the guy pointing a gun at him, we need to gather up all the witnesses, the guns and anyone involved and pack inside a courtroom and review whether or not the man is guilty. Do you see what's wrong with this?
You don't see the difference between a soldier fighting in war under fire and drones firing rockets into cities and villages in Pakistan that there isn't a war raging to get "terrorists" without due process?
Okay then...
This is something I read to today that fits a bit I guess...
http://listverse.com/2013/02/06/10-ways-the-government-is-killing-you/
There is some pretty brutal stuff the US Gov't has been involved in
|
I thought this was about a big brother state? Now we're talking about drone strikes on American citizens in foreign countries?
I don't know how much a drone strike cost but I would hope the target is worth the millions it costs.
The "war terror" changed the rules, hell Obama realized this when he took office. He's foreign policy on this subject isn't all that different from Bush.
|
the USA has been heading in this direction for a long long time.
one of the earliest deep thinkers in this area was Leondard Piekoff.
His book "The Ominous Parallels" brings up some interesting themes and ideas which later turned out to be true.
|
This sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. Check out COINTELPRO.
|
|
|
On February 07 2013 02:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:03 cydial wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes? There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries. Isn't it normal to use the word allegedly before the jury returns a guilty verdict. The US citizens were the ones allegedly involved in terrorist activities before they were killed by the state. And I think there aren't checks is because he says there aren't, he claims the right to do it by his own power.
So he can in theory just call in a drone strike to someone in the US even? Or anyone outside the US that's a US citizen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
