Penny Arcade Forums› Social Entropy++
The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

State of the Union 2013 - One Nation Under Cops

1…1517192021

Posts

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Kadith wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    When the President of the United States says,
    "Earlier this morning, Anwar al-Awlaki — a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — was killed in Yemen. The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate. Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010. And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.

    The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community, and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.

    Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology — and targeting of innocent civilians — has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, and people of all faiths. And he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a dangerous — though weakened — terrorist organization. And going forward, we will remain vigilant against any threats to the United States, or our allies and partners. But make no mistake: This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world."
    I do not worry about the individual being a harmless dissident. You can say, "you can't just trust the president and our representatives in congress", and that's fine.

    K, now what?

    Plus the fact that they still haven't shown any sort of proof that Awlaki had any sort of operational role at all.

    It's not like there's the happy fun time innocent wing of AlQaeda that showers embassies with puppies and rainbows and the extreme wing of AlQaeda branch that will stop at nothing to see our destruction. I feel like at a certain point with an organization such as this, whether or not you're in the operational branch kinda becomes moot. Hell, I remember a time when just being a member of a organization was proof of guilt. In fact we put people on trial for it.

    Key word.

    Trial.

    The trials in which there was no question whether or not they were part of the organization, merely what punishment was being assigned? Oh ok.

    whether this happened in the past is a shitty reason to continue it into the present

    Which is rather ironic considering it was the first war crimes trial that would set the basis for the future.

    like i'm not super familiar with Nuremberg and there's criticisms that it was ex post facto or victor's justice but i wasn't aware mere membership was guilt without at least some proof of bad acts or responsibility for some bad acts

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • KadithKadith Registered User regular
    Machwing wrote: »
    Habeas Corpus? Double Jeopardy? Labial Fricative?

    That last one probably.

    zkHcp.jpg
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. No.

    jkZziGc.png
  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

    it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

    the jury

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • MachwingMachwing It looks like a harmless old computer, doesn't it? Left in this cave to rot ... or to flower!Registered User regular
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine

    Number one: that's terror

    l3icwZV.png
  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    Buttlord on
  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    if you believe this then there's just a fundamental disagreement that i don't think i can reconcile

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • NVBNVB Registered User regular
    I would be willing to guess that they didnt even know Samir Kahn was there.

    If they did know and went after him as well purposly, Yeah. No Bueno.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    NVB wrote: »
    Fair point. I think was trying to say that they would make it as difficult to find out who ordered the strikes and who would be responsible. But at the end of the day the buck would have to stop at Obama.

    Unfortunately US presidents aren't held accountable by the US government for those things, and the US government would bomb the fuck out of anyone who tried to put them on trial for war crimes. Obama practically gave every war criminal from Dubya's regime a free pass when he became president and he was the best candidate in the general election.
    NVB wrote: »
    He wasn't a member of Al Qaeda and had no operational role. They have offered no evidence to counter this.

    Why would they? Doing so would risk exposure of US methods of Intel gathering, They would be hurting themselves more by putting that information out.

    Which is why America's accountability in government is terrible.
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" equals a life time stay in Casa Guantanamo Bay.

    Harry Dresden on
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    When the President of the United States says,
    "Earlier this morning, Anwar al-Awlaki — a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — was killed in Yemen. The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate. Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010. And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.

    The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community, and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.

    Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology — and targeting of innocent civilians — has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, and people of all faiths. And he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a dangerous — though weakened — terrorist organization. And going forward, we will remain vigilant against any threats to the United States, or our allies and partners. But make no mistake: This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world."
    I do not worry about the individual being a harmless dissident. You can say, "you can't just trust the president and our representatives in congress", and that's fine.

    K, now what?

    Plus the fact that they still haven't shown any sort of proof that Awlaki had any sort of operational role at all.

    It's not like there's the happy fun time innocent wing of AlQaeda that showers embassies with puppies and rainbows and the extreme wing of AlQaeda branch that will stop at nothing to see our destruction. I feel like at a certain point with an organization such as this, whether or not you're in the operational branch kinda becomes moot. Hell, I remember a time when just being a member of a organization was proof of guilt. In fact we put people on trial for it.

    Oh, is that what I suggested? That he was lecturing on Pixar films and shit? I have no illusions that he wished America well. He encouraged radical Islam and anti-American sentiment, but that's not the same thing as conspiring to murder someone. He might have also conspired on murder plots, but we don't have an establishing argument for that. We have ridiculously vague assertions from the president being taken at face value in direct contrast to the notion of putting someone on trial.

    Your response was 'k, now what?'. Son, I don't know what the hell you were suggesting based on that sentence alone.

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    openly acting terrorists

    Cite?

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    (but I could be wrong)

    Shorty on
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

    it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

    the jury

    So if a Yemeni court was to try him in absentia and find him guilty...

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    Well, yeah it definitely is. I believe everyone here is on the same page about that.

    jkZziGc.png
  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

    it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

    the jury

    So if a Yemeni court was to try him in absentia...

    did that happen? did the trial meet the due process standards of the U.S. Constitution?

    i'm not super familiar with all the facts

    Ubik on
    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    (but I could be wrong)

    i'm pretty sure he's saying the exact opposite of it, since he doesn't find it objectionable at all

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    When the President of the United States says,
    "Earlier this morning, Anwar al-Awlaki — a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — was killed in Yemen. The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate. Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010. And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.

    The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community, and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.

    Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology — and targeting of innocent civilians — has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, and people of all faiths. And he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a dangerous — though weakened — terrorist organization. And going forward, we will remain vigilant against any threats to the United States, or our allies and partners. But make no mistake: This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world."
    I do not worry about the individual being a harmless dissident. You can say, "you can't just trust the president and our representatives in congress", and that's fine.

    K, now what?

    Plus the fact that they still haven't shown any sort of proof that Awlaki had any sort of operational role at all.

    It's not like there's the happy fun time innocent wing of AlQaeda that showers embassies with puppies and rainbows and the extreme wing of AlQaeda branch that will stop at nothing to see our destruction. I feel like at a certain point with an organization such as this, whether or not you're in the operational branch kinda becomes moot. Hell, I remember a time when just being a member of a organization was proof of guilt. In fact we put people on trial for it.

    Oh, is that what I suggested? That he was lecturing on Pixar films and shit? I have no illusions that he wished America well. He encouraged radical Islam and anti-American sentiment, but that's not the same thing as conspiring to murder someone. He might have also conspired on murder plots, but we don't have an establishing argument for that. We have ridiculously vague assertions from the president being taken at face value in direct contrast to the notion of putting someone on trial.

    Your response was 'k, now what?'. Son, I don't know what the hell you were suggesting based on that sentence alone.

    That you can't just trust the president and congress to make the determination on the allegations listed. The exact thing I quoted. Not thinking there's been a substantial effort to prove his guilt doesn't mean I think he was a rad guy.

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    (but I could be wrong)

    i think he's saying exactly the opposite

    the strike was not objectionable even despite the fact that it was a US citizen

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    (but I could be wrong)

    i think he's saying exactly the opposite

    the strike was not objectionable even despite the fact that it was a US citizen

    okay yes upon a closer reading I'm going to have to agree with you

    unfuck your shit, virgil

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

    it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

    the jury

    So if a Yemeni court was to try him in absentia...

    did that happen? did the trial meet the due process standards of the U.S. Constitution?

    i'm not super familiar with all the facts

    He was Yemeni citizen as well and was processed by the courts of Yemen while he was hiding in the same country. He received due process as outlined by the Yemeni court system as any citizen of Yemen would receive. It was ordered by the presiding judge that he be apprehended "dead or alive".

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    yemen is the dream of the religious conservative gunowner made manifest

    just putting that out there

    Shorty on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    Harry Dresden wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    Harry Dresden wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    Ubik, lets not be needlessly snippy here.
    I was implying your legal interpretation of the constitution's definition of due process being satisfied.

    i'm not being snippy, my legal interpretation doesn't matter

    you said you "don't fault the military in using potentially shady ones in the vacancy of" a fair process enacted by Congress because Congress doesn't seem interested in enacting one

    i'm saying it doesn't matter whether Congress does or does not enact a process, the military can't go below the standards of Due Process because they are the government and the government is restricted by the Constitution

    you can absolutely fault the military

    I'm sorry for assuming you were being snippy.

    I think it does matter that Congress create modern solutions, "in line with the constitution", to very real severe problems.

    My second opinion is that I care first most about problems being solved, rather than, in this case, letting a man continue to send me death threats and plot my death, in a time when congress doesn't seem to care about making the legal way of solving problems surrounding it.

    The specific legality of the method of justice isn't my primary concern. Yes, make an obviously legal method, but I don't want the government to stop protecting me until people care to make it.
    You absolutely can choose to find fault with the military, but in this case, I don't.

    You want the military to be above the law?

    If it's to save my life, or the lives of my peers, maybe. These are things I value more than the law.

    The LAPD feel the same way. Do you approve of their actions? Can you imagine what the entire military would be like if they followed your example? If you don't care about the law, what are you fighting for? What's the point of being in the military if you're going to sacrifice accountability or ethics? The end justifies the means is a very slippery slope, and very dangerous in the hands of people with weapons and large resources.

    edit: I'm assuming you're in the American armed forces.

    I think it depends on the means and the ends. I could be confronted with a reality that my ethics are not of significant value. I can't say for sure how I'd make a decision regarding that.
    I don't know much about the recent LAPD. With regard to recent shootings, I think the means haven't justified the ends.
    That said, I think there is a difference in assassinating a terrorist hiding in a place devoid of our justice system, and police shooting up vans that look suspicious in the states.

    Here's a thread to catch you up on the LAPD's latest misadventures.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/173197/christopher-jordan-dorner-releases-manifesto/p1

  • TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    put some kind of warning on that link if you're going to link to D&D man

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    man the american government's been able to kill me without a trial for years

    play my twine game about dracula IF YOU DARE
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    yemen is the dream of the religious conservative gunowner made manifest

    just putting that out there

    Be that as it may, as a Yemeni citizen he was still subject to its laws and courts.

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    Crimson King wrote: »
    man the american government's been able to kill me without a trial for years

    It certainly slays me every time Boehner or McConnell open their mouths.

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Crimson King wrote: »
    man the american government's been able to kill me without a trial for years

    It certainly slays me every time Boehner or McConnell open their mouths.

    to be fair, Harry Reid is a piece of shit too

  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    Being a known member or associate of such an organization is not necessarily a crime in and of itself, let alone one that merits extralegal assassination.
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    He was Yemeni citizen as well and was processed by the courts of Yemen while he was hiding in the same country. He received due process as outlined by the Yemeni court system as any citizen of Yemen would receive. It was ordered by the presiding judge that he be apprehended "dead or alive".

    Since when does the US military operate under the orders of foreign courts?

    Steam
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Harry Reid isn't bad on the issues (at least compared to everyone else in Congress), but goddamn if he isn't either incredibly gullible or Kevin Spacey in House of Cards.

  • Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    I just can't get behind this argument that it was wrong for the government to go after al-Aulaqi because he was a US citizen. This is a guy who advocated a violent global jihad against his fellow Americans for years, and I can't say I'm particularly upset that he can no longer do so.

    I agree that the policy on "military combatants" is ridiculously broad, and that several aspects of Obama's drone policy require some serious revision, including the parts about US citizens being considered fair targets. But I honestly can't agree that al-Aulaqi deserved a fair trial in a US court; you don't get to spend years advocating violence against unarmed civilians, then claim you still have the same rights as the people you waged jihad against.

    Was the drone strike a step too far? Yes. Were there alternatives that should have been considered? Yes. Did he deserve a trial run by the government he spent years trying to destroy? Absolutely not.

    (Again, please don't eviscerate me.)

    [IMG][/img]
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Shorty wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Crimson King wrote: »
    man the american government's been able to kill me without a trial for years

    It certainly slays me every time Boehner or McConnell open their mouths.

    to be fair, Harry Reid is a piece of shit too

    True. It's just the last thing I read today was from them regarding minimum wage hikes and how "[Obama] spoke of workers' minimum wages, instead of their maximum potential" which is the biggest bullshit spin I've ever heard for not giving people an additional 1.75 an hour.

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Proud Father House GardenerRegistered User regular
    Aneurhythmia wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    openly acting terrorists

    Cite?

    I'll direct you to CASE NO. 2:10-cr-20005
    also
    an article I remember reading.

    http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2480.htm

    VayBJ4e.png
  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    The Otaku Suppository wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

    So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

    i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

    it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

    the jury

    So if a Yemeni court was to try him in absentia...

    did that happen? did the trial meet the due process standards of the U.S. Constitution?

    i'm not super familiar with all the facts

    He was Yemeni citizen as well and was processed by the courts of Yemen while he was hiding in the same country. He received due process as outlined by the Yemeni court system as any citizen of Yemen would receive. It was ordered by the presiding judge that he be apprehended "dead or alive".

    following the procedure of another country doesn't relieve the U.S. government of following the requirements of the U.S. Constitution regarding U.S. citizens

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • interrobanginterrobang ｋａｗａｉｉ ａｓ  ｈｅｌｌRegistered User regular
    Romanian My Escutcheon wrote: »
    I just can't get behind this argument that it was wrong for the government to go after al-Aulaqi because he was a US citizen. This is a guy who advocated a violent global jihad against his fellow Americans for years, and I can't say I'm particularly upset that he can no longer do so.

    I agree that the policy on "military combatants" is ridiculously broad, and that several aspects of Obama's drone policy require some serious revision, including the parts about US citizens being considered fair targets. But I honestly can't agree that al-Aulaqi deserved a fair trial in a US court; you don't get to spend years advocating violence against unarmed civilians, then claim you still have the same rights as the people you waged jihad against.

    Was the drone strike a step too far? Yes. Were there alternatives that should have been considered? Yes. Did he deserve a trial run by the government he spent years trying to destroy? Absolutely not.

    (Again, please don't eviscerate me.)

    yes. he did.

    g8QZpbT.png
    tumblr | instagram | twitter | steam
  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Romanian My Escutcheon wrote: »
    Did he deserve a trial run by the government he spent years trying to destroy? Absolutely not.

    it is literally a right afforded to him as an american

    suspending that right and saying "no it's cool he was Super Bad we don't need to try him just shoot him with a robot rocket" is not a good thing

  • AvrahamAvraham Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Buttlord wrote: »
    Virgil_Leads_You wrote: »
    I don't want to give the impression that I give full support for any and all military attacks.
    I saw the video of the U.S. Airstrike that killed a Reuters cameraman and assistant. I read about the horrors of civilians killed in weddings and gatherings in Pakistan. I agree that overall policy have left too many innocents wrongfully killed.

    Blowing up a truck housing Awlaki and Samir Khan, an American who edited Al-Qaida’s Internet magazine, isn't the morally outrageous strike to get upset about. I can see just cause in that strike against openly acting terrorists. If anyone's beef is that those who died are U.S. citizen, I would think that you place too much value in nationality.

    Awlaki's 16 year old son, and the 8 Yemani youths killed by a drone hitting a moonlight party, would be a better example for the need for change in the drone program.

    edit, looks like some folks are on the right track.

    see here's the thing

    in america, we have this thing where we don't execute people without a trial

    as an american citizen this is your right. you have the right to not be killed by the government without a trial

    the fact that that right no longer applies is goddamn terrifying

    I think the point virgil is trying to make is that this should be objectionable independently of the citizenship status of the victims

    because if that is the objection, it's essentially the same as saying that it's fine for the US government to carry out executions without trial--as long as the victims aren't Americans

    which is pretty fucking problematic

    (but I could be wrong)

    Which is why the idea of an endless war on a global battlefield is bullshit

    :bz: :bz: :bzz:
  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    Romanian My Escutcheon wrote: »
    I just can't get behind this argument that it was wrong for the government to go after al-Aulaqi because he was a US citizen. This is a guy who advocated a violent global jihad against his fellow Americans for years, and I can't say I'm particularly upset that he can no longer do so.

    I agree that the policy on "military combatants" is ridiculously broad, and that several aspects of Obama's drone policy require some serious revision, including the parts about US citizens being considered fair targets. But I honestly can't agree that al-Aulaqi deserved a fair trial in a US court; you don't get to spend years advocating violence against unarmed civilians, then claim you still have the same rights as the people you waged jihad against.

    Was the drone strike a step too far? Yes. Were there alternatives that should have been considered? Yes. Did he deserve a trial run by the government he spent years trying to destroy? Absolutely not.

    (Again, please don't eviscerate me.)

    Wow.

    jkZziGc.png
  • Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    interrobang wrote: »
    Romanian My Escutcheon wrote: »
    I just can't get behind this argument that it was wrong for the government to go after al-Aulaqi because he was a US citizen. This is a guy who advocated a violent global jihad against his fellow Americans for years, and I can't say I'm particularly upset that he can no longer do so.

    I agree that the policy on "military combatants" is ridiculously broad, and that several aspects of Obama's drone policy require some serious revision, including the parts about US citizens being considered fair targets. But I honestly can't agree that al-Aulaqi deserved a fair trial in a US court; you don't get to spend years advocating violence against unarmed civilians, then claim you still have the same rights as the people you waged jihad against.

    Was the drone strike a step too far? Yes. Were there alternatives that should have been considered? Yes. Did he deserve a trial run by the government he spent years trying to destroy? Absolutely not.

    (Again, please don't eviscerate me.)

    yes. he did.

    Why, though?

    He didn't hesitate to join a group dedicated to specifically committing acts of terror against American citizens, and he spent years trying to overthrow the government.

    How come he gets to turn around and claim he's protected the same rights as the people he attacked because he was lucky enough to be born in the US?

    [IMG][/img]
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    Brian Krakow wrote: »
    Harry Reid isn't bad on the issues (at least compared to everyone else in Congress), but goddamn if he isn't either incredibly gullible or Kevin Spacey in House of Cards.

    meaning, he pays the requisite lip service to democratic causes?

    he's a sackless, craven beltway hack who only gives a fuck about maintaining power for its own sake

This discussion has been closed.
Penny Arcade Forums› Social Entropy++