91–100 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens And if they weren't?
How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or shooting at you.
I think many here anyway can agree that Guantanomo Bay needs to be shutdown, but obviously won't be. What if later down the line we need to decide that the power has gotten out of control(if it hasn't already) and needs to be shut down. But can't because the terrorists win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens And if they weren't?
It feels like this is one of those polarizing issues where each side is too scared to admit advantages of a different point of view in case they lose some ground. Everyone takes an extreme view for/against, the debate doesn't address the finer points of reality, and no one changes their mind or comes to more reasonable compromises.
Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The…
Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
BTW, are you a secret muslim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
I don't know the global stats, but in Europe, 0.5% of terrorist attacks are committed by people who identify as Muslim. Christians and atheists commit way more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
That still doesn't define who they are. Are you one of these terrorists? Am I? It maybe helps justify the US' actions, but as far as "undefined and secret enemy" it is only one step further than saying "Who are we targeting? The... bad guys!"
--1894
For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man,…
Where is the press, where are the protesters? Its not hard to understand why it does not change. Its sad that criticism can be blunted by the fear of being labeled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity. I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It can be a slippery slope". (A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C) zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who are ordering the killings can be a slippery slope? That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have slid all the way down.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.
Nothing fucking happens, just look at the data of how many innocent people including children drone strikes have taken. Why doesn't this have any weight in anything? Oh, I know, all the flashlight is always just pointed at any nutter in your country that managed to get a 3 to 5 bodycount or wathever and spin the shit out of this mess as to justify what you do. No wonder there's people plotting against you.