Tan Suit (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/mop
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 1 day ago (24 children)

It's it important, legal concept of imminence. It's self-defense if somebody points a gun at you, and you kill them in response. It's murder if you go to somebody's house, find them, and kill them because they hang out with bad dudes.

The al-Awlaki case was more like the latter example. He was accused of being a propagandist for al-Qaeda. He had not taken up arms, he had not engaged in violence, and any threat he posed was not imminent.

Moreover, the Obama administration recognized this, and argued that the President's assessment constituted due process of law, without the courts. Practically speaking, it means that the President can charge, try, and carry out the sentence of death, and there's no responsibility on anyone's part to prove that it was justified.

The upshot is that, for example, the President can now say that you're an "antifa terrorist," and execute you, even if all you did was post a meme mocking Hegseth, and you have no recourse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (23 children)

    At a certain point, things turn into a war where it's impossible to go ask politely to turn themselves in.

    If you 'hang out' with a group that's at war with the US, and not in your 'posting memes' sense but in the kinda more serious 'multiple bomb attacks' sense, yeah then you run the risk of not getting the full judicial process

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Gah, I keep forgetting how hard abstract thinking is. In more concrete terms: President Obama accused Anwar al-Awlaki of being affiliated with al-Qaeda. We don't actually know if that was true. The administration never had to prove it in court; it just killed him.

    The reason that we have due process of law, and courts, is to protect the innocent. Forget memes, that was just an example. Under the precedent set by Obama, the President can convict you of any crime just by saying so. You and I could be affiliated with al-Qaeda, and threaten national security. Period. Don't bother to deny it, you are a terrorist, and there's nobody and no process to hear your denial. No lawyers, no court, no appeals. If the President said so, so it is.

    And that's dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (5 children)

    We pretty much know that he was though - he posted the videos himself. It's pretty naive to think that only a court could 'actually' decide on that.

    And do you have the same concern for the tens of thousands other (alleged) Al Qaeda members they bombed? Or the tens of thousands (alleged) ISIS members they bombed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

    So it would've been really easy to prove the case in court. That's not an excuse not to have a trial. They knew where he was (to drone strike him), they could've tried to arrest him. Hell, there's even the concept of trial in absentia. Killing anybody and saying that the President's say-so is all the process that due is exactly what kings do, and what the American Revolution was about.

    And, yes, I do have a problem with the way that many other cases were handled. We're well down the slippy slope to a place where the man in charge can blow up boats in the Caribbean without evidence or trial, solely on his (dubious) claim that they're drug-runners.

    So, fuck-you very much, Obama.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (3 children)

    Lol the American revolution was about taxes. If it was about not having an all powerful king-like figure at the top, that constitution would have came out a little bit different...

    If you're fighting a war against an org like Al Qaeda, where you have to kill tens of thousands of people, it's completely ridiculous to go through the courts for each one. It might be ideal, but it's not possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    That is an oversimplification of the causes of the Revolution. Anyway, I thought you seemed to be seeking to understand why people were upset about the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, but it appears that I was incorrect. In short, it's about trashing legal doctrines that slowly developed over nearly a thousand years in order to protect individual rights, and tearing down "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" that's supposedly a bedrock principle of justice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (1 child)

    You were incorrect in the sense that I already knew why, it's just that I'm laughing at them.

    They were/are dronestriking thousands per year but this guy was exceptional. Because he popped out of a vagina on sacred US soil he should have gotten a pass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    Would you be in favor of the reverse? Other countries coming to the US and just fucking bombing your house because your an American and maybe you went on a date with a soldier one time? It's pretty easy to make this argument when you have the biggest gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (9 children)

    Are you saying they bombed him because he went on a date with a soldier?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (8 children)

    No it was an example of having some random meaningless connection to a terrorist. A US soldier is the terrorist in this example. They drone striked people for essentially having some social connection to someone else they thought was a terrorist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (7 children)

    Some social connection? They were living with them and posting jihadist recruiting videos

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

    So then let's copy that exactly. Someone is an American who lives with a US soldier and posts tiktoks about the US Army. Is it ok to drone strike them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    The same sort of propaganda that would be in jihadist videos but from the other side. Trying to recruit young americans to join and go kill americas enemies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (3 children)

    So telling them god wants them to go kill civilians?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    yeah basically thats what the US military does so very accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (1 child)

    Well if he's saying they should join the US army because god wants them to go kill innocents, sure, I'll pilot the drone myself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago* (1 child)

    How does a judicial system establish that you hang out with a group that's at war with the US without the full judicial process? What's stopping them from deciding you hang out with a group that's at war with the US?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)