327
Tan Suit (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/mop
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

I always find it interesting that using drone strikes on an objectively evil group (in this case Al Qaeda) gets so many panties get knotted…

I'm so glad that we'll always be able to trust the president to unilaterally decide which groups are evil and to use his power in the interests of the people.

I mean, can you imagine what would've happened if some bad actor got in and used those sorts of things for precedent? Like, what if a Republican president had got in and decided to, I don't know, accuse random Venezuelan fishing boats of being "narco-terrorists," and used the exact same power to kill them for sport? Just spitballing here.

But I mean, what are the odds of that, right? Surely we can trust the United States president with the power to be judge, jury, and executioner for the entire globe. This is a very sane and reasonable position, and I just can't understand why anyone would get their panties in a knot over it.

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

    Well I see a clear distinctinction between striking an Al Qaeda group and those fishing boats, for one. Maybe get them to explain themselves and if wrong impeach and put them in prison?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

    Explain themselves? Impeachment? Prison? Is that a joke?

    The reason you don't understand the backlash is because you don't understand how this works.

    Those were things that were at least theoretically possible in the pre-9/11 system. What Bush changed and Obama continued, was making it into a system with zero accountability. All the executive has to do is claim that they think someone's a terrorist, there is no court, no evidence required, no higher authority they answer to or that could hold them accountable. One, single person has total and complete authority to kill anyone in the world. And what al-Awlaki showed is that this applies even to US citizens.

    Theoretically, if Trump wanted to, he could launch a drone strike on Ilhan Omar's house and the only obstacle would be the political backlash. Y'all simply do not appreciate the degree to which the executive acquired dictatorial power in the "post-9/11 world." Bush was just Trump but with literally 90% of the country supporting him. Trump has only gone further because of the groundwork Bush laid. The "emergency" powers from post 9/11 are still in place, they were never going away.

    The president can ride his bike with no handlebars.

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

    I do and I certainly agree that the US should dispose of this ridiculous system

    But I don't think the al-Awlaki case is a good one to use as an example because he so clearly was a 'good shoot'. Better to use examples like the one you cited

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    Al-Awlaki is cited because he was the first US citizen to be targeted under the policy. The criticism isn't about whether he was guilty or innocent, it's about the flagrant disregard for due process.

    It's important to talk about cases like that precisely in order to confront the brainworms of, "He was probably a terrorist so who cares?" That mentality is precisely what got us here and it's impossible to fix the problem without firmly rejecting that way of thinking.

    You don't get to give the government permission to ignore due process in some cases and not in others. That's not how laws or systems work. Either they have to follow the process even when you personally think the person is guilty, or they can ignore the process even when you think the person is innocent. Once you've given the executive the power to make the decision unilaterally, you don't get to challenge that decision. Because that what having the power to make a decision unilaterally means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent