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
[–] 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (8 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (7 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago* (6 children)

    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.

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

    If you get stormed by 10 Al Qaeda freedom fighters and one is a US citizen, do you try to shoot that one in the leg to allow him his fair day in court?

    Or do you spray all ten of them left to right and then left again because, you know, that's what you do in a war

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 59 minutes ago (1 child)

    The thing is, he wasn't the first US citizen to be killed by the US government. It's just that in times prior to this the government had to provide credible evidence that the person was an immediate threat.

    The Obama administration refused to elaborate on why they considered this person as an immediate threat. They just labeled him a terrorist and then sent the drone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

    I would simply not get stormed by 10 Al Qaida freedom fighters by not going to their country in the first place.

    Also, can we just take a moment to appreciate how wildly you're distorting this? He was not killed "storming" someone with 9 other people. There was no physical danger. He was killed by an unmanned drone, by someone probably sitting in an air conditioned room on the other side of the world. And this was in Yemen, a country we weren't even at war with. So when you say, "that's what you do in war," apparently, it's also what you think we should do in peace.

    What would you say if Yemen launched a drone strike in the US, claiming that the US was harboring a terrorist? That cool with you? Is that just "what you do in not-war?"

    Completely ridiculous. What you're saying right now is exactly what actual authoritarianism looks like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 34 minutes ago (1 child)

    He was calling for people to attack US civilians. Does that sound peaceful to you? Would it have sounded peaceful to Obama?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 minutes ago*

    Motherfucker, did you hear how many people were talking about attacking civilians in the Middle East across the US during that period? How many Americans talked about nuking the Middle East, turning the sand to glass, exterminating the entire region? Do you think that sounded peaceful to them? Do you think, then, that Al Qaida was justified in attacking civilian targets if said civilian had said something like that? If that's what it takes, the majority of the US population are valid military targets. What a load of nonsense.

    But no, it only goes one way. The US can set the rules that everyone else in the world has to obey. The US doesn't have to obey anybody else's rules. Why? Because the US has power and authority. Authority that you believe in asserting over the entire rest of the world. Because you are an imperialist.

    That's not even mentioning the fact that you completely ignored my entire argument. Even if it was justified to kill him in this case, it still involved giving the executive unilateral power to execute any person anywhere in the world, with zero oversight or accountability. Either you believe the executive should have that power, or you don't. You don't get to support it having that power only in the cases where you agree with the decisions the executive made. If you think you should have some say over such decisions, then you should support those decisions being democratically accountable.

  • source
  • parent