Comments

Load 25 of 200 older comments
  • The Trump Administration's position on Black Lives Matter is that it's perfectly ok for cops to kill people, at least Black people and leftists.  So no, this one won't get charged during the Trump Administration. If Biden wins, that will probably change.

    However, I'm disappointed that Lieu and Rice, both of whom were elected in 2014, didn't call for investigating Obama's extrajudicial murders of Americans, specifically Anwar Al-Awlaki and his kid, who Obama had killed by drones.  Trump whines about "Obamagate", while ignoring those murders, and the whole GOP whined about Benghazi, while not impeaching Obama for his unconstitutional war against Libya.  (Politically, the latter move was effective; it helped their then-future candidate beat Hillary, even though they kept finding nothing.)
  • Roshamon: Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.

    Trump would be Sauron, but only if Sauron was a big, angry, flaming-orange vagina


    Wtf man. Why would you insult vaginas like that? Vaginas are nice.
  • This must be investigated.  In all other instances, after any death during an apprehension the rule is "Pay me now or pay me later".   The FULL story must be brought to light, reviewed, and assessed by the officers' superiors and the legal authorities who authorized the event before the books can close. A blank page in the record only invites a later investigation.  That one might be only six feet wide but it will be guaranteed to dig down a mile deep. Without this kind of accountability, what is there to ever distinguish what they're calling an "extrajudicial killing" from a murder or a lynching?
  • AllCatsAreBeautiful: Duh. Everyone knew this was a targeted assassination of an American citizen, on American soil, by the Feds. They were never going to arrest him and grant him due process in a criminal court.
    /I'm just surprised they didn't drone him instead.


    This.

    Along with the secret police taking people off the street into unmarked vans in Portland now apparently under trump DHS has moved into death squad territory.

    I guess with a larger agency that ominously has the word "Homeland " in it it was inevitable before it would devolve into authoritarian practices.
  • smunns: I guess whatever they have to do to derail an election is fair game for those people.


    The uS Marshals are trying to derail the election?
  • GummyBearOverlord: orbister:

    "Gramps was consistent in his opposition to killing people"#

    "Good old Gramps"

    I can live with that.

    I will admit I jumped to a conclusion.  Did you vote for Trump?


    I'm in the UK, so I didn't even get a chance not to do so. I'm a socialist (and a pacifist) so if the opportunity had arisen I would have voted for Bernie Sanders.

    I am wholly opposed to state killing, in part because once you concede (one concedes, not you personally) that it's OK for a good guy like Obama to have a bad guy like bin Laden killed, the issue has become one of who counts as good and who counts as bad and my view of that might not match, to take an example at random, Vladimir Putin's.

    Same with capital punishment. The state should never, ever, be in the business of killing us the people, even for very, very bad members of us the people because we never known who might one day be writing the definition of "very, very bad".
  • g.fro: orbister: Peter von Nostrand: So no, enemies of the US that have declared war and propagated war like attacks against the US and are not US citizens tend not to get afforded some rights. Nor do Americans that cooperate and complicit with enemies and are operating as an enemy of the US in foreign lands.

    Even the USA has signed up to the Geneva Convention.

    I must have missed the part in the Geneva Conventions which required a trial before one could kill the enemy. Do you have a reference handy?


    There's a bit about declarations of war and another bit about treatment of prisoners. Are you quite sure that you want to go down the road of summary execution for perceived enemies of the state?
  • Albert911emt: Everything Trump touches dies or is corrupted.


    Then why haven't Arianne Zucker's and Nancy O'Dell's coochies appeared on The Walking Dead?
  • orbister: ...

    There's a bit about declarations of war and another bit about treatment of prisoners. Are you quite sure that you want to go down the road of summary execution for perceived enemies of the state?


    Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?

    As for killing enemies of the state: what do you think war is?
  • Sounds like more made up nonsense to deflect from the Hunter laptop info
  • g.fro: Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?


    The first one. Article 2.

    Signatories are really not allowed to go around killing at will and then saying "We did a double secret declaration of war", which explains why the US is disliked so much around the world.
  • orbister: g.fro: Which of the four Geneva Conventions covers declarations of war?

    The first one. Article 2.

    Signatories are really not allowed to go around killing at will and then saying "We did a double secret declaration of war", which explains why the US is disliked so much around the world.


    Article 2

    "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

    It says nothing about declarations of war being required, and even acknowledges that undeclared wars or conflicts are still covered.
  • g.fro: It says nothing about declarations of war being required, and even acknowledges that undeclared wars or conflicts are still covered.


    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'
  • orbister: ...

    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'


    WTF are you talking about? How is that my position?

    My position is that in war, you kill your enemies. I never said the USA doesn't have to follow the rules; I'm saying the USA didn't break the rules.

    Oh, and just as further proof you don't know what you are talking about, the conflict with Al Qaeda was declared.
    Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001
  • g.fro: orbister: ...

    Exactly, so your position that America can do anything it likes as long as it hasn't actually declared war is nonsense'

    WTF are you talking about? How is that my position?

    My position is that in war, you kill your enemies. I never said the USA doesn't have to follow the rules; I'm saying the USA didn't break the rules.

    Oh, and just as further proof you don't know what you are talking about, the conflict with Al Qaeda was declared.
    Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001


    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona
  • MBooda: ...

    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona


    There is nothing to quibble about: from the perspective of international law, there is no difference. Sorry if you have trouble with that fact.
  • g.fro: MBooda: ...

    Great, now we get to quibble about whether an "authorization for use of military force" is the same thing as a "declaration of conflict" or a "declaration of war."

    /sorry, gotta run, i'm gonna hand out speeding tickets at daytona

    There is nothing to quibble about: from the perspective of international law, there is no difference. Sorry if you have trouble with that fact.


    Thanks. So, how are things going in your judicial chambers at The Hague?
  • MBooda: ...

    Thanks. So, how are things going in your judicial chambers at The Hague?


    If you don't have anything to say in rebuttal, why say anything?
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.