5 ms·

Shouldn’t you explain what he did that qualified as treason under US law?

monocasa 6y ago
Or, if it's so incredibly obvious, why can't he be tried and sentenced by the normal process of law? "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area. That only would seem to follow if the argument was that we couldn't get him by a drone strike, which obviously is not the argument, as drone strikes don't really do a good job of hauling people before a court.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    If we can indiscriminately bomb 10s of thousands of civilians in the area, we can drop down a helicopter to pick him up.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      No, the whole reasons for a drone war is that drones work very well in conditions where you can't safely land people on the ground to do things, or even operate manned aircraft without unreasonable risk of losses.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. If the question is politics: we're nearing 100k Yemeni civilians dead, they won't say no, and won't have the choice anyway.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. Air superiority, or even air supremacy, doesn't make putting feet on the ground safe.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. No, taking unnecessary risks to do things that aren't legally required for enemies in war is kind of the opposite of the point of being a soldier. > If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution The Constitution doesn't require the government to take any special restraint in war when someone fighting on the other side is a US citizen. There may be a good argument that the law ought to given the realities of modern war, sure. And that's a debate we should have.
sonotathrowaway 6y ago
His arrested conspirators alleged under FBI questioning that he coordinated terrorist attacks. Working for a designated terrorist organization to commit terrorism is a crime in the United States, because terrorism is a crime.

Or, if it's so incredibly obvious, why can't he be tried and sentenced by the normal process of law? "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area. That only would seem to follow if the argument was that we couldn't get him by a drone strike, which obviously is not the argument, as drone strikes don't really do a good job of hauling people before a court.
- monocasa 6y ago
  If we can indiscriminately bomb 10s of thousands of civilians in the area, we can drop down a helicopter to pick him up.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    No, the whole reasons for a drone war is that drones work very well in conditions where you can't safely land people on the ground to do things, or even operate manned aircraft without unreasonable risk of losses.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. If the question is politics: we're nearing 100k Yemeni civilians dead, they won't say no, and won't have the choice anyway.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. Air superiority, or even air supremacy, doesn't make putting feet on the ground safe.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. No, taking unnecessary risks to do things that aren't legally required for enemies in war is kind of the opposite of the point of being a soldier. > If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution The Constitution doesn't require the government to take any special restraint in war when someone fighting on the other side is a US citizen. There may be a good argument that the law ought to given the realities of modern war, sure. And that's a debate we should have.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago

His arrested conspirators alleged under FBI questioning that he coordinated terrorist attacks. Working for a designated terrorist organization to commit terrorism is a crime in the United States, because terrorism is a crime.