7 ms·

>many of whom are 100% innocent Under US law, 100% of them are 100% innocent, by definition. "Innocent until proven guilty" and whatnot; it literally means tha

by jmb99 11mo ago

>many of whom are 100% innocent Under US law, 100% of them are 100% innocent, by definition. "Innocent until proven guilty" and whatnot; it literally means that every person is innocent in the eyes of the law until a court finds them guilty.

PenguinCoder 11mo ago
Unfortunately that had been forgotten in this era.
anarticle 11mo ago
Fun fact, if you're not a US citizen on US soil US law does not apply. I'm not saying this because I'm taking a side, but this was how the Patriot act had knock on effects. An interesting case of this is something like you call a foreign national in another country and this is enough to be able to tap both sides of the conversation via Patriot Act / NSA purview.
- asdefghyk 11mo ago
  RE ".....not a US citizen on US soil US law does not apply....." Does not maKE SENSE... Why are people extradited to US from overseas locations . Like why they want Julian Assange ?
  - raspasov 11mo ago
    Just some ideas: - Drone-bombing an embassy in downtown London does not look good on social media - He's too famous and has many supporters in the Western world to be publicly assassinated, regardless of location (example: Lady Gaga visited him while he was stuck in the embassy) - He's more useful as a deterrent, i.e., "see what might happen to you", to the people who might decide to go a similar route. Some will go that route regardless, but chances are at least a few have been persuaded otherwise. For all the ridicule of the government, the Intelligence Community seems to be doing a fairly intelligent job most of the time to satisfy its objectives.
  - bulbar 11mo ago
    It does not apply in general, but a country will always declare jurisdiction if deemed necessary. A common example in Germany is that the country will try to enforce German law for foreign-hosted websites hosted by citizen of another country if the website is targeted at German citizen.
- brookst 11mo ago
  Are you saying that non-citizen residents of the US are not subject to US laws? That seems dubious.
- LastTrain 11mo ago
  And we know for sure there were no US citizens on these boats?
- godelski 11mo ago
  > not a US citizen ***on US soil*** US law does not apply. 1) these strikes are happening in international waters 2) US law definitely applies to non citizens on US soil. Like that's such a ridiculous statement. Even if the law was "we can do whatever if you're not a citizen", that's still law... You think non citizens are all sovereign citizens bound to no law? To be able to do whatever they want? I didn't know my neighbor was a diplomat. I think you mean rights. Which this is much more dubious. The constitution definitely interchanges the use of "citizens" and "people". Notably the 11th amendment uses citizens, specifying belonging to states foreign or domestic. It was ratified only a few years after the Bill of rights, so not like a drastic language change happened. There are people who will argue "the people" means "citizens" but I find that a difficult interpretation if you read the constitution or federalist papers.
  - nerdsniper 11mo ago
    3) quite a few US laws apply to US citizens on non-US soil (paying domestic taxes on foreign income) 4) US law applies to non-US citizens who have never set foot in the USA (Kim Dotcom)
- mjanx123 11mo ago
  A country jurisdiction is both territorial and personal, the laws apply to anyone on the soil, and to the citizens, permanent residents, asylum seekers etc anywhere in the universe.
- anarticle 11mo ago
  Oh sorry, I have the wrong polarity here: "not US citizen" on "not US soil" is what I meant. Sorry for the firestorm this created! What I mean to say is that the USA INTENTIONALLY violates rights of people outside the USA, expressed in things like the Patriot Act re:wiretapping, and also the spaces between passport control where they say "USA laws don't apply, our agents have purview to do essentially anything". If you check the discussions in the 00s about this the fed govt was very dicey and you can tell they were chomping at the bit to be able to have essentially NO OVERSIGHT on any of these massive violations of people's rights. I'll take the karma hit, there is no way to edit it apparently. Sorry!
breppp 11mo ago
Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach, none of these people fall under the US laws you think they do The legal basis is them being declared Unlawful Combatants under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Once they do they are enemy combatants in war and can be killed. This law was so thoroughly used by all presidents since then that you cannot really claim it's illegal
- bulbar 11mo ago
  > Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach To me it sounds like that killing was (possibly) illegal. Idk about that 2006 Act though. From a moral stand point it doesn't matter if it was (possibly) illegal or not however.
  - Den_VR 11mo ago
    It matters quite a lot, it’s the biblical difference between killing and murder.
    - bulbar 11mo ago
      Law at biblical times had a different foundation than today. Today the foundation is legal positivism, which is the philosophical decoupling of moral and law (which sounds terrible at first glance, but is important if you think it through). Therefore, it is not useful to apply the definition of the terms from back then, because the whole context in which they were used doesn't exist anymore. In the Western world, the meaning of murder and killing is different and while that described action might be an unlawful killing (by accident) it most likely was not a murder.
- pstuart 11mo ago
  They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. Just because Trump declares something to be true doesn't make it true (although his lackeys will act as if it is). This is not how to deal with The Drug War™, it's very expensive theater that does nothing to address the problem. In fact that very war is the reason why it's a problem in the first place. Remember that an earlier batch of dangerous drug dealers were Americans working out of doctors' offices.
bawolff 11mo ago
Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict. There are a bunch of rules (i.e. the geneva conventions) around who can and cannot be targeted in an armed conflict, but innocent vs guilty is not how it works. Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. Guilty people being killed can sometimes be a violation of the rules. Innocent vs guiltly is the wrong metaphor for what makes a legal target.
- lostlogin 11mo ago
  > Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. If anyone did this to the US, can you imagine the butt-hurt response?
  - theoreticalmal 11mo ago
    The majority of the West has implicitly or explicitly ceded their national defense and warfighting capabilities to the USA. The comparison between USA and “other countries” isn’t really valid, as the situations are vastly different
    - jampekka 11mo ago
      What does that mean? That USA is somehow killing people all around the world as a puppet or Iceland or something?
    - lostlogin 11mo ago
      US exceptionalism doesn’t make killing ok.
    - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
      The West isn't the world, though. China could start taking out random boats next week.
  - bawolff 11mo ago
    > The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. Declaring a war stopped being a thing after world war 2. Not just for usa but for everyone. In modern times a decleration of war has no meaning in international law. It only has meaning in domestic law. I think the reason is that the UN charter makes it illegal to fight a war except in self-defense. In modern times declerations of war have generally been replaced with sending a notice to the un security council that you intend to use your right to self defense. I dont know about this particular situation but i think a lot of the time historically the US has followed that procedure.

by jmb99 11mo ago

PenguinCoder 11mo ago

Unfortunately that had been forgotten in this era.

anarticle 11mo ago

Fun fact, if you're not a US citizen on US soil US law does not apply. I'm not saying this because I'm taking a side, but this was how the Patriot act had knock on effects. An interesting case of this is something like you call a foreign national in another country and this is enough to be able to tap both sides of the conversation via Patriot Act / NSA purview.

asdefghyk 11mo ago
RE ".....not a US citizen on US soil US law does not apply....." Does not maKE SENSE... Why are people extradited to US from overseas locations . Like why they want Julian Assange ?
- raspasov 11mo ago
  Just some ideas: - Drone-bombing an embassy in downtown London does not look good on social media - He's too famous and has many supporters in the Western world to be publicly assassinated, regardless of location (example: Lady Gaga visited him while he was stuck in the embassy) - He's more useful as a deterrent, i.e., "see what might happen to you", to the people who might decide to go a similar route. Some will go that route regardless, but chances are at least a few have been persuaded otherwise. For all the ridicule of the government, the Intelligence Community seems to be doing a fairly intelligent job most of the time to satisfy its objectives.
- bulbar 11mo ago
  It does not apply in general, but a country will always declare jurisdiction if deemed necessary. A common example in Germany is that the country will try to enforce German law for foreign-hosted websites hosted by citizen of another country if the website is targeted at German citizen.
brookst 11mo ago
Are you saying that non-citizen residents of the US are not subject to US laws? That seems dubious.
LastTrain 11mo ago
And we know for sure there were no US citizens on these boats?
godelski 11mo ago
> not a US citizen ***on US soil*** US law does not apply. 1) these strikes are happening in international waters 2) US law definitely applies to non citizens on US soil. Like that's such a ridiculous statement. Even if the law was "we can do whatever if you're not a citizen", that's still law... You think non citizens are all sovereign citizens bound to no law? To be able to do whatever they want? I didn't know my neighbor was a diplomat. I think you mean rights. Which this is much more dubious. The constitution definitely interchanges the use of "citizens" and "people". Notably the 11th amendment uses citizens, specifying belonging to states foreign or domestic. It was ratified only a few years after the Bill of rights, so not like a drastic language change happened. There are people who will argue "the people" means "citizens" but I find that a difficult interpretation if you read the constitution or federalist papers.
- nerdsniper 11mo ago
  3) quite a few US laws apply to US citizens on non-US soil (paying domestic taxes on foreign income) 4) US law applies to non-US citizens who have never set foot in the USA (Kim Dotcom)
mjanx123 11mo ago
A country jurisdiction is both territorial and personal, the laws apply to anyone on the soil, and to the citizens, permanent residents, asylum seekers etc anywhere in the universe.
anarticle 11mo ago
Oh sorry, I have the wrong polarity here: "not US citizen" on "not US soil" is what I meant. Sorry for the firestorm this created! What I mean to say is that the USA INTENTIONALLY violates rights of people outside the USA, expressed in things like the Patriot Act re:wiretapping, and also the spaces between passport control where they say "USA laws don't apply, our agents have purview to do essentially anything". If you check the discussions in the 00s about this the fed govt was very dicey and you can tell they were chomping at the bit to be able to have essentially NO OVERSIGHT on any of these massive violations of people's rights. I'll take the karma hit, there is no way to edit it apparently. Sorry!

breppp 11mo ago

Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach, none of these people fall under the US laws you think they do The legal basis is them being declared Unlawful Combatants under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Once they do they are enemy combatants in war and can be killed. This law was so thoroughly used by all presidents since then that you cannot really claim it's illegal

bulbar 11mo ago
> Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach To me it sounds like that killing was (possibly) illegal. Idk about that 2006 Act though. From a moral stand point it doesn't matter if it was (possibly) illegal or not however.
- Den_VR 11mo ago
  It matters quite a lot, it’s the biblical difference between killing and murder.
  - bulbar 11mo ago
    Law at biblical times had a different foundation than today. Today the foundation is legal positivism, which is the philosophical decoupling of moral and law (which sounds terrible at first glance, but is important if you think it through). Therefore, it is not useful to apply the definition of the terms from back then, because the whole context in which they were used doesn't exist anymore. In the Western world, the meaning of murder and killing is different and while that described action might be an unlawful killing (by accident) it most likely was not a murder.
pstuart 11mo ago
They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. Just because Trump declares something to be true doesn't make it true (although his lackeys will act as if it is). This is not how to deal with The Drug War™, it's very expensive theater that does nothing to address the problem. In fact that very war is the reason why it's a problem in the first place. Remember that an earlier batch of dangerous drug dealers were Americans working out of doctors' offices.

bawolff 11mo ago

Its kind of irrelavent in an armed conflict. There are a bunch of rules (i.e. the geneva conventions) around who can and cannot be targeted in an armed conflict, but innocent vs guilty is not how it works. Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. Guilty people being killed can sometimes be a violation of the rules. Innocent vs guiltly is the wrong metaphor for what makes a legal target.

lostlogin 11mo ago
> Innocent people being killed can sometimes totally be consistent with the rules of war. The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. If anyone did this to the US, can you imagine the butt-hurt response?
- theoreticalmal 11mo ago
  The majority of the West has implicitly or explicitly ceded their national defense and warfighting capabilities to the USA. The comparison between USA and “other countries” isn’t really valid, as the situations are vastly different
  - jampekka 11mo ago
    What does that mean? That USA is somehow killing people all around the world as a puppet or Iceland or something?
  - lostlogin 11mo ago
    US exceptionalism doesn’t make killing ok.
  - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
    The West isn't the world, though. China could start taking out random boats next week.
- bawolff 11mo ago
  > The US attacks people and countries without declaring war. Declaring a war stopped being a thing after world war 2. Not just for usa but for everyone. In modern times a decleration of war has no meaning in international law. It only has meaning in domestic law. I think the reason is that the UN charter makes it illegal to fight a war except in self-defense. In modern times declerations of war have generally been replaced with sending a notice to the un security council that you intend to use your right to self defense. I dont know about this particular situation but i think a lot of the time historically the US has followed that procedure.