3 ms·

So you say Goebbels would not have been an ok US target during WW2, if he was an American citizen? (Sorry, I just can't see how it is ameliorating that the Naz

by berntb 13y ago

So you say Goebbels would not have been an ok US target during WW2, if he was an American citizen? (Sorry, I just can't see how it is ameliorating that the Nazi side did non-warcrime attacks too, in contrast to alQ? :-) )

JackFr 13y ago
As an official government functionary of a country with which Congress had declared war, I imagine there would be scant legal difficulty in finding him guilty of treason in absentia. But absent that, no, I would not find it alright to target Goebbels if he were an American citizen. Forget about email snooping or IRS targeting, I think as a citizen the first thing I should demand of my government is not to be killed without due process. It's seriously disturbing that the President has an extra-judicial kill list on which he can place US citizens.
- berntb 13y ago
  >> As an [active participant] of a country with which Congress had declared war [it is ok to kill a target] Ok, so your problem is just that alQ is a non-country organization (after the Taliban fell, at least). There is no party to make a formal declaration of war against, and police is not applicable, so the US population should stop complaining and accept terror attacks... Right, I got your position. I think you are arguing dishonestly and know your position is impractical. The point with doing this "terror" thing is to influence a more or less democratic country by scaring the voters. If a group succeeds with that the politicians will do anything to stop the terror, because they won't get reelected otherwise. Now, point is -- there will be damn good support of most everything, law book out the window etc, because if the terrorists aren't stopped the voters go apeshit again at the next big attack. (You will get maybe even torture and assassinations of terrorists in neutral counties.) Again: Most any president, in any democratic country, will do anything -- in order to stop terror groups from scaring the voters. This reaction on terror is probably built into the democratic system. You don't have to like it, of course. (No, arguing for a stiff upper lip among the population doesn't help with committed terror groups. If the population doesn't react, the terror groups up their attacks to get the reaction they aim for. ) But I think you knew all that and just looked for a reason to condemn. Edit: Rewrote for clarity, so I have something to copy/paste next time.
  - JackFr 13y ago
    I think you missed my point entirely. There is an important distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen. That the US President orders the assassination of a US citizen -- I've got a problem with that. I'm honestly surprised it's a controversial position.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Again: Your point is that you are principally against killing US citizens in organisations that do violence against USA -- as long as the organisations aren't countries which you can declare war against. One word: Weird. You say a country should never defend itself with military against violent citizens which become e.g. Somali warlords, join Pakistani tribal warfare clans or terrorist groups? (Not even the heavily armed US police can handle all threats smaller than country size.) Anyway, my argument was that there are arguably even worse reactions to extreme terror from US and other democracies. This is probably built into the democratic system -- scare voters enough and countries will react badly. You don't have to like it. But I think you understood that. Edit: If you really don't understand -- you argue for a position by morality. I argue it is irrelevant, both for practical reasons and because of how democracies react to terror. Being Swedish I'm fed up with decisions based only on idealist wishful thinking, so I'm sorry if I sound irritated.
      - JackFr 13y ago
        I don't mean to irritate you -- I find it interesting you're Swedish -- I assumed you were an American (very American of me, I know.) I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. I consider myself fairly pragmatic, but I expect the President to abide by laws, and I expect my citizenship to afford me protections. I haven't shed a tear over al-Awlaki, I assure you. But either he should have been adjudicated as an enemy combatant or judicially stripped of his citizenship or tried for treason in absentia. It seems to me like your endorsing a rule of men rather than a rule of law. The problem with that is that it seems well and good when you've Julius and Augustus running the show, but when Nero and Caligula show up it's not so easy to go back.

by berntb 13y ago

JackFr 13y ago

As an official government functionary of a country with which Congress had declared war, I imagine there would be scant legal difficulty in finding him guilty of treason in absentia. But absent that, no, I would not find it alright to target Goebbels if he were an American citizen. Forget about email snooping or IRS targeting, I think as a citizen the first thing I should demand of my government is not to be killed without due process. It's seriously disturbing that the President has an extra-judicial kill list on which he can place US citizens.

berntb 13y ago
>> As an [active participant] of a country with which Congress had declared war [it is ok to kill a target] Ok, so your problem is just that alQ is a non-country organization (after the Taliban fell, at least). There is no party to make a formal declaration of war against, and police is not applicable, so the US population should stop complaining and accept terror attacks... Right, I got your position. I think you are arguing dishonestly and know your position is impractical. The point with doing this "terror" thing is to influence a more or less democratic country by scaring the voters. If a group succeeds with that the politicians will do anything to stop the terror, because they won't get reelected otherwise. Now, point is -- there will be damn good support of most everything, law book out the window etc, because if the terrorists aren't stopped the voters go apeshit again at the next big attack. (You will get maybe even torture and assassinations of terrorists in neutral counties.) Again: Most any president, in any democratic country, will do anything -- in order to stop terror groups from scaring the voters. This reaction on terror is probably built into the democratic system. You don't have to like it, of course. (No, arguing for a stiff upper lip among the population doesn't help with committed terror groups. If the population doesn't react, the terror groups up their attacks to get the reaction they aim for. ) But I think you knew all that and just looked for a reason to condemn. Edit: Rewrote for clarity, so I have something to copy/paste next time.
- JackFr 13y ago
  I think you missed my point entirely. There is an important distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen. That the US President orders the assassination of a US citizen -- I've got a problem with that. I'm honestly surprised it's a controversial position.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Again: Your point is that you are principally against killing US citizens in organisations that do violence against USA -- as long as the organisations aren't countries which you can declare war against. One word: Weird. You say a country should never defend itself with military against violent citizens which become e.g. Somali warlords, join Pakistani tribal warfare clans or terrorist groups? (Not even the heavily armed US police can handle all threats smaller than country size.) Anyway, my argument was that there are arguably even worse reactions to extreme terror from US and other democracies. This is probably built into the democratic system -- scare voters enough and countries will react badly. You don't have to like it. But I think you understood that. Edit: If you really don't understand -- you argue for a position by morality. I argue it is irrelevant, both for practical reasons and because of how democracies react to terror. Being Swedish I'm fed up with decisions based only on idealist wishful thinking, so I'm sorry if I sound irritated.
    - JackFr 13y ago
      I don't mean to irritate you -- I find it interesting you're Swedish -- I assumed you were an American (very American of me, I know.) I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. I consider myself fairly pragmatic, but I expect the President to abide by laws, and I expect my citizenship to afford me protections. I haven't shed a tear over al-Awlaki, I assure you. But either he should have been adjudicated as an enemy combatant or judicially stripped of his citizenship or tried for treason in absentia. It seems to me like your endorsing a rule of men rather than a rule of law. The problem with that is that it seems well and good when you've Julius and Augustus running the show, but when Nero and Caligula show up it's not so easy to go back.