Skip to main content

View Diary: Does the US have the right to kill its on citizens without trial? (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Slidding ever faster down that slippery (7+ / 0-)

    slope.  The jerks here praising, supporting, or rationalizing assassinations perpetrated by the US government when headed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner seem to lack simple powers of imagination such as what a fucking rule of law means and who a President-crazy-ass-"Christian" would deem qualified for his/her secret target list.

    •  I've seen this argument before (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Susan G in MN

      When we say abortion is sometimes justified because the woman is at risk of severe psychological trauma, the Right says it's a slippery slope to aborting fetuses because they have the wrong eye color.  When we say it's OK to have a marginal tax rate of 40% on the wealthy, the Right says it's a slippery slope to Chavez-style expropriations.  

      There is no slippery slope in human affairs, especially the highly public affairs of a democracy.  If you can't make the argument that the specific thing under review is bad or wrong or illegal on its own terms, then we're done: invoking some future thing just doesn't cut it.

      The Rent Is Too Damn High Party feels that if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you. --Jimmy McMillan

      by Rich in PA on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So now the rightwing gets to own (5+ / 0-)

        any and all forms of argument that they use?  

        For those that believe 1) human life begins at conception and 2) it's the job of government to protect embryos from the autonomy of women in which the embryo resides, any concession on abortion is a slippery slope.  Similarly, any concession on the autonomy of women to control their wombs is a slippery slope.  (The latter is why I find Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" so offensive.)

        As the US economy worked well when we had a progressive income tax, the Chavez argument is plain silly.  Not that nationalizing the US health care system wouldn't be a good idea.

        As Jonathan Turley has written Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties.

        Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

        However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. ...

        That's known as a slippery slope, and you, bub, are apparently A-okay with rendition, torture, assassination.  Pathetic.

        •  It's just that the slippery slope argument is dumb (0+ / 0-)

          It denies our ability as individuals and as a society to make meaningful distinctions, and it condemns us to accept ridiculous things.

          The Rent Is Too Damn High Party feels that if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you. --Jimmy McMillan

          by Rich in PA on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 04:28:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Al Alwaki Accused Of Crime Like Unabomber (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher

        Yet the Unabomber is a criminal and not a POW and the Unabomber wasn't assassinated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site