Skip to main content

View Diary: U.S. Admits to Killing Four American Citizens in Drone Strikes (128 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But that's not how it happens every day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Satya1

    No, ideally the police don't gun down anyone.  But every day they do, often while the suspect is committing a felony.  Obviously the deceased did not get his day in court.  Hence why I suggested it as an analogy to the drone program.  Can we discuss it in a civil fashion?  

    No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

    by Gator Keyfitz on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:24:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So the instances where an officer... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, corvo, Sparhawk

      ...kills a suspect rather than apprehend him/her should become our metric to establish what we should do in the future?  If one officer guns someone down, it's a-okay for every officer thereafter to do so?  There's no chance that first officer fucked up?  Or even committed a prosecutable murder if there was no danger of the victims imminently inflicting bodily harm?

      You say,

      ideally the police don't gun down anyone.

      And yet you advocate that that gunning down be allowed with your every comment in this thread.  Just because someone has done it before in some instance.

      You clearly have adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward extrajudicial killing, and I doubt that you want to be dissuaded of that opinion.

      •  C'mon Monster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Satya1

        What if instead of trying to engage with you I just said "You're obviously a terrorist lover who cares more about the tender fee fees of terrorists than the lives of your fellow Americans?"  That would be a dick move, and I would clearly be uninterested in having a real discussion.  That's kinda what you are doing to me here.  I'll try again.

        Your original comment suggested it was always unconstitutional to punish someone without due process.  My point was that the police punish people, sometimes fatally, every day, and that has generally been found to not violate the Constitution where the suspect was violently resisting being taken into custody.  I asked for your opinion about this as an analogy, and what that meant to your argument.

        You reply as if I am calling for more killing, when I clearly above expressed my ambivalence about the drone program as a solution.  I'm not sure if you don't understand the Socratic method, or you are just venting or what.  I'm probably not the person you think you are arguing with.

        No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

        by Gator Keyfitz on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:46:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Violently resisting," you say. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, corvo, barleystraw, Sparhawk

          Just how is someone violently resisting a person who guides a missile from the other side of the world?

          Oh, and if a felon is "violently resisting" with his fists, a police officer might get into some trouble if he countered with a bullet.

          More to the point, there appears to be in your analogy an assumption that anyone who is killed by a drone is necessarily guilty of something.  While I know that is the position of some in this Administration, is it the position you want to espouse?  Would it be the same to you if any other figure of authority made this argument for doing away with any opponents without the nuisance of a hearing?

          •  I know you must have at least seen my original (0+ / 0-)

            comment because you replied to it.  Maybe give it another read.  I clearly said I was uncomfortable with anyone having that power.  I'm also not comfortable with ignoring someone like al-Awaki, hiding out beyond the reach of any judicial authority in Yemen while sending poor dupe after poor dupe to kill other human beings.  

            Given my declared ambivalence, what would you say to convince me that there is an alternative?  Saying, well, we should just wait and grab him if he ever shows up at an international border isn't very convincing.  There is no law where he was, and he had no intention of giving himself up.  Real world situation: you're the President, what would you do?

            Perhaps if you stopped imputing authoritarian/bloodthirsty motivations to those who wrestle with the same question but come up with a different answer, you would be able to formulate an argument that would be convincing to those who don't already agree with you.  

             

            No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

            by Gator Keyfitz on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:13:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Memorial Day (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site