solarz
Brigadier
Since you think that it's possible to clearly establish guilt or innocence without the need for a trial, I must conclude that you are a fan of Saddam and Gaddafi's justice systems.
The Civil War in Libya
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Since you think that it's possible to clearly establish guilt or innocence without the need for a trial, I must conclude that you are a fan of Saddam and Gaddafi's justice systems.
Tears and fake moral outrage as you put it was not for Gaddafi, OBL, or al-Awlaki, it was for the idea of due process and the rule of law, this is what really separates just nations and rulers like Gaddafi.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Sounds like something Saddam would have said about someone he ordered 'whacked'.
Principles are principles, you either stick with them always, or drop the pretense. You cannot simply cheery pick who deserves to be 'whacked' without proper oversight and due process and expect people to hail you are the guardian of virtue and justice.
So you are comparing America to Qaddaffi now? I am sure most Americans would take offense at such a suggestion.
And it is interesting that you are focusing on Awakali while conveniently forgetting about the other American killed alongside him, who was just a web designer. True he designed jihadi websites, but last time I checked, that was far from a capital crime.
Hell, at least the other guy had his story told, and this is only raising a stink because he was an American citizen. The US has been 'whacking' people around the world for years, and I am sure they have killed more than just the American web designer for crimes that would not merit capital punishment anywhere in the world.
Oh I see, so it is his fault for not turning himself in. Does that mean the FBI can use hellfires to bring in suspects who don't turn themselves in?
I would also laugh out loud at the suggestion that the target are only placed on a list for drone attacks after an exhaustive investigation. Where is the proof?
Hell, since I am feeling generous, I will save you the hassle of trying to find something that does not exist. The very fact that the CIA regularly puts targets on the strike list blows your 'exhaustive investigation' cover story right out of the water.
If the process of deciding who gets put on the list is anywhere near as robust as you suggest, we would not be having this discussion, and few people would be so concerned with the US practice.
Despite your automated inclinations to assume that anyone asking questions is shedding tears of fake moral outrage, the fact of the matter is that most of the people who find this practice disturbing is precisely because it lacks the kind of systematic oversight and due process you are claiming they have.
Funny you make that caveat, because one of the key concerns with drone strikes is that there is no proper and systematic checks and balances in place.
Yes, and see how well the British took that incident.
Right, and we are heading into make-believe land here with imaginary things that never ever happened. I find it hard to believe you are trying to compare what America is actually doing in real like with something you imagined China might be doing. Are you actually for real with this?
Oh yes, trying to smear dirt on others really strengthens your case.
And before you climb too high up onto that ivory town of yours, maybe you want to have a gander at this piece as an example of how well the rule of law is respected in America today.
Afterthought
Uigher and Tibetan extremists who finance and organize massed unrest and terrorist attacks inside China would be a good place to start. These guys and girls are not superstar terrorists because the western media turns a blind eye to their criminal activities if not actively supports them by broadcasting their message to a wider audience and helping them to raise funds for their cause.
Incidently, that was pretty much the only thing the other American killed with Awakali did. If that guy was a legitimate target, than I guess the likes of CNN and the BBC are fair game for the Chinese as well then.
I think this view is not uncommon amongst people in America or elsewhere in the Angelo-sphere. The reasoning goes, China covers up government misdeeds, there are no evidence for Chinese death squad, therefore there must be Chinese death squad around killing Uyghurs, Tibetans, political dissidents.
It's not something that would stand up in court room or to much logic but these are precisely the kind of prejudices that gets cultivated in people by the media.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
WAs there any doubt over what OBL. Saddam.Hitler if had been captured alive, Jack Ruby?did
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Heres the problem. Cherry picking who gets to stand trial also occurs
Eg Emperor Hirohito was excluded from the japanese war crime trials His crimes included
"ratifiyingthe proposal by the Japanese Army to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners. while authorizing the use of chemical weaponsagainst the Chinese"
Would you be wringing your hands in anguish if he got wacked by the Chinese govt of the time, I know I wouldnt have lost any sleep over it.
AS my mother once told me , "be careful with the company you keep" Heck that web designer certainly knew that Aawakli wasnt a true life adventure tourist guide. With a" Wanted dead all Alive" bounty out on him ? passed by the Yemini Court, it wouldnt have been good for one's health to be hanging around with him.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You do realize, of course, that this weakens your argument instead of strengthening it right?
If you want to argue that America does not actually care about the principle of the rule of law and will happily break, or at the very least, ignore them when it is convenient and expedient to do so. You will find no arguments from me. So is that what you are saying? That America avoid doing what is right and instead only acts in it's own self-interest when the two clash?
So keeping bad company is a death crime now?
You are the one insisting that there are proper checks and balances, so the burden of proof is on you. Nice try turing this around though.
Again, comparing your own fantasies with reality. Is there a single shred of proof that China has engaged in anything like the made up nonsense you randomly made up and are treating as if they are well established facts?
Under US law, do you have to openly solicit money on behalf of known terrorists to be convicted of terrorist offenses?
And it is amusing how you managed to miss the point so spectacularly. Playing dumb are we?
solarz
Brigadier
Actually yes, there's plenty of doubt over whether OBL masterminded 911, and his summary execution and disposing of his body adds to those doubts.
Furthermore, one of the fundamental ideas of Justice is that "everyone is equal before the law". That means it doesn't matter how strongly you (or the public) believes someone to be guilty, they are still entitled to a far trial.
Not for you to decide. That is the basis of rule of law and due process.