politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time. This isn't exactly murder most foul.
Because his dad was part of al qaeda the kid deserved to die? That's totally not fucked up at all
It's not about deserving it. His dad took him to a war zone while he was working for a non state military. Not everything is personal or even about the person who gets killed in a warzone. Soldiers call it rolling the dice for a reason. The bomb on the roadside goes off. Does it hit the humvee with the gun crew, or the cargo truck carrying refugees? Nobody knows until it happens. One is seen as a normal part of war and the other as something despicable. But the difference is less than a second. Nobody woke up that day and said, "today we're going to kill that kid".
You don't think the US military has the capabilities to know exactly who and what they're striking?
Not like that. Satellites still can't see inside of hard cover. Hollywood really oversells how much the military can see and undersells how much explosions hurt.
He was a US citizen.
The military should not be drone striking its own citizens, no matter what they’re suspected of. He had the right to a trial.
Actually, joining an enemy military strips you of your citizenship. But even then, it's not a stable area. You can't just ring up the Yemeni police to go arrest them and the NYPD is going to laugh at you. So you call on the guys who can reach the area. Problem, they're the military and this is a war. So even without the first sentence we're back to using a missile instead of the police because nobody is going to commit suicide for this and we're not going to let them operate freely on the notion that we're not allowed to fight that particular enemy.
Which is why joining an enemy military is an automatic loss of citizenship.
When did Al-Qaeda become a military? It’s a terrorist organization.
And when did it become a war. Congress hasn’t declared a war since World War 2. Legally, all of killing in the Middle East has been done under the guise of military policing actions.
Are we going to drone strike proud boy leaders now? They did try to overthrow the US government a few years ago. Oh wait, they just got slaps on the wrist.
So do we only blow up US citizens and deny them their rights when it would be difficult to get them? I guess the FBI can stop spending so much money on training agents to apprehend suspects, if they’re running or have already fled the country, we’ll just assassinate them because that’s way easier and safer.
The fact that this guy, regardless of what he did, was assassinated on the orders of a US president, and nothing happened, should be deeply disturbing. You don’t have rights if someone can just blow you up from out of nowhere for any reason. You just have privileges that can be revoked at any time.
He had the right to a trial. Not a privilege to have one, a right. An attempt to apprehend him should have at least been made.
Nobody said you had to be connected to a geographic state to be a military.
An AUMF is a declaration of war. Read the War Powers Act. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. It does not require Congress to use a set of magic words.
The proud boys are fucking infants in comparison to Al Qaeda, they're also well within reach of law enforcement agents. But if you want to know for real, check out the times governors have deployed the National Guard for an armed stand off. There is absolutely a military remedy to a domestic insurrection in US law. We do try to avoid that but if someone really pushed it they would take the leash off the military.
This is also a far cry from FBI agents working with police in developing countries. This isn't trying to figure out which Argentinian cop would tip off the arrest target. This is the Yemeni militia laughing at the FBI agents while letting AQ know there are Americans around to be captured.
Again. Nobody is going to commit suicide to provide you with a trial if you are actively making war against the US. Nor have they ever been required to because that is an insane imposition to the defense of the country. Reducing this to a manhunt ended for the sake of convenience is a straw man. You'd have a point if this happened somewhere like India. But it didn't. And we're under no obligation to let the enemy keep operating on the hope they travel to the wrong country.
You could try not being disingenuous and read a couple more sentences.
He was there because his father brought him there. Nobody was aiming for him.
Right back atcha.
What you said:
Which is blatantly untrue
Oh for shit's sake taking refuge in semantics when you know damn well the word could mean either thing is ridiculous. I'm not going to waste ten comments explaining the exact meaning of the word "time" in this specific case while you just keep throwing No True Scotsman at it.
it can literally only mean the one thing. His father had been dead for days, you claimed otherwise as thought it justified what happened.
Showing how intelligent you are with random fallacy name dropping.
Lmao. No.