The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[David Panzer]

I have listened to the entire song. Many times in the past 7 years. When I heard the news this past Sunday after watching Fantasia, I thought "good job". Then I heard that there were spontaneous celebrations at the White House and elsewhere in the country, the song popped into my head.

[Jan]

I have listened to the entire song. Many times in the past 7 years. When I heard the news this past Sunday after watching Fantasia, I thought "good job". Then I heard that there were spontaneous celebrations at the White House and elsewhere in the country, the song popped into my head.

And you don't think that a 'fuck yeah' for slavery and dead silence for books and sportsmanship indicates anything? Oookay...

Jan

[JoeD80]

Trey Parker's writing is a lot like Norman Lear's; the point is often interpreted differently depending on the audience.

[David Panzer]

And you don't think that a 'fuck yeah' for slavery and dead silence for books and sportsmanship indicates anything? Oookay...

Jan

Christ, I've known for 7 years that the song was mocking the US. I have the film on DVD and have watched it several times. And that was running through my head when I watched the news at 10:30-11:00 Sunday night and saw the cheering crounds.

[Jonas]

But when the country is letting an international terrorist live in a mansion in the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, NY, I'll take a guess that it's "democracy in name only"

I wasn't talking about Pakistan. I was talking about the United States. Democracies do not assassinate.

[Marsden]

A story on my local news seems relevant to this, maybe you will disagree, but two state police men went to arrest a man in his home because he was running a meth lab and they shot and killed him. They report he had a shotgun but his girlfriend said the gun was unloaded and against the door. This doesn't mention if he was going for the gun or not. If a law enforcement officer or someone acting in that capacity in the service of law enforcement is in a situation that the suspect refuses to surrender and is even potentially armed the officer needs to protect themself and not wait for a dangerous suspect to then arm themselves and then it's "ok" to shoot. I'm sorry that was poorly phrased, but the likelyhood of the subject of the current topic to be armed was probably assumed to be 100 percent, then refusing to surrender, they had no choice but to shoot. I don't think it was an assassination, but an attempt to arrest a wanted criminal that resisted and was killed during the arrest. I think civilized democracies are still allowed to arrest criminals.

[Jonas]

The Guardian has an article on the changing "facts" of the story.

If a law enforcement officer or someone acting in that capacity in the service of law enforcement is in a situation that the suspect refuses to surrender and is even potentially armed the officer needs to protect themself and not wait for a dangerous suspect to then arm themselves and then it's "ok" to shoot.

I absolutely disagree, as does the law in most countries in the world. You cannot kill someone for something they might do.

[lotjx]

Jonas' theory is to let him get a few rounds off then maybe shot at them or snuggle them to death. The moment you pull a gun or go for a gun, the police have the right to shot you. Democracies assissanite why do you think the UK has MI6 or the French has the DSGE exist in the first place. Every country has a version of this and has used it in the past for kill operations.

[Jonas]

Jonas' theory is to let him get a few rounds off then maybe shot at them or snuggle them to death.

No, my "theory" (aka international law) is that it is illegal to shoot a person that is not even carrying a weapon, let alone pointing it at you. That a gun might be in the same room, or what might hypothetically happen, cannot be the basis of lethal action. If someone is shooting at you and you shoot back, fine - though we do have to question the circumstances, and whether highly trained professionals should not still be able to avoid killing someone. But preemptively shooting someone is murder, even if that person is a criminal.

I must say that I also find it rather disturbing that you insist on using this jingoistic macho language, where everyone who stands for even the most basic of democratic principles is labelled "soft" - all this nonsense about hugging people etc.

[Jan]

Democracies assissanite why do you think the UK has MI6 or the French has the DSGE exist in the first place. Every country has a version of this and has used it in the past for kill operations.

Yes, it happens. Doesn't make it right. Many years ago when it was discovered that the CIA here in the US conducted assasinations, there was an uproar and as far as I know, there's still a presidential mandate that assassination is not to be used as a matter of policy.

You can tone down the "snuggle them to death" style sarcasm, lotjx. It's not called for. We discuss viewpoints here, not the people presenting the viewpoints.

Jan

[lotjx]

Osama was wanted Dead or Alive. He is also not a leader of a government or a country. He is a leader of NGO that has roots in parts of the world. He has zero diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world. He was not assissainated he was killed while resisting arrest. Dillinger's death is in the same boat as Osama where they were indendpendt leaders to non-governmental forces that admittly vary on sizes. No says Dillinger was assisinated. Before someone brings up MLK, assissaination was a buzz word in the 60s after JFK's death and it was wrongly used for MLK as well.

And what if he was brought in to stand trial. Where do you hold the trial?Does he even get a trial or shipped to Gitmo? How many people will be killed if you hold a trial and how many will do trying to pull an escape plan for him? We are not talking about some average citizen of the world, we are talking about a cold blooded mass murder who bragged about his killing on multiple video tapes. You guys are treating him like he held up a 7/11. He killed thousands of people, probably more then we will ever know. He was killed in his home, after failing to surrender. A home filled with lord knows what kinda of weapons and explosives. Its also a considered a warzone where shotting first is ok.

I am sorry I am using macho language since I have no idea what you guys want besides complaining about how we killed a mass murder and some lofty higher goals that when this operation started no was spouting out.

[Jonas]

Osama was wanted Dead or Alive. He is also not a leader of a government or a country. He is a leader of NGO that has roots in parts of the world. He has zero diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world.

Diplomatic immunity is not relevant to this discussion. No-one claimed he had it or should have it.

He was not assissainated he was killed while resisting arrest.

Shot in the head twice while unarmed does not say "resisting arrest" to me.

Dillinger's death is in the same boat as Osama where they were indendpendt leaders to non-governmental forces that admittly vary on sizes.

No says Dillinger was assisinated.

Actually, plenty of people have said that, and Dillinger's death is a matter of some debate. But Dillinger at least was armed.

Before someone brings up MLK, assissaination was a buzz word in the 60s after JFK's death and it was wrongly used for MLK as well.

How so? What else would you call it?

And what if he was brought in to stand trial. Where do you hold the trial? Does he even get a trial or shipped to Gitmo?

Why should he not get a trial? American and international law says he should.

How many people will be killed if you hold a trial and how many will do trying to pull an escape plan for him?

I'd say... none. Because he wasn't a comic book supervillain, and he didn't have an army. He was the leader of an organization whose importance and power was waning by the day, and what few supporters he still has couldn't even make it to the United States, let alone break him out of a maximum security prison.

Please consider this: the Nazi leaders, who had tens of thousands of sympathizers and waged global war with a technologically advanced army, were tried in Nuremberg, in their own country (in a trial that established many of the principles we're trying to defend here). How could that be achieved, but bringing a few fanatics with next to no resources to justice is so incredibly unimaginable?

He killed thousands of people, probably more then we will ever know

And yet still not even 1% of the people the United States (and Europe and Australia) have killed in the Middle East. Not even 1% of the amount of children who died from the Iraq embargo. Which doesn't prevent him from being a mass murdering criminal, of course.

A home filled with lord knows what kinda of weapons and explosives.

Really? It's not a supervillain's lair, it's actually a fairly dingy house where he lived more or less under house arrest (the story about the super-expensive mansion has also turned out to be nonsense). Just because Obama bombs people in other countries doesn't mean he sleeps with a cruise missile under his pillow. The house was nowhere near an actual war, and it wasn't a base or a training camp. I'm sure they had some weapons, but it's unlikely they had anything spectacular, especially any kind of bomb.

Its also a considered a warzone where shotting first is ok.

Pakistan is not at war with the United States.

I am sorry I am using macho language since I have no idea what you guys want besides complaining about how we killed a mass murder and some lofty higher goals that when this operation started no was spouting out.

We want our governments to obey the principles of international law. It's pretty simple, really.

[Milkman]

In general i try to stay out of these online "debates".. or many times even in person "debates" with someones who i know are not going to change their mind regardless of what i said. My view.. am i glad he is dead? Yes. Do i wish there had been some other way to deal with him and others like him. Yes. BUT The world is not black and white, their are many sides to the truth, and morals tend to be ambiguous.

In this particular case i think G'Kar said it best.

"By G'Quan, I can't recall the last time I was in a fight like that. No moral ambiguity, no ... hopeless battle against ancient and overwhelming forces. They were the bad guys, as you say, we were the good guys. And they made a very satisfying thump when they hit the floor"

[Jan]

I have no problem with new facts being presented after the initial push to get news out is over. That's kind of the price (for want of a better word) of this trend toward getting information out soonest rather than most accurately. I don't happen to care for the trend, but it is what it is and there's nothing sinister about clarification coming after initial reports.

Something I think is missing in many of the conversations is that it's perfectly legitimate to question what happened. In fact, it's absolutely what *should* be done by responsible citizens. It's up to us to watch out and make certain that there's enough daylight shone on what our government does to ensure that they don't start using their power inapproprately.

As for the legality, I have not actual opinion as yet but it's another discussion being had, very properly. I found this interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...ex.html?hpt=T1

I also agree with Jonas that if possible, a trial should always be held. Killing somebody should never be a matter of convenience and I've been becoming concerned that that exact thing has been happening too much of late; no specific examples, just a feeling.

Jan

[lotjx]

Diplomatic immunity is not relevant to this discussion. No-one claimed he had it or should have it.


Shot in the head twice while unarmed does not say "resisting arrest" to me.


I am glad you were there. In reality, that means nothing other then the Seals are amazingly good shots.

Actually, plenty of people have said that, and Dillinger's death is a matter of some debate. But Dillinger at least was armed.

Yes, lets take the words of the mob there is a good group to go with.

How so? What else would you call it?

Murder

Why should he not get a trial? American and international law says he should.

No, it doesn't. There is a lot of examples stating that he has no rights since he has been exiled by every country he has lived and was living illegally in Pakistan. He was a known terrorist.

I'd say... none. Because he wasn't a comic book supervillain, and he didn't have an army. He was the leader of an organization whose importance and power was waning by the day, and what few supporters he still has couldn't even make it to the United States, let alone break him out of a maximum security prison.

Bull. You have no idea what if any plans Al-Qeada had if he got captured. We have already seen last week, Al-Qeada bust out hunderds of their men. Its in the realm of possiblity.

Please consider this: the Nazi leaders, who had tens of thousands of sympathizers and waged global war with a technologically advanced army, were tried in Nuremberg, in their own country (in a trial that established many of the principles we're trying to defend here). How could that be achieved, but bringing a few fanatics with next to no resources to justice is so incredibly unimaginable?

You mean the trial that lasted forever. The trial where there was no one of the equivalant of Osama say Hitler who killed himself. The trial of former government heads which Osama is not one of those types of people. That trial.


And yet still not even 1% of the people the United States (and Europe and Australia) have killed in the Middle East. Not even 1% of the amount of children who died from the Iraq embargo. Which doesn't prevent him from being a mass murdering criminal, of course.

I have no idea what this number means nor do I care.

Really? It's not a supervillain's lair, it's actually a fairly dingy house where he lived more or less under house arrest (the story about the super-expensive mansion has also turned out to be nonsense). Just because Obama bombs people in other countries doesn't mean he sleeps with a cruise missile under his pillow. The house was nowhere near an actual war, and it wasn't a base or a training camp. I'm sure they had some weapons, but it's unlikely they had anything spectacular, especially any kind of bomb.

Its a $1 million dollar compound hiding terrorists what do you think he has in there a bar full of Mint Jubiles and Expresso machine?

Pakistan is not at war with the United States.

They are haboring terrorists and Pakistan is the last person in the world to get snotty about this since its pretty obvious they known or at least someone high up knew about this.

We want our governments to obey the principles of international law. It's pretty simple, really.

International law is not simple and to be fair is not that concret. Its something every nation has to agree too and there is where it gets muddy.