Jamal Khashoggi

[Weezer]

How's it different from dropping a bomb out of a plane?

There's no attempt at an arrest if you're dropping a bomb from a drone. Your sole intent is to kill.

 

[luthervol]

Yeah, why is Luther so upset? Shouldn’t the Saudi Prince have the same power to kill his citizens?

Of course he does.

 

[luthervol]

There's no attempt at an arrest if you're dropping a bomb from a drone. Your sole intent is to kill.

Or a plane?

 

[luthervol]

I am half tempted to see what level of outrage Luther had when Trump droned that Iranian General to death. Bet he was far more upset about that then he was learning a US President intentionally assassinated a US citizen without due process. Funny priorities.

I support a cop's right to fire on a suspect who is raising a gun. Don't you?

 

[Weezer]

Or a plane?

Whichever. If you attempt to apprehend you can argue you were going to put him on trial. If he's killed resisting arrest, that matches your analogy. There was no such attempt. The plan was always to kill him, violating his due rights.

 

[Weezer]

I support a cop's right to fire on a suspect who is raising a gun. Don't you?

Which still has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[luthervol]

So you are completely against the Saudis killing one of their citizens, who they deemed a terrorist, on foil soil. But are 100% cool with the US doing it. Makes a lot of sense.

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. It's always been that way.....in every conflict since the beginning of man.
I'm acutely aware of the hypocrisies of war and patriotism.

 

[Weezer]

I support a cop's right to fire on a suspect who is raising a gun. Don't you?

Cops have a right to subdue suspects resisting arrest, right? So I assume you're perfectly okay with George Floyd's death?

 

[luthervol]

Whichever. If you attempt to apprehend you can argue you were going to put him on trial. If he's killed resisting arrest, that matches your analogy. There was no such attempt. The plan was always to kill him, violating his due rights.

Capture was not possible without unjustifiable risks. Pull a gun on a cop, you're likely to get shot.
Plan terrorist attacks against the US, you're likely to be targeted for a kill.

 

[luthervol]

Cops have a right to subdue suspects resisting arrest, right? So I assume you're perfectly okay with George Floyd's death?

Nah, that one crossed the line.

 

[Weezer]

Capture was not possible without unjustifiable risks. Pull a gun on a cop, you're likely to get shot.
Plan terrorist attacks against the US, you're likely to be targeted for a kill.

So you're okay with a President violating a U.S. citizen's Constitutional rights. Just say that. It's what Obama absolutely did, and you're either okay with it or not. You obviously fall on the side of being okay with it. But like @volfanhill said, it's most likely because of the POTUS who made the decision. If it had been Trump, you'd be having conniptions. It's your bias showing through.

 

[luthervol]

Which still has nothing to do with any of this.

It most certainly does.
Actions of imminent violence sacrifice your rights to due process.

 

[Weezer]

Nah, that one crossed the line.

 

[luthervol]

So you're okay with a President violating a U.S. citizen's Constitutional rights. Just say that. It's what Obama absolutely did, and you're either okay with it or not. You obviously fall on the side of being okay with it. But like @volfanhill said, it's most likely because of the POTUS who made the decision. If it had been Trump, you'd be having conniptions. It's your bias showing through.

I do not see it as Obama violating his rights at all.

 

[luthervol]

We all are on the continuum.

 

[Weezer]

Nah, that one crossed the line.

Not according to your moronic analogy.

 

[Weezer]

I do not see it as Obama violating his rights at all.

Only he did.

 

[luthervol]

Not according to your moronic analogy.

If he raised a gun at them and then they shot him, you'd have a point.

 

[volfanhill]

It most certainly does.
Actions of imminent violence sacrifice your rights to due process.

If that were the case, then why did Obama's own justice department say it only extends to those citizens outside the country?

 

[luthervol]

Only he did.

No...he didn't. Read the link I provided. It's been studied and analyzed by legal scholars who understand the law much better than either of us.

 

[luthervol]

If that were the case, then why did Obama's own justice department say it only extends to those citizens outside the country?

Because apprehending someone within our country is much more plausible.

 

[Weezer]

If he raised a gun at them and then they shot him, you'd have a point.

I think the police were absolutely wrong in how they handled George Floyd. But I'm not the one making idiotic analogies, trying to justify a POTUS violating the Constitution.

 

[volfanhill]

Because apprehending someone within our country is much more plausible.

But it's an imminent threat.

 

[Weezer]

No...he didn't. Read the link I provided. It's been studied and analyzed by legal scholars who understand the law much better than either of us.

By legal scholars the government trotted out to support their assertions. Not exactly an unbiased bunch. Much like yourself. It's a simple question, was al-Awlaki given due process as a U.S. citizen, as guaranteed by the Constitution? He was not. I don't care how your so-called legal scholars try to tap dance around it, Obama violated the Constitution. Anyone using their common sense could see it. Which is why you don't.

 

[luthervol]

But it's an imminent threat.

Yu don't understand the legal interpretation of imminent as it relates to the timeframe of plausible apprehension.