Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[banjonator1]

Not going to get involved in this discussion, but...

Since there are clearly still people out there funding and/or committing terrorist attacks at this very moment, and you just said, quite vigorously, that you'd devote all your efforts to killing these people... Doesn't that mean you should be out there fighting terrorists right now, instead of arguing politics on a video game forum?

Why do you waste time here? You have your word to keep.

Right now I am in no financial position to go off to other countries killing terrorists, and my country's military has an 18 y.o. minimum age requirement, so that's going to be a problem.

I...I've let you down Charmander.

I'm so ashamed.

hey javelin, if the american government suddenly decides I'm a criminal for whatever reason, does that mean I should just be killed without being given the chance to defend myself in court?

Well actually if you even remotely helped fund a major terrorist attack I'd do everything in my power to kill you myself.

Then what is your stance on our government having funded Osama or something like that back before the gulf wars or whatever.

(idk my history well but something like that happened so just look it up if you need to)

Oh, that looks interesting. I'll have to do a little more research on the subject.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

i'm not saying you should be killed

they probably would kill you anyways though

and you'd be ok with that?

no of course not

no, it's about the fact that banjo and javelin are in agreement that the united states government is legally entitled to kill anyone at any time, so long as they are not a us citizen

i didn't say the us government was allowed to do that

the united nations and the international community should have the right to do that though, especially after the person has admitted his guilt and a trial is unnecessary

Yeah, this guy's been dead for two years, yet he still causes arguments around the forum.

What the actual fuck, guys?

I don't see what your problem is, unless you're like a pacifist about arguments or something. This is a completely civil discussion. Are we not allowed to debate things?

 

[banjonator1]

@Anton

Is this what you meant?

 

[Lin Beifong]

Not going to get involved in this discussion, but...

Since there are clearly still people out there funding and/or committing terrorist attacks at this very moment, and you just said, quite vigorously, that you'd devote all your efforts to killing these people... Doesn't that mean you should be out there fighting terrorists right now, instead of arguing politics on a video game forum?

Why do you waste time here? You have your word to keep.

Right now I am in no financial position to go off to other countries killing terrorists, and my country's military has an 18 y.o. minimum age requirement, so that's going to be a problem.

I...I've let you down Charmander.

I'm so ashamed.

Well, there's still a lot of potential terrorists right there in your country. You could go after those. Maybe whack them over the head with good old fisticuffs.

I can already see it in the newspapers. In a world of fear, where no citizen dares to take a stand against the foreign menace, one man strikes terror in the heart of terror. His cause is righteous! His judgment is final! His fists bring justice!



I'm going to have to punch myself later for getting involved.

So I gather that the gist of one of the central conflicts in here seems to be that some people think obvious terrorists don't deserve a trial when they are not U.S. citizens, right?

Let me present you with a hypothetical situation:

Suppose I were to book a flight to the USA, for holiday purposes. Afterwards, I'm standing on U.S. ground, just sort of spacing out, taking in the view like a tourist, when some complete whack-job steals my ID. Said whack-job then proceeds to set off a bomb on a huge plaza, killing and injuring a lot of people. The guy escapes, but leaves behind my ID.

Shortly after that, I am getting arrested as a suspect for mass murder. My ID was found at the crime scene. There are numerous eye-witnesses who saw a "foreign-looking guy" leave the scene in a hurry. The case seems extremely clear-cut, so in the eyes of the law, I must be a terrorist.

This is now the point where I would get an attorney for my defense. However, since I am not a U.S. citizen and also a terrorist as far as the evidence is concerned, we don't need any of that. So I guess I'm just gonna have to be executed then.

It's ok though, after all, a system that allows efficient executions like that is bound to have a huge impact on terrorists worldwide, bringing all of us law-abiding people a step closer towards a peaceful world without terrorism. A world where all of us can live without fear. Oh, except me, because I am dead.

 

[Specific Neptune]

quit being an asscanoe, bowser99

you've derailed the topic far more than anyone in this thread

"asscanoe"

that's a new one. just fyi, i've only posted like 6 times during the time that i've been here, two of those times were contributory to the discussion, the other four were asking what this all has to do with osama bin laden's death. and learn my name.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

i didn't say the us government was allowed to do that

well, the united states constitution does only affect citizens of the united states

that doesn't mean that i believe they're morally allowed to do that. they are legally allowed to unless they're breaking international statutes, which they probably are.

It's ok though, after all, a system that allows efficient executions like that is bound to have a huge impact on terrorists worldwide, bringing all of us law-abiding people a step closer towards a peaceful world without terrorism. A world where all of us can live without fear. Oh, except me, because I am dead.

There's a difference - bin Laden already admitted to the crime. Therefore, a trial was unnecessary.

I don't believe the US should dish out justice before "due process of law", in this a trial to prove the suspect's guilt. But bin Laden had already confessed, so "due process" has already been accomplished.

 

[Lin Beifong]

I'm not talking about Bin Laden, I'm talking about terrorists in general. It has been suggested in this thread that the lack of U.S. citizenship is a valid argument to deny someone a fair trial, which is a dangerous mindset to have, any way you look at it.

Also, while I do agree that (from a personal POV, as opposed to a politically interested one) Bin Laden got what he had coming to him, and no trial would have changed the inevitable, I do have an issue with just casually brushing this case off as something that was a-ok. The execution of Bin Laden should not be glorified as some great triumph of justice. It should be seen for what it is: an exception from the rules, as well as technically a violation of the law. The often overlooked danger here is that where there's one exception, more are usually to follow. Cross a line once, it gets much easier to do it again. Progressive escalation like that happens just about anywhere people are involved. Therefore it is necessary to keep such exceptions in check. Accept that they happened, learn from them, but never try to glorify or justify them.

If you fail to do that, the exception just might become the rule, and you might come face to face with the situation I have illustrated a lot sooner than you expect.

 

[BowserJunior]

On another note: If the US government wants to stop terrorists, why do they send out exploding drones that kill more civilians than terrorists?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm not talking about Bin Laden, I'm talking about terrorists in general. It has been suggested in this thread that the lack of U.S. citizenship is a valid argument to deny someone a fair trial, which is a dangerous mindset to have, any way you look at it.

Yeah, I don't believe that at all.

Also, while I do agree that (from a personal POV, as opposed to a politically interested one) Bin Laden got what he had coming to him, and no trial would have changed the inevitable, I do have an issue with just casually brushing this case off as something that was a-ok. The execution of Bin Laden should not be glorified as some great triumph of justice. It should be seen for what it is: an exception from the rules, as well as technically a violation of the law. The often overlooked danger here is that where there's one exception, more are usually to follow. Cross a line once, it gets much easier to do it again. Progressive escalation like that happens just about anywhere people are involved. Therefore it is necessary to keep such exceptions in check. Accept that they happened, learn from them, but never try to glorify or justify them.

If you fail to do that, the exception just might become the rule, and you might come face to face with the situation I have illustrated a lot sooner than you expect.

That's a point that I definitely agree with. So, consider my position changed to "it was more or less okay this time but let's try not to do it in the future".

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

note how it specifies the rights of citizens and then goes on to specifically and separately enumerate the rights of non-citizens, and that those rights include the right to not be executed without a trial

of course this applies to the state governments only, because the fifth amendment already stops the federal government from doing that. but apparently, you don't believe in the fifth amendment

Let's look at the Fifth Amendment, shall we?
[quote author=Fifth Amendment]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation[/quote]
So now the question becomes "does this qualify as "war or public danger". Personally, I would say... probably not. But considering the whole "War on Terror" idea, then I suppose it would be war in principle (it's not legally war because war was not declared by Congress; the last time that happened was World War II iirc).

My opinion? I don't believe we were technically at war, nor was bin Laden in his current state a threat to public danger. But as per what Edo said, we should still have avoided taking him out even if it was an exception to the law.

If we're going to get that technical about laws though, then technically shouldn't President Obama be impeached for failing to "faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States" because he hasn't prosecuted Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington for breaking the Defense of Marriage Act?

Or technically, he also hasn't executed his office by prosecuting Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana, which is still a banned substance on a federal level.

For the record, I think that both same-sex marriage and marijuana use should be legal. And I personally don't feel that Obama should be blasted for not prosecuting the states on this. But isn't this a good example of selective prosecution? Legally, he should be required to wait until the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA (which it probably will) or marijuana legislation is repealed (or struck down, which it might be).

What I mean by this is that if we aren't going to allow the federal government to make exceptions sometimes, then we shouldn't allow it to make exceptions anytime. Whether we support the exception or not.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

doesn't the defense of marriage act only outlaw federal recognition of same sex marriage

 

[Dr. Javelin]

as shoey says, doma is only relevant to federal recognition of marriages. it is completely silent about what kinds of things states are allowed to recognise as legal marriages (except that it relaxes the requirement that one state recognises another state's marriages as valid, such that same sex marriages made in one state need not be recognised in a state where same sex marriages arent legal). were you trying to make this personal? i can't think of any other reason you would have come up with an example about which you apparently don't know even the most basic facts

okay whatever

also, impeachment isnt some kind of automatic thing. the house of representatives has to agree that he needs to be impeached for an impeachment to happen

yeah i definitely didn't know that

but that doesn't matter. i am not discussing whether or not the us government violates the law. i am aware that it does so on a regular basis.

i guess this is a moot point then

Or technically, he also hasn't executed his office by prosecuting Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana, which is still a banned substance on a federal level.

i don't really know or care about marijuana, but i don't see why the president would bring lawsuits against the states. that's what the attorney general is for

guess who the attorney general reports to

the president

For the record, I think that both same-sex marriage and marijuana use should be legal. And I personally don't feel that Obama should be blasted for not prosecuting the states on this. But isn't this a good example of selective prosecution? Legally, he should be required to wait until the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA (which it probably will) or marijuana legislation is repealed (or struck down, which it might be).

What I mean by this is that if we aren't going to allow the federal government to make exceptions sometimes, then we shouldn't allow it to make exceptions anytime. Whether we support the exception or not.

i don't care about your feelings about gay marriage or marijuana. and personally, i don't think the federal government should be allowed to violate the laws based on moral arguments or whatever. but that isn't the point i'm arguing. i'm only arguing about the law. not whether obama or whoever else should be entitled to violate the law when it's convenient. not whether any particular person or people in general deserve to die or get married or smoke weed. i'm only talking about what the law says. do you understand?

i understand that you interpret it that way

but really it doesn't matter how you (or me) interpret it. it's up to the supreme court

so... i guess this whole discussion is pointless?

 

[2257]

well, were you expecting to move mountains with an argument on marioboards.com?

 

[Specific Neptune]

well, it's pretty much the only place on the Internet that you can have an argument, without some random asshole anonymous saying "lol do u even lift brah" and "420 blaze it ****** trololololo"

still, you simply can't have a civilised argument. Like most argument threads on this site, they will most likely be locked, because someone will bring something very very controversial into the argument. Frankly, this was a very controversial argument to begin with, but it's been rather civilised as of now.

also yes, in my opinion, this conversation is pointless. Yeah, that's another thing I see a lot. Even if it's someone's opinion or belief, there's always someone who can't stand the fact that they have an opinion or a belief, and tries to argue with that. Much like a religious argument, it only takes one annoying jackass to take one religious/non-religious person and turn THEM into an annoying jackass. But that's not why we're here, so I'll stop talking about that.

Bottom line: this site is probably the best place to have a good argument, and yet it's still an awful place to argue.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

well, were you expecting to move mountains with an argument on marioboards.com?

on the contrary

edo made a good point and i modified my position

still, you simply can't have a civilised argument. Like most argument threads on this site, they will most likely be locked, because someone will bring something very very controversial into the argument. Frankly, this was a very controversial argument to begin with, but it's been rather civilised as of now.

this was a pretty civilized argument throughout the whole thing

also yes, in my opinion, this conversation is pointless. Yeah, that's another thing I see a lot. Even if it's someone's opinion or belief, there's always someone who can't stand the fact that they have an opinion or a belief, and tries to argue with that. Much like a religious argument, it only takes one annoying jackass to take one religious/non-religious person and turn THEM into an annoying jackass. But that's not why we're here, so I'll stop talking about that.

wait what

Bottom line: this site is probably the best place to have a good argument, and yet it's still an awful place to argue.

Try arguing on NationStates.

 

[Specific Neptune]

still, you simply can't have a civilised argument. Like most argument threads on this site, they will most likely be locked, because someone will bring something very very controversial into the argument. Frankly, this was a very controversial argument to begin with, but it's been rather civilised as of now.

this was a pretty civilized argument throughout the whole thing

did I not just say it was civilised

also yes, in my opinion, this conversation is pointless. Yeah, that's another thing I see a lot. Even if it's someone's opinion or belief, there's always someone who can't stand the fact that they have an opinion or a belief, and tries to argue with that. Much like a religious argument, it only takes one annoying jackass to take one religious/non-religious person and turn THEM into an annoying jackass. But that's not why we're here, so I'll stop talking about that.

wait what

well if you don't understand, how can I help you?

Bottom line: this site is probably the best place to have a good argument, and yet it's still an awful place to argue.

Try arguing on NationStates.

see nationstates was a place that I used to go to to avoid arguments and shit, just to play the damn game, however I've been turned away from that because of those arguments that happened back then. I realise that arguments don't take place there anymore (as far as I know) but frankly I was a bit turned away from the site due to those arguments.

It bothered me is what I'm trying to say. I heard about the game, and how it was fun, and i was roped into a whole "ooh join this state" "no stay here" argument that I couldn't be assed to be a part of. Long story short, arguments turned me away from the site.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

i meant the nationstates forums

 

[Specific Neptune]

ehh