WTF WTF WTF

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:22 pm

ah, so now we accept your personal opinion that he did not actually lose citizenship? I did not realize you were a chief justice in the US, sir!

in any case, shouldn't the more important moral question be, was the killing justified, regardless of citizenship? I mean, the guy was living in Yemin and a member of Al Queda. By all accounts, he was actively plotting terrorist acts. These people are trying to kill innocent people for no other reason than religious bigotry. And yet somehow this fool should be treated with kid gloves and given a trial?

I mean if some fool born in the US in the 1940's decided to leave the US, and join the Nazis in Germany, and then fight in their military, do we somehow lose the right to shoot him when he participates in an attack against US troops? Do we have to stop and wait and say, oh darn, that one was born in the US, hold your fire, lets take him prisoner and give him a fair trial?

As far as I'm concerned, this fellow was a member in a foreign military attempting to attack the US. Our military/CIA/whatever has every right to take him out before he pulls the trigger on whatever weapon he has targeting me or my family.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:26 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:22 AM) ah, so now we accept your personal opinion that he did not actually lose citizenship? I did not realize you were a chief justice in the US, sir!

From what I understood from reading literally several news articles about him, and whole bits of his Wikipedia article, he actually still was a US citizen! I suppose this is my personal opinion! Excellent logical argument, sir -- just because my personal opinion matches actual fact, while yours does not, doesn't make my personal opinion somehow "more valid" than yours, after all.

When Mr. C. implied you were a lawyer, did he mean forum lawyer, or the actual kind?

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:29 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:22 AM) in any case, shouldn't the more important moral question be, was the killing justified, regardless of citizenship?

This is an important question too, but not the only one. I think "should you be worried if your government breaks its own laws in order to kill people?" is also a pretty good moral question!

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:22 AM) As far as I'm concerned, he's a member in a foreign military attempting to attack the US. Our military/CIA/whatever has every right to take him out before he pulls the trigger on whatever weapon he has targeting me or my family.

Am I a bad person for finding this line hilarious too?

I mean, to be fair, it makes sense -- this guy was a threat to the safety of US citizens, I guess. But now I'm just imagining TakingArms being in a constant state of panic because of all the dudes pointing weapons at him and his family and just waiting to pull the trigger, with only quick action by the CIA/whatever keeping him safe moment to moment.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:31 pm

I might be if it did

QUOTE From what I understood from reading literally several news articles about him, and whole bits of his Wikipedia article, he actually still was a US citizen! I suppose this is my personal opinion! Excellent logical argument, sir -- just because my personal opinion matches actual fact, while yours does not, doesn't make my personal opinion somehow "more valid" than yours, after all.[/quote]

No offense, but I would not believe everything I read in news articles, particularly when it comes to questions of law. Most journalists tend not to be too bright about such things.

As for actual fact, I did not realize that any particular US court had ruled on the question of whether he was still a citizen? In fact I believe the only US court consulted never actually reached that particular issue, and only said that the President was allowed to target him since it was a political question.

But hey, if you don't have facts to back you up, you can just make them up, right?

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:33 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:31 AM) I might be if it did

I think it did! Or at the very least, it's not clear-cut, and thus perhaps bears some investigating before the enthusiastic rah-rahs!

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:31 AM) No offense, but I would not believe everything I read in news articles, particularly when it comes to questions of law. Most journalists tend not to be too bright about such things.

As for actual fact, I did not realize that any particular US court had ruled on the question of whether he was still a citizen?

I didn't realise US citizenship was contingent on moment-to-moment approval by the courts! It must be a scary and uncertain life you people live.

What if a US court forgets to rule on your citizenship this month, TakingArms? Where will you go, as someone without a country?

Fair point about the journalists! But I'm still pretty sure that if no-one and nothing actually took this guy's citizenship away, he didn't just magically lose it as soon as he became evil! I'm also pretty sure the government wouldn't have bothered writing memos to itself justifying killing a US citizen if it thought it could just claim he was no longer a US citizen!

If I claim that you don't have any facts on your side over and over again, will it become true?

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:40 pm

I just pointed out to you that legal principle under which he relinquished his US citizenship. I realize it kind of totally screws your argument, but based on that principle none of your above arguments make any sense. If the man joined a foreign military and took arms against the US government, by that act he relinquished his citizenship. No opinion of any journalist or wikipedia editor or forum lawyer changes that. And the only legal entity that can confirm or deny that argument is a US court.

If someone with a brain in the white house would make that argument, it might take away a lot of the nonsense that the media is pushing. I mean you do realize that the media has something to gain by turning this into a controversy, right?

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:42 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 1 2011, 11:40 AM) I just pointed out to you that legal principle under which he relinquished his US citizenship. I realize it kind of totally screws your argument, but based on that principle none of your above arguments make any sense. If the man joined a foreign military and took arms against the US government, by that act he relinquished his citizenship. If someone with a brain in the white house would make that argument, it might take away a lot of the nonsense that the media is pushing. I mean you do realize that the media has something to gain by turning this into a controversy, right?

Except that for the US government to make that claim, it would have to publicly admit that it considers terrorist operatives soldiers in a foreign military, which would, as I understand it, totally screw a whole bunch of arguments they are making. I already responded to your comment, and you are pretending that I did not respond to it! This makes me sad.

Anyway, you may well be right that maybe the government should have claimed he lost his citizenship, but it hasn't actually done that, as I understand.

Hey, I won't argue that the media isn't stupid and biased sometimes often, but I don't think that automatically means that whenever they say something, the opposite must be true.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:46 pm

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Oct 1 2011, 11:42 AM) Except that for the US government to make that claim, it would have to publicly admit that it considers terrorist operatives soldiers in a foreign military, and not enemy combatants, which would, as I understand it, totally screw a whole bunch of arguments they are making.

That's actually not necessarily true. The principle is that when a citizen takes arms against its own government, it relinquishes citizenship. In this case, it technically isn't a military of a foreign government, because Al Queda is not a government in the traditional sense. That doesn't make them any less an enemy, however, and it doesn't mean that you throw out the principle altogether.

Lots of these legal questions have cropped up because the war against Al Queda is not a traditional war, since Al Queda isn't a country. However, that doesn't make it not a war, and it also doesn't make sense to throw out hundreds of years of legal jurisprudence that are still clearly applicable to the case.

All that being said, I think the enemy combatant nonsense is a bunch of crap that the Bush administration put out and that it hasn't really helped us at all. And you're right, it does generate a lot of inconsistencies that really don't make any sense. But you know, sometimes that happens in the law, because laws are made up by people, who tend to be hypocritical and inconsistent on occasion.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:50 pm

I'm fully willing to admit that this makes sense as a legal argument, but it's just that -- an argument, that needs to be discussed and debated and, uh, argued in some official way. As it stands right now, the US government itself seems to have still considered this guy a citizen, so by their own standards -- whether these were right or wrong -- they killed a US citizen, and I think that this should be considered troubling. That's pretty much the one thing I'm trying to say here. It bothers me when people are just enthusiastic and gung-ho about this and try to dismiss any criticism that is brought up, because I think that, whether at the end of the day the killing was right or wrong, it's okay to be a little worried and a little critical of it.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:51 pm

And silly arguments like, "omg they killed a US citizen without a trial" when said citizen is a member of al queda in yemin and actively plotting attacks against innocent US citizens, annoy me.