Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Also, if Obama didn't bomb the guy, but he managed to get away and still planned an attack, the GOP would then cry that Obama should have done something? Legal obscurity be damned.
I don't think Republicans are the ones that care about it. Generally, it's a left-wing criticism.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe US shot citizens in the US Civil War. They were killed taking up arms against the US thenand WW 2. I do not care a terrorist like Anwar al-Awlaki was shot after waging war on the US, regardless if he had a passport.
There is plenty of things to raise an eyebrow at the U.S at about them bombing foreign lands and why in the first place without even getting into the details of who they bombed, really.
P.S: Bombing is bad.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI'm not really familiar enough with the case or US law to say anything more on it.
And anyway, that wasn't the main point of the article. The main point is that the DOJ is being blatantly corrupt about accepting bribes from Michael Flynn, and the judge can't even do anything about it according to the law.
And given the tone of the article, the claim that this is some Republican talking point seems rather unwarranted.
Edited by Redmess on Aug 14th 2020 at 10:13:00 AM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times@ Anwar Al-Awlaki Bombing: I'm of the opinion that terrorists who go ahead and plan and conduct terrorist attacks, support those terrorist groups, and such, should lose their citizenship rights.
This includes those like militia groups and far right wing loonies. If it was me, I would've declared the militia that occupied that one building a few years back were no longer citizens, followed by dronestriking them to a pulp.
Yeah,you see the thing is,the group your talking about were Americans on American soil and droning striking them would have looked really really abd politically,and also they were trying to minimise the loss of life (as i recall only one person died)
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverThere's also the issue that US citizenship basically cannot be lost involuntary by Supreme Court decision — Afroyim v. Rusk
.
I have a different idea for what to do with American terrorists.
...
Arrest them, try them, and sentence them to life imprisonment for murder.
Stripping citizenship is a bad decision because it is a short skip to doing for any convicted felon.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Existential self-interest. Oh, wait, that was rhetorical.
Stripping criminals of citizenship so you can kill them without due process is a very bad idea. Labelling them terrorists as a way to justify murdering them in a war situation is also a slippery slope situation.
You can't just take away someone's rights so you can kill them unopposed. That's what we have human rights for. That's what we have due process for.
As for Flynn, now that he has had his case thrown out through bribery, is it possible for Biden to reopen the case if he becomes president? After all, if the executive branch has absolute authority to throw out any case it likes, does it not have the power to reopen them as well?
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesPersonally I would argue the difference here is the presence in a warzone, if they were sitting around on homeland soil arrest them and try them... but once you step forward into a warzone things are different.
If some one in the military decided to change sides and start shooting on there former allies, would they not be considered a valid target just because they had citizenship? The same thing kind of applies.
I suspect so, if nothing else his crime was lying to cover up other crimes, so the FBI can just interview him again and he’ll be in the same position, lie and commit a new offence of lying to the FBI, say nothing and get charged with obstructing an investigation, or tell the truth and get charged for his main crimes.
As for the US nationals becoming terrorists thing, I have no problem with shooting at enemy combatants who happen to be US nationals, but then you have to treat them as enemy combatants when you capture them (so no torture).
The citizenship striping is done so they can be killed without granting them and their allies their due protections under the rules of war, that’s what’s wrong, the loopholing of the Geneva convention, not the killing of terrorists.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 14th 2020 at 9:54:40 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA US Citizen can't be charged twice for the same crime unless new Evidence comes that shows he would be the guilty one. The problem here is that this case of lying to the FBI is being actively dropped, so it can't just be restarted afterwards, and I can't think of any way to find new evidence to get him in trouble again. So if he either keeps his mouth shut or tells the truth, he can't be arrested over this again, and I see no reason why Flynn would ever want to talk to the FBI ever again after this so he can't get in trouble for telling a new lie.
For all intents and purposes, he's guilty but free.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Aug 14th 2020 at 5:56:57 AM
Being interviewed by the FBI isn’t generally something you can opt out of because you don’t want to do it.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Politco did an article on Obama and Biden's relationship in regards on how Obama was not encouraging either in a 2016 run or a 2020 run.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."