politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So when we were storming the beaches of Normandy, we put each Nazi soldier shooting at us on trial first? Funny, I don't recall ever reading that we did that.
Or going back a bit further, what about those Confederate soldiers? They were all US citizens, even if they claimed otherwise. The US government never accepted the fact that they were anything but insurrectionists (which is all that they were). It's only the Confederate framing that claims they were an independent state during that time.
Fighting battles in a real war and intercepting civilian ships and international waters and killing everybody on board is not the same thing. It is an incredible argument to compare storming the beaches at Normandy with shooting a small boat out of the water in the Caribbean right now.
Let's break it down.
There's enormous and well-justified precedent for killing US citizens outside the US, and during insurrections within the US, when they have been determined (with due process and as much available evidence as possible) to be enemy combatants. For example, being in a terrorist training camp, or putting on a Confederate uniform and killing other Americans. "Innocent until proven guilty" is only achievable within US jurisdiction, and even then, generally not in cases of insurrection. Since the boat-sinking took place outside US jurisdiction, you're mistaken about the applicability of that high standard of proof in this situation.
Declarations of war and smaller military interventions carried out according to law are precisely that. And on the smaller scale, there's law governing who can determine who an enemy combatant is, and how that process should work. Those determinations are done entirely by the executive branch. So you're mistaken, we do allow our leaders to do that, and in at least some cases, it's entirely justified. A declaration of war is a proclamation of guilt and a decision to kill a large number of people. And there's long precedent for it still being lawful even in cases where there's no formal declaration of war, though I'd argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow military action without a declaration of war.
Assuming they're innocent until proven guilty in a judicial proceeding (if that's the "same policy" you're referring to), outside US jurisdiction, is utterly unworkable in practice.
Now, as for the case of Trump sinking the boat, in none of this have I argued that arbitrarily taking military action, or arbitrarily killing foreign nationals, is justifiable. It's not. It's just that the stringent guidelines you have suggested are unworkable.
Hard to read this as it is leading with false precepts and misdefinitions.
The executive does not declare war, we are not in a declared war, US rights do not end at US borders, and lethal force is not authorized by our own rules of engagement here they were not fired upon or even in danger of losing them.
Your precedents offered do not fit, the one that fits is obama drone striking an american overseas, and that was a violation just as the nsa taking all information without warrant. Or double tapping reuters journalists in iraq from helicoptor. Both illegal by our own rules and laws.
The constitution supersedes all other law, and codified law supercedes case law. A precedent of ignoring the bill of rights does not legalize dishonoring the bill of rights. Any law contrary is illegal and unenforceable, in law.
That said, interdicting boats suspected of carrying contraband is not unworkable. Why you would apologize for the admin setting precedents of killing on a whim on secret evidence I do not know.