xnix, i made the exact same point earlier, it is sad that these people can't seem to fathom human solidarity. if you are willing to kill someone (in a war) without trial then what does it matter what their nationality is. for better or worse human solidarity is tantamount to our success as a species unfortunately, this wasn't always the case and speaking in terms of evolutionary tendency, we tend not to have solidarity with our species in its entirety as it was necessary to prosper early in human history. it seems now this once upon a time strength (prejudice) will be our downfall (and has been for some time).

xnixnix wrote... So you guys are discussing, whether the place of birth of this person makes a difference of how we should evaluate this act?

That's part of the debate yes, but national origin has been more of a complication really as opposed to an actual barrier. The playbook has been to continue setting bar raising precedents that go unchallenged aside from mere criticism. Over time the precedents continue to be set causing the barriers to such actions continue to erode until such barriers, laws, constitutions, become meaningless rhetoric. Of course it must remain unilateral to the benefit of the United States.

you also wrote... All I gather from the whole shebang is that it is obviously OK for the United States government to kill anyone they please without trial.

The constitution says different. Ideally you want to finds ways around that so that it's no longer a hindrance, or at least not much of one. A mere technicality so to speak. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer. Once this blows over, which undoubtedly will unless a miracle happens, the next time becomes easier. It's really quite a simple playbook really.

lol so its fine to order a hit on anyone who isn't american, but doing so to an american citizen is crossing some kind of ethical/legal line?

yes, a legal line. when you are a citizen of a certain country, let's call it America, the government is for the people/by the people. so when the government starts killing people that are its own citizen, there is a major problem there. there's a bill of rights, and despite whatever crimes they have committed, they have the right of habeas corpus. if you don't see that, sucks to be you. i don't have a problem with the gov't killing non-citizens that conspire to kill Americans, they shouldn't come here looking to kill and not expect to get taken out if they are detected.

when i said habeas corpus i meant due process

Boogybytes writes:... "lol so its fine to order a hit on anyone who isn't american, but doing so to an american citizen is crossing some kind of ethical/legal line?"

Well, when you put it that way doesn't really seem fair does it ?.. lol.

More proof that The United States of America has only the best of intentions and by removing that horrible distinction it brings GLOBAL EQUALITY to the masses as opposed to this illogical not to mention unfair discrimination. Look at is as being much like our "democracy" they "exported" to umm... Iraq?

It's America for christ sakes, what else could it be...

greekboi wrote.. "i don't have a problem with the gov't killing non-citizens that conspire to kill Americans, they shouldn't come here looking to kill and not expect to get taken out if they are detected."

The US Gov't war on terror has almost NOTHING to do with protecting American Joe Six Pack's freedoms. You'll find that claim only at the official press conferences and state of the union address. THE DOCUMENTATION however, found in the government archives as it applies to foreign policy, CIA and Military directives ALL POINT to protecting Americas INTERESTS, namely corporate ones, namely in the middle east. So you have all the "mouth noises" at the podium which oddly enough are in direct conflict with the ALL the documentation and THEN you have all the verifiable documentation itself that supports what they are doing, HOW they are doing it and why. Which of the two are you going to believe.... oh wait, you've already told us. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. It will always lead you to the same exact place. The United States method of hoping to create stability in certain regions on the globe is the exact thing which continues to escalate more and more "blowback". I haven't the time nor the inclination to lead you through it all. I will give you a hint tho. Follow the money. You'll notice the United States never seems interested in the regions who's main export is pickles and lettuce.

as a proponent of universal justice i think that's a stupid and arbitrary fucking line.

people are people, we are all citizens of the same world and we all have inalienable rights, regardless of what nationality we are. the sooner people realize this the sooner we will achieve an end to injustice.

and dont try to feed me some constitutional bullshit, the constitution is a very helpful document that our forefathers created to guide our nations but it by no means was supposed to be held in dogma. i think you'll find most of of the drafters of the constitution, especially madison (who is considered the document's godfather) held this belief.

so let me reiterate something that i've said many times before: dogma is the source of all conflict. whether its religious dogma (as was the motive for most of history's bloodiest conflicts), nationalist dogma (world war 1), racial dogma (rwanda), or the state dogma that fueled the regimes of Stalin and Hitler - ultimately dogma was the source of the world's greatest atrocities.

So I say unto you who hold the constitution above all else, think for yourself and think with your conscience.

As an international I don't hold national law to much esteem and I certainly don't respect close-mindedness.

0632242545....

I actually agree. (prepare for the wailing and gnashing of leftist's abound) It's kinda why I've kinda steered clear from the fact than in this case it was "an American" who by way of having his constitutional rights denied was killed in the process. My main point is the US gov probably see's this as a major breakthrough and if it flies cant wait to establish this as protocol in what they’ll probably frame as in "special cases" only... for now. So yea, why should a national border or origin matter much. It shouldn't. As you said people are people. But it's a double edge sword. You see it as being pragmatic, fair enough, I do get that. The United States however, sees it as expanding their reach and use of power over life and death without obstruction or at least less of it.