Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Is Terrorist Death Sentence by Drone any better than EIT?

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Jun 6, 2012 1:31:24 PM PDT.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 6, 2012 1:05:29 AM PDT
Elo says:
I don't object to Obama's drone campaign against known terrorists, and I didn't object to Bush's EIT against known terrorists.
I'm just wondering how the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd feels about Obama killing known terrorists with drone attacks. Is killing them without due process somehow better than waterboarding?

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 1:08:15 AM PDT
Maybe cause Obama attacked terrorists and Bush had a jihad against Saddam Hussein?

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 1:08:20 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:10:39 AM PDT
Elo says:
That's a really dumb answer.
I'll let you try and figure out why.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:14:28 AM PDT
Oregongirl says:
If you want better answers than next time ask this same question in the politics forum on amazon.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:36:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 1:39:27 AM PDT
1stimemomma says:
I oppose Obama killing US citizens using drone attacks (Anwar al-Awlaki)..the administration is now claiming it can do so on US soil without due process. That means the President could label you a terrorist and take you out...without the slightest oversight from the judicial system or congress. That's not a good development

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:37:14 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 6, 2012 1:38:02 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 5:33:59 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 21, 2012 8:44:02 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 12:59:34 PM PDT
Elo says:
Overall, your answer regarding the Iraq War is fine if you believe Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, as opposed to making a mistake (along with lots of other people, Democrats included) based on bad intelligence. We could argue this forever and not convince each other, so I'd like to agree to disagree on this point. But the Iraq War was not part of my question.

"We've been 'at war' with terrorists since 9/11. I'm not sure if you will consider this a NEWSFLASH or not, but the basic premise in a WAR is to KILL the bad guy. You don't capture him, bring him to court, try him with a jury of his peers and then sentence him (or her)- you KILL him. However, if by chance you do CAPTURE him, you don't circumvent the Geneva convention because God and Dick '5 Deferments' Cheney says it's ok."

As far as your answer to my actual question, that's fine too, unless one doesn't believe the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists who TARGET civilians, are not strictly affiliated with any one nation/state, do not wear uniforms or otherwise identify themselves as armed combatants or abide by the "rules" of war.
Am I missing something in the Geneva Convention that applies to terrorists?
thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:13:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 1:14:33 PM PDT
G. Burke says:
Heard much about Gitmo lately?

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 1:17:18 PM PDT
Firefly says:
Go here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/please-do-not-waste-our-time-with-political-nonsense

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 1:17:21 PM PDT
A true ideologue never lets the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So, no double standard exists as far as they are concerned.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xd88efc40)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Jun 6, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions