[kevingadd]

Yeah, a real dangerous dude. All his alleged crimes basically involve talking to people; no wonder we sent some drones over there to wipe him and all his relatives out.

Note that there's not even any concrete factual accusations of him being involved with planning actual attacks, just 'he spoke to', 'was associated with', 'allegedly involved in'. You really think something that flimsy is worth murdering dozens of people with a drone?

I would certainly hope that if a few disgruntled people alleged that you were involved in crimes, you'd actually get a fair trial instead of a remote control execution. But maybe that's just not the world we live in.

[mercurial]

Yes, well, he did seem to be an al-Qaeda recruiter and propagandist. Does it justify his extrajudicial execution? Depends on who you ask, obviously, but he wasn't an innocent bystander. He certainly knew the risks.

[LekkoscPiwa]

> he wasn't an innocent bystander

any proof of that?

[mercurial]

He preached holy war. Getting blown up by an unmanned killing machine is precisely the sort of thing he encouraged young people to do.

[kevingadd]

Where, exactly, lies the line that you cross with speech that justifies being murdered in cold blood? Let's figure this out, then.

Westboro Baptist? Are they extreme enough? How about skinheads or white supremacists? They certainly advocate for violence against innocents, they probably even call it holy war.

If the United States seriously starts advancing the idea that speech alone can justify an execution, then it's all over. There's no point in pretending there's anything resembling freedom in this country anymore if that's the case.

You simply cannot justify executing someone based solely off speech. It doesn't matter what the speech is. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt actual, active involvement in a crime to justify murdering anyone, let alone a US citizen. The fact that the US government gets away with murdering people all the time doesn't change anything.

You can certainly respond to 'undesirable' speech in appropriate ways based on the law. There are lots of examples of countries where undesirable speech - whether it criticizes tyrants or promotes violence against minorities - can be punished with fines or jail time. That's certainly a lot better than an execution.

[mercurial]

I'm not justifying it, he should have been charged before a court of law. What I'm saying is that he certainly knew what he was getting into.

[LekkoscPiwa]

then bring him to a court of law and proove it. Could have been and was done with nazis who had bloid of millions on their hands but can't be done here? why? because in the process there wouldnt be excuse for suspending constitution?