Hacker News Reader

Comment by wheels | Hacker News Reader

They're both American citizens. At the end of the day, they have to be let in. They could, potentially, be charged with a crime, but not turned away.

View on HN

While I understand your reasoning, keep in mind there are US citizens that are being executed without even a trial.

It's fairly obvious the government can and will do whatever they want.

Prosecuting a journalist -- over something that has the executive branch sweating bullets -- when they're on the way to attend one of the biggest entertainment award ceremonies of the year would be like loading a revolver with a whole stick of dynamite and pretending you're just going to shoot your foot off.

"TSA imprisons Oscar winners on their way to the ceremonies" isn't something Obama wants to see in every newspaper on Monday morning.

Agree with your comment personally.

But can see how one might have these objections:

* It would be a way to make an example out of "collaborators". Presumably in the future the next Greenwald would think twice before embarking on this kind of project.

* It would also be a way to prove to themselves and the rest of the world that "nobody really cares and public in general supports the Government".

Regarding the last issue. There is a hidden danger in these revelations and that is despite all the talk and all the press, it seems the general public is not too interested in the topic after all. This in turn serves as a signal to the executive branch and to the NSA that they need not worry much and can even increase the intensity of their programs.

> "TSA imprisons Oscar winners on their way to the ceremonies"

Haha, yeah, that would never happen -- oh, except for that one time when it almost did (nominee only, not the winner):

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/palestini...

A 90 minute delay by immigration because someone didn't bring the right paperwork is not the same thing as being imprisoned.

No kidding. I've been delayed just about that same timeframe coming back into Chicago while having the right credentials with a foreign greencard holding spouse. Turns out the media didn't ask me for my story.

Except he did have the correct papers, including his Oscar invite, and the TSA didn't believe him.

Uhh, are you aware of what the Obama administration was doing to James Risen, one of the greatest investigative journalists from the New York Times?

They have no problems going after very, very big name journalists with huge organizations behind them.

If you refreshed yourself of some American history you might not feel so sure. The likelihood of such a thing happening increases with each rightward shift the country takes. The war on terror is rather popular, and the constitution not so much with is protections for criminals, terrorists, gay marriage, non-christians and atheists, and all other things that make the right see red.

"there are US citizens that are being executed without even a trial"

Wow! Edgy stuff. You should present your evidence, it would be the news story of the decade. You do have evidence I presume? It's not as if you would write something so outlandish based purely on conspiracy theories?

Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

Two weeks later: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-...

Both of the above were US citizens killed by drones abroad. One of them was not even an adult yet, by US law.

And, for the record, it was not the news story of the decade.

Combat is not execution.

Dropping a bomb on teenagers with a robotic airplane from a shipping container in Nevada is not combat.

It fits the definition of "combat" used by almost everyone. And basically no-one would define it as "execution". So there's your problem there.

>It fits the definition of "combat" used by almost everyone.

[Citation Needed]

>basically no-one would define it as "execution".

I would.

>It fits the definition of "combat" used by almost everyone. And basically no-one would define it as "execution". So there's your problem there.

A simple search would show you that your assertion is mere bravado and puffery, attempting to paint things in a black and white light. "Almost everyone" and "basically no-one" are weasel words. The issue is nuanced.

Published news articles calling it execution:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a14627/obama-lethal-pre...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-k...

http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/12/execution-by-drone

Some cross-aisle input: http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/06/drone-strikes-murder-mob...

Academic journals debating the implications of drone warfare:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

http://se.asee.org/proceedings/ASEE2013/Papers2013/157.PDF

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-war-theory-and-the-ethi...

A book on the topic:

Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control: http://goo.gl/cghukG

Though, frankly, I picture you more like the cross-section mentioned in this excerpt (pg. 210, bottom of the page):

https://books.google.com/books?id=RcGZ_x96exgC&lpg=PA210&ots...

If the only people agreeing with you are Glenn Greenwald, Socialist Worker and Esquire, then maybe your argument has a problem.

I am not arguing in favor or against calling it execution, just pointing out that your tactics are underhanded and trollish. The issue isn't as black and white as you want it to be and no amount of your cynicism or finger-pointing will change that.

The academic articles that you've glossed over explicitly point out that further attention needs to be given to the frameworks within which we look at drone tactics:

From the second academic journal link: "In targeted attacks, with surgical precision, key targets are picked off discriminately. This is far too reminiscent of murder, and does not give the target a proper right to defend themselves against the accusations or discrimination. This issue needs to be considered in further detail."

Note that this comes from an engineering journal, likely targeted at a similar audience as the crowd that makes up HN. It doesn't take any sort of farfetched opining to agree that the issue is more than just "Execution? T/F?".

I understand the social justice thrust of your argument, and I understand the political narrative that wishes to categorize this as "execution". Unfortunately no-one really agrees apart from your fellow-travellers on the extreme-left.

If the only people agreeing with you are Dick Cheney, Haaretz and Fox News then maybe your argument has a problem.

This is your argument? If I think Greenwald/Socialist Worker are absurd extremes of opinion, then I must be a neocon?

That is the black/white logic of a toddler or Disney movie.

Your definition of execution would not be recognised by any sensible person or institution.

Are you going to provide the definition used by all sensible people and institutions?

No response and a single down vote. Real mystery where that came from.

"Real mystery where that came from."

I hope you're not saying I'm one of them/a spook/lizardman. Because I really like this website and it depresses me that it's slowly being infected with the conspiracy mindset.

Sorry, what in the world are you talking about? You are acting strange and paranoid and refuse to answer a simple question.

It's not up to the person arguing the status quo to prove the status quo. It's up to person with the extraordinary theory to provide the extraordinary evidence.

There's a big difference between an enemy combatant in a war zone and a journalist going to an awards ceremony.

Releasing "state secrets" (or whatever spin the gov't wants to put on being embarrassed) carries a pretty stiff penalty that could be worse, or at least as bad as, enemy combatant.

ehhh, when you say U.S. citizens are you referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki? Because that's a very specific strike in that he was a recruiter for Al Qaeda and was with 3 other Al Qaeda members in the same vehicle in northern Yemen.

Now you might say they could have let him go. But we did let Al-Baghdadi go, and equally charismatic islamist and look what that led to.

Not every U.S. citizen criminal gets a trial. For example if you go on a shooting rampage, and a cop kills you, well no trial, because you couldn't be captured. That's the way this situation was handled in yemen. Why? Because the Yemeni government tried him in absentia and ordered him to be captured dead or alive. If you commit a crime in another country you are subject to their laws.

Face it it's an exception that statistically 1 out of 300000000 would have a concern over. So lose the hyperbole it's not going to serve your case as well as more factual statements would.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com