She was raised in Nuremberg. While dad was American stationed in Germany, mom was German.

Follow the law. If there is some person or persons who are engaging in terrorist activity you ask them to be brought to justice and you bring evidence against them. America harbors way greater terrorists from people pleading for justice than Pakistan. There are ways to diplomatically go about this but instead America feels it owns the world and it can do what it wants.

The Magna Carta was created in 1215 and is the foundation for our laws including the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If we can't follow that, or the principles of the Nuremberg Trials we are pathetic.

I take it you are not familiar with the Oath of Office for the US government?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So when the government breaks it's oath, breaks faith to the people and demands of it's soldiers, those men and women who are ready to pay the ultimate price, that they commit atrocious crimes, what worth is there honouring your oath to them?

More importantly, Nuremberg proved that "just following orders" ie. adhering to your oath as a soldier, was not a defense. In the recent debacle in the Australian Defense Force, the chief of armies has explicitly said that people who received the illicit emails and deleted them rather than reporting would also be held responsible because they didn't blow the whistle...

You can waffle on about honour and adhering to ones oath, but the truth is you're advocating the path of the coward. Stay quiet, don't speak out, be a good little lap dog to the establishment. Allow evil to happen because you don't have the cojones to do anything about it. Take cold comfort in the fact that you "honoured" your oath.

@lantern53

i think the only thing manning did that could be considered "wrong" is the pure data dump he performed.

unlike snowden,who sifted and vetted the information and then forwarded the information to a journalist (glenn greenwald at the gaurdian),manning just dumped massive amounts of information to wikileaks.

but manning is also paying a high price and he is willing to pay that price.
so while i may disagree with his methodology i admire his courage to face the full force of the united states federal government.

its interesting that you find people who criticize the federal governments practices as being confused.
let us look at the definition of terrorism shall we?

from the FBI:“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

now the key word here is "unlawful".
which can be translated as being "when THEY perform acts of violence against a population it is "terrorism" but when WE perform acts of violence against a population it is "counter-terrorism" because WE made it lawful".

the arguments is about distinctions and it is flimsy when you question the validity coming from a government which performs drone strikes on a daily basis on brown people.

when a person straps a bomb to their chest and walks into a cafe and detonates themselves in a crowd they are a terrorist.
when the US government sends drone strikes and bombing runs to a village in yemen they are terrorists.

there is no distinction.
just because the government proclaims otherwise or your desire for the US to be standing on moral ground are irrelevant.

they are,by definition,both terrorists.

and when you consider the guidelines put forth by the nuremberg trials after WW2,in which it was the UNITED STATES government which implemented the majority of those guidelines both bush and obama and consequent participatory members of those administrations should be (and ARE in the international court of law) war criminals.

but the united states government conveniently ignores just about everything outside their own interest.even if that interest after the second world war was to diminish the practices our very own government engages in on a global scale every day.

it is the height of hypocrisy and reveals a moral bankruptcy that is staggering.
when they do it =terrorism
when we do it=counter-terrorism

i call bullshit.

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bcglorf
why i'd be happy to. scroll up! and i'll quote:
"Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?"
you might find that your ideas and opinions have a better impact when not accompanied by an insult. but hey, that's just me.
and when our government is murdering people, in our name, I tend to have somewhat high standards
...or maybe the word of our government is good enough? a quick glance at history reveals that our government has absolutely no problem saying whatever need to say in order to create a certain perception and keep business dealings draped in the american flag.
But if you haven't noticed, our government is largely run by corporate special interests, and they act according to those interests, not ours.


I class what I said as categorizing your comments and not your person. I believe you finished with "it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg". I class that incoherent and childish whining.

Meanwhile, immediately after complaining about how insulting my own language is, you state as matter of fact that the government is murdering people...

Sorry, I am responding to comments likening Obama to Hitler, Americans to nazis, and at the same time insisting that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt be the standard applied to self admitted terrorists. You aught not be surprised by the vehemence with I reject this ludicrous and disgusting double standard.

>> ^criticalthud:

i don't remember congress declaring war
if so, on who?
this is murder by drone.
citizen. non-citizen. doesn't matter. this is murder.
we can say we are at war with a noun...but that's bullshit. We are picking wars of resource opportunity.
we are engaged in aggressive war. specifically the highest crime under the geneva convention. it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg.


Right, wars of resource opportunity. So Iraq's oil contracts could be sold to china on the open market. So that Awlaki will no longer stand in the way of America's insatiable hunger for Yemen's vast wealth of... sand?

Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?

i don't remember congress declaring war
if so, on who?

this is murder by drone.

citizen. non-citizen. doesn't matter. this is murder.

we can say we are at war with a noun...but that's bullshit. We are picking wars of resource opportunity.
we are engaged in aggressive war. specifically the highest crime under the geneva convention. it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg.

>> ^hpqp:

promote awareness. The more one knows about this woman, the scarier she becomes...


And yet if she was elected president...she wouldn't do any more damage than what the past 5 presidents have done. They would all be hanged under the Nuremberg Principles.

A smart, funny, memorable, and engaging way to present a story, making it probably one of the best ways to ask a good question. Not to mention a killer beat. This guy just got a new fan.

As to the question:
Since we are not bound by Godwin's Law I can (,I hope,) use WWII analogies.

I would argue that during a war, the number one priority is to kill your enemy. No one would argue that the assassination plots against Hitler (well over a dozen) should not have been attempted just so that he could be brought to trial to stand for his crimes. If you have the chance to kill a hostile target, you take it.

The Nuremberg Trials were for Nazis who deliberately surrendered. Since they were no longer enemy combatants they had the right to a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. If Osama had deliberately surrendered then he would have had the same benefit. I would only be outraged if he had been killed at the US military base right after his surrender. That is the scenario that would truly have me in fear of my civil liberties.

Would I have preferred that they took him alive? Absolutely, if it were possible with no risk. But you cannot place unreasonable constraints upon the men who are already risking their lives to bring Osama to justice. Having just one dead soldier who takes a bullet while trying to subdue someone who actively wants to kill you is not worth it.

This does not set a dangerous precedent of where we will no longer accept surrenders and bring people to justice in trials for war crimes. This was a military engagement, where two sides met in combat. Just because we were lucky enough to apprehend their leader does not negate the fact it was combat.

>> ^Longswd:
"it's not the TSA agents fault, they're just following orders"
Yeah...we've heard that defense before. As I recall, it didn't go over well in Nuremberg and shouldn't be a valid excuse now either.


I think there is a vast difference between genocidal-murderers and those who merely inconvenience people by getting fresh with them. So in this case---I definitely side with the reporter when she says they are simply blameless minions…

Now, when the TSA starts gassing Jews, or Muslims, which you vaguely suggest their actions equate to, then I will change my mind on the matter.

Also, when the reporter said that she couldn’t believe people would refuse money---I say, THAT’S FUCKING PRINICPLE YOU STUPID BITCH!

"it's not the TSA agents fault, they're just following orders"

Yeah...we've heard that defense before. As I recall, it didn't go over well in Nuremberg and shouldn't be a valid excuse now either.

If the Nuremberg trials taught us anything, it's that "I was just following orders" is not good enough.

"I was doing my job" wasn't good enough for Nuremberg, it isn't good enough now.

When I posted the video, above, originally it had less to do with politics and had more to do with views of the US from strange people. Views hardly worth their weight in bird-shit.

I put this Russian guy on par with Goering. Believing doomsayers is not something I'd wager the lot of sifters do on a regular basis; nor do I.

Odd now that I read the quote below, and think of the lead up to the Iraq war. Nice to see right took a page from a Nazi.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials