Here is what today's discussion reveal

[nadinbrzezinski]

And should not shock me given the fantasy world we live in courtesy of Hollywood. Some of us enjoy vigilantismm. Dying empires historically get into a very much us v them.

But this is worrisome. Our ethics are quite situational. And fr Te record while I understand why the state can't afford for certain characters to end on the docket..

And to be honest it saddens me.

Life, even the life of empires, usually take unexpected turns. Just remember that, that is all.

[JDPriestly]

1. Precisely. We no longer have a country ruled by law.

We no longer respect human rights.

It may be wonderful that Gaddhafi is dead. I have no idea (but I find that there is something perverse in celebrating anyone's death with such enthusiasm even the death of a monster), but I think the world would have benefited had he been tried and convicted of his crimes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Methinks we have to say no more

[Kaleva]

13. We never were.

Unless you were a well off WASP male, for much of our history, the law worked against you. The rule of law worked dandy for the wealthy white guy but not so good for the blacks, non-Protestants, women, Native Americans, Mexicans and so forth.

"We no longer respect human rights."

At what time in our history was the rights of all humans, regardless of race, social status, sex, sexual preference, religion and so on respected?

[JDPriestly]

18. We did a lot better between 1960 and 1980.

Reagan and the Bush's appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. We've moved back since Reagan's election.

[Mojorabbit]

2. I am afraid of where this will go in years to come

When I was coming up it was understood that the CIA did stuff like this but it was never officially condoned because we were a country that was great because we had the Rule of Law. That is what made us so civilized. I am afraid in the future it will be a free for all and I fully expect someday that one of our leaders is afforded this same treatment by a foreign govt. Let's see who cheers then.

[leftstreet]

4. Why do you think The Empire has 16+ Intel Agencies and 700+ military bases

It was because the US imperialists were never 'civilized'

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. That is one of the things I meant in the op

Things turn in unpredictable ways.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Some people think this is a video game

They cheer when bombs are dropped on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. They don't even think about the fact that somebody's family...women and children are on the receiving end of those bombs. They'll call it "collateral damage."

There are many who cheer summary executions and don't give a damn about due process. People have lost their critical thinking ability and cheer this crap because they believe everything their government tells them. Many Americans, Dems and Republicans, have no problem with the US government circumventing the Constitution and assassinating US citizens without proper adjudication.

We are steadily moving toward an Orwellian nightmare the people that speak out against it are attacked viciously. Domestic surveillance, endless wars, summary executions etc.

It's downright frightening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yup

And Orwell was a prophet.

[woo me with science]

15. Thank you for articulating that.

It is so easy to reach a point of sheer rage or hopelessness.

I don't recognize my country. I don't recognize my party. I cannot believe what I am hearing, even here at DU.

It is like waking up in a nightmare.

[KoKo]

26. +!

[eridani]

8. I learned that bombing and slaughtering civilians in Sirte was a wonderful thing

It would have been just terrible had Qadaffi done it.

[geek tragedy]

11. Did you show such concern when it was Qaddafi willfully

trying to exterminate people who opposed his rule?

[eridani]

12. Unlike you, I think extermination of civilians is bad when anybody does it

Attacking Qadaffi's air force to prevent slaughter of civilians was fine by me, but then we switched to using our air power to destroy civilians in tribes connected by blood to Qaddafi. Of course our airpower destroying civilians is a wonderful thing when we do it. Not.

[Amonester]

30. Greedyfi did it in other cities.

But that fact does not count.

It must always be Obama's fault here, on DU (for most), and nobody else's.

[eridani]

31. Without the aid of an air force, which we eliminated

And that was fine. What was not fine was NATO using its own air force to aid the rebel slaughter of civilians.

[tblue]

9. Thank you. It's really disturbing.

The blood lust is really disgusting. "Dying empire"? That may well be what this is. I'm glad I am not the only one dancing a jig on a man's grave.

You're not alone. :hug:

[eridani]

32. I'm less concerned about Ghaddafi than about the civilian slaugher

--aided by NATO air power.

[polly7]

35. I can't look at the snuff-porn anymore. I saw a few pictures and

thought that would be it, but for some reason it's still being shown over and over. I opened a few news articles tonight ... and there it was again. It's really starting to get to me.

[geek tragedy]

10. Libya is not subject to our laws.

This was a revolution. Revolutions are bloody, chaotic, and lawless in very many cases.

The conversation has been revealing in seeing how much support a psychopathic dictator like Qaddafi had right here at DU. Not opposition, but people praising him and defending his legitimacy.

[Amonester]

14. Don't take too much offense, the same people would have prolly

praised and defended King George's right to slaughter as many as he wanted if they were there around 1776...

[eridani]

19. And some think that the slaughter of Libyan civilians aided by US air power

--is as bad as what Ghadaffi did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Being disturbed by somebody probably killed

Finished off in an ambulance has little to do with legitimacy. I don't care if the person killed is a child (son of a drg dealer) or a mass murderer...or a war criminal. In this case if that happened guess what Gueek, it is a WAR CRIME, just as much as ordering rapes. Can you comprehend that? Or is that way too complex?

[eridani]

33. Odd that people think Ghaddafi was the only person living in the areas

--ccontrolled by his clan and those clans allied to them. Particularly since the many of the same people objected to the massive slaughter of Iraqi civilians to get Saddam, who was not the only person living in Iraq at the time. Why the rightwing nutjob arguments on DU claiming that those opposed to both somehow support Ghaddafi and Hussein?

[SoDesuKa]

16. Real Life

Real life is what we see on television. If the networks haven't validated something, it can't very well be real. If your concerns about government thuggery were legitimate, one of the talking heads would have said something. Maybe not on Hannity, but somewhere.


Details at Eleven

[chill_wind]

17. I learned something else today. Anwar Awlaki's son was just 16.

Denver birth certificate published by The Washington Post.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

(facebook pic and others at link)- and a quote from someone (a young Yemeni) who said

"Obama sends robots. He kills children now. What line is left to cross?
The answer is: only one line. Numbers."

(1) It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions. Indeed, it refuses even to admit it did this, since it refuses even to admit that it has a drone program at all and that it is engaged in military action in Yemen. It’s just all shrouded in total secrecy.

Talk about unexpected turns and bumps. So much secrecy and darkness in the empire does make it hard to see where we're going.

[KoKo]

27. Yes...this got buried...no one seemed to care. n/t

[Bonobo]

20. "Our ethics are quite situational...and it saddens me."

I could not agree more.

[woo me with science]

23. +100000 nt

[Poll_Blind]

21. And perhaps just a touch of thirst to vicariously taste a revolution which will never come to them.

And I don't even mean the shootin' kind, either.


PB

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Well, we may, actually are, in the first stages of one

And if it follows us history it will remain MOSTLY peaceful.

There is that chance of civil war. There are other forces at play here.

[Tatiana]

22. I don't believe people are stopping and thinking about the repercussions of these actions.

Who's to say another nation (or COALITION of nations) won't do this to us?

Someday, a group of well-funded nations may try to put together a plot to take out our President for interfering in their national affairs.

Will we be able to install U.S.-friendly puppets in Libya and other nations in which we are fomenting regime-change? I think the chances of that are less likely in these times. Look at Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have lost control (if we ever had it) and our puppets have turned against us.

[polly7]

24. Having control over Libya is a giant step towards the progress of

AFRICOM in the rest of Africa. 1 billion really was a minuscule amount in comparison to the benefits of ousting Qaddafi.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/24-5

[randome]

25. Not at all sure what this post is about.

Other than a need to vent some unacknowledged pessimism.

'Ethics are quite situational'. That's nothing new. It's human nature.

[pinboy3niner]

34. Think: Libya nt