Do tell, when is the last time a sitting US president has murdered his political opponents?

I think most replying to this comment are too young to remember that the CIA made several unsuccessful attempts to kill Castro himself, and Muammar Gaddafi. And those where the unsuccessful attempts that we know.

I hadn't quite considered that. I suppose that very well might count, though I was particularly thinking in the domestic sense.

Domestically there was Anwar al-Awlaki who was a US citizen who proselytised against the USA. His 16 year old nephew who was also a citizen was killed as well, despite no known involvement.

To be fair, earlier in the year the administration promised to implement additional safeguards and oversight for these programmes, but brass tacks a progressive administration killed US citizens in non-war zones because of an executive decision with no due process.

Fred Hampton is the most recent in my mind that isn't (in my view) ambiguous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

Given the numerous trials and inquests, include one which made sure to include members of the community, it certainly seems ambiguous. I'll ignore the fact that I mentioned head of state for the purposes of discussion, but what in your mind makes the situation unambiguous? I've only know heard of Fred Hampton, outside of a Rage Against the Machine mention so I'm certainly not well informed on the matter.

The FBI reports to the head of state. Are you somehow arguing that it's /better/ if the politician relies on others to do their violence for them? (As if Castro himself was the sole person to arrest or execute his enemies...)

Suggested reading as to why it's not ambiguous: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4375527

The history of how the FBI suppressed Black, Native, Latino, and New Leftist organizations more generally is a bloody one. Cuba has never had a monopoly on authoritarian behavior in the Western Hemisphere.

I never once said that. In fact I asked for clarification on the incident but you seem unwilling to give that.

"but you seem unwilling to give that"

No, you seem unwilling to read the link I gave? From the article:

"That same month, on April 23, 1976, the Church Committee released its Final Staff Report on the FBI and CIA’s rampant domestic illegalities which included a chapter entitled “The FBI’s Covert Action Plan to Destroy the Black Panther Party.” The chapter concluded by highlighting the Hampton raid as a COINTELPRO operation and quoting from the bonus documents that we had obtained only weeks before."

I read the link. They were cleared several times on the given incident. Instead of taking a charitable approach you throw out your political bullshit.

Hillary expressed a wish to "drone" Assange, and Obama actually "droned" a lot of people (that the US has branded "terrorists").

Killing terrorists does not put you on the same level as Castro.

Droning doesn't kill only terrorists. There's plenty of collateral deaths (what do you think the ratio is, 1:10 intended targets to unintended when explosives are involved in civilian settings?) not to mention the labeling of who is and isn't a terrorist is hardly infallible. Of course those giving the go ahead are so far removed from the consequences that it must become easier and easier to order drone strikes when intelligence tells you it will "save American lives".

Again, Castro went about killing or jailing all those who opposed him. My original statement was that no US president has done so.

I think that considering just how much "droning" is basically inneffective in its purpose and just ends up killing thousands, it's really not any worse morally.

That's one man's opinion.

No, it doesn't. However, you seem to be fairly convinced those people are all terrorists and not just political opponents that are under our drones' crosshairs.

I guess the people massacred at that MSF hospital were terrorists, too.

> I guess the people massacred at that MSF hospital were terrorists, too.

That wasn't a drone strike. That was an accidental attack by an AC-130 gunship.

I'm sure folks in Yemen or Afghanistan are a political threat to Obama. Right.

Ah, you're right. It wasn't a drone, it was humans massacring a MSF hospital by accident. I guess the irony of it should be self explanatory.

If humans can attack during at least 30 minutes a (well-known) position by mistake, why should I believe that every single droned person was a terrorist?

I'm sure most of the Afghanis and Iraqis who've been oppressed by the US for decades would agree. /s

If everything is equally bad, would you prefer to be brainwashed in North Korea or South Korea?

If North Korea were a wealthier country because of extensive natural resources, an established industrial base, and distributed the money more reasonably, then you're making an actual dilemma.

Why, instead of taking a comically bad example, you don't pick a more controverte place like Singapore, an organized state where drug consumption leads to the death penalty and you will be suppressed it dissent is attempted, yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world?

> instead of taking a comically bad example

On the contrary, my example is probably the best you can get because the point I'm making is the equivalence between one government and another, or between US presidents and Castro is a false one. No one is saint obviously but the offenses have a different gravity hence we have as different societies as North and South Korea.

Some Western people might feel like the US or the UK are literally totalitarian states but they just didn't live under autocratic regimes.

Speaking of which, the false equivalence narrative is actively exploited by such regimes to legitimize their own miserable state of affairs. It's fascinating how it works but apparently if something is bad in, say, Russia and also bad in the US (as told by the state TV), Russian citizens are fine with their conditions not being improved.