So because their policy doesn’t go far enough, then they shouldn’t be allowed to have a policy?

I find this argument to be uncompelling.

A policeman who doesn't fine anybody is merely incompetent. A policeman who fines only black people is downright evil. You cannot say that his actions amount to "not going far enough" because he fails to fine people of other races. They are actively discriminatory.

The same situation happens with twitter, that only enforces its rules when they go against the mainstream USA mentality.

Hillary Clinton has never ordered killings by the U.S. Military. As Secretary of State, or as First Wife, she would never have had that authority.

I didn't say that. Just that she celebrated and defended publicly such killings (e.g., those of Gaddafi, the bin Laden family, etc).

EDIT: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592

(This tweet by Hillary Clinton glorifies an extrajudicial killing in foreign territory, with the opposition of the country where it happened, and at the same time manages to sneak in some falsehoods. The text is: "When our SEALs took out bin Laden, they brought the terrorists' families to safety first. That's American honor. " This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)

We were in a state of military conflict with Libya, which was openly hosting and funding dozens of terrorist groups dedicated to attacking the U.S. and American citizens.

The U.S. wasn't behind the killings of Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi was killed by his own bodyguards after Ghadaffi's own citizens overthrew their government in a civil war spurred by resistance movements in neighboring countries arising from despots incarcerating and assassinating political opponents.

The U.S. was behind the killing of Bin Laden. He organized the single largest terrorist attack against the U.S. in history. As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws, therefore, killing him was not illegal nor was it extradjudicial. This has been the state of international law for over a century, as codified in the Geneva Conventions and the amendments and followup conventions. If you have issues with international law, take that up with the Hague.

This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)

Bin Laden's sons were killed in the attack and one of his son's wives, but no children were killed. They were not just innocent collateral damage; they were killed in the attack while resisting U.S. forces. The non-resisting members of the family are alive today to talk about what happened because we didn't kill them.

So if the next Dalai llama was hiding in the US, would it be ok for the Chinese government to fly in special forces to assasinate him?

I imagine bin laden was still protected by Pakistani laws, same as people inside the US are protected by US laws, even if they've pissed off some other country

You’ve hit on the unspeakable. No public figure can give a credible answer to your question while remaining logically consistent and in power.

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” - George Orwell

Which is why so many factions in Washington are putting so much effort to undermine potential challengers as the American destiny is to be number 1. The moment another group becomes more powerful, they know that what you describe will occur.

The Dalai Lama initiated terrorist attacks against China? If not, then it's not even remotely the same thing and you know it.

I imagine bin laden was still protected by Pakistani laws, same as people inside the US are protected by US laws, even if they've pissed off some other country

You imagine incorrectly. As a non-state actor, bin Laden was not subject to the protection of any nation's laws. This has been international law for over a century, and this view was upheld by the U.N. Moreover, Pakistan's government itself said it had no issues with the legality of the operation, and indeed elements of Pakistan's government and military participated in aspects of the operation.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. This is because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.

Hillary tried to stand up to Panetta over drone killings and back up her ambassador in PK and Obama threw her under the bus.

> As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws

He was not entitled to any protection afforded uniformed combatants, but I'm pretty sure it still would have been against the Geneva Conventions to kill him with sarin, for instance.

When she was Secretary of State, Hillary famously quipped "We came, we saw, he died" [0] in regards to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He was sodomized with a bayonet and executed in the street [1] by US-backed rebels after Hillary convinced President Obama to bomb Libya [2].

On a side note: the US bombing of Libya, and Hillary's remark in particular, is seen by some as a watershed moment in North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons [3]. In response to international pressure, Gaddafi suspended Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The subsequent US/NATO bombing of Libya and Gaddafi's brutal death supposedly convinced the Kims that if they ever gave up their nukes, they'd be vulnerable to the same type of foreign intervention and overthrow.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Captu...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clint...

[3] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-for...

I think the poster means that Hillary Clinton has a habit of glorifying violence, as do most US politicians.