Dana Summers by Dana Summers

Dana Summers

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, almost 2 years ago

    The first version was that 15 Saudis met in Saudi. Then they went to Dubai and recruited four more Arabs. Then they went to Germany. Then to London. And finally to the US.


    Factual, but inconvenient, so dismissed with extreme prejudice.


    New version: the 19 hijackers went to Pakistan. They were innocents, and devoutly devoted to the US, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed corrupted them (this must be true, he confessed under ‘enhanced interrogation’). Also, Osama. From the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, they flew directly into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.


    Do you want facts, or the story the Ministry of Truth tells? Well of course, you want the Ministry of Truth version, they have exclusive rights to the Truth, and it don’t need no stinkin’ facts!

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 2 years ago

    A sad point is being made by Dana.

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Dana may want to review the “Patriot” and “Military Commissions” Acts. Written, pushed, and passed, by Republicans, with threats of “treason” launched against any Democrat who spoke against those acts.

  4. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Drone strikes in Pakistan are the best recruiting device Islam ever had.

  5. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 2 years ago

    @dtroutma

    It doesn’t change the fact that under W, no American Citizen was killed/assassinated. The two acts to which you are referencing did not authorize the killing of US Citizens without trial. Even those who are caught killing 25 people get a trial. What O has done is an impeachable offense by violating the 5th Amendment. If W had done this, Congress would have been calling for his resignation. Yet people are eerily silent.

  6. pirate227

    pirate227 said, almost 2 years ago

    It’s almost a credible argument when the US citizen is a faceless, nameless person. Dana should have provided an actual accused terrorist that is a US citizen for a fair comparison but, that would lead to examining what the person has done…

  7. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    @wraitkin

    come on, it’s inflamatory. it doesn’t matter if he was an american citizen or not. he made war against the us from and on foreign soil. constitutional rights apply where the constitution applies, not on foreign soil.

    what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the usa as ‘collateral damage’? they have constitutional rights too?

  8. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    ^the US constitution does not apply to people outside its jurisdiction.

  9. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, almost 2 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    American rights are were more important than anyone else’s. Now extrajudial executions are for everyone.


    @Danny6pack : ‘what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the usa as ‘collateral damage’? they have constitutional rights too?’
    Thanks for bringing that up and pointing it out.

  10. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    @Dr Canuck
    it depends on the frame of the discussion. are we talking idealist, are we talking pragmatic, are we talking legally or are we talking about how it really works

    with respect to rights, there are inalienable rights that come from our creator (they are birthright passed down from our parents, NOT the great spaghetti monster in the sky), there are defined rights, like the right to bear arms which seem to be granted by SOME governments.

    There is a specific difference between rights GRANTED by governments and rights NOT TAKEN by governments. For example, george bush took away inalienable rights with his patriot act – such as the right to peacably assemble. The supremes took away the inalienable right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater that is not on fire.

    and finally let’s remember the USA is an experiment in inalienable rights. other countries that HAVE a sovereign, like amsterdam and england (and i believe canada) derive their social contract and legitimacy from the devine rights of kings, and therefore all of the rights of the people are granted by those governments.

    so as i said, the constitution only extends and was only intended to extend within the territories of the USA. People outside our borders DO NOT HAVE constitutional rights.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 2 years ago

    @dannysixpack

    People outside the US don’t have the constitutional rights of the US constitution, but they have whatever rights are recognized where they live. In Canada, for instance, we have the right to health care. I’m something of an historian, and I tend to look at rights historically. As I see it, what counts as a right is historically determined. At some moments in history, X is considered a right, at other moments it isn’t, and there are various forces involved in determining what gets counted as a right. Generally the last stage of the process is the recognition of a right by the government, but before that last stage there can be a long and complicated struggle of ideas and social forces. So I partly agree with
    DrC that rights come from governments, but I would amend that to “rights come from society and are ratified by governments”.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 2 years ago

    @dannysixpack

    The theory of the divine right of kings didn’t really get stated explicitly until the 1500s. Many theories of kingship hold that the king derives his powers from the people, or at least from sub-set of the people, usually some class of aristocrats. There was a big battle between aristocrats and monarchs over a long period about this question. I doubt that very many today would argue for the divine right of kings, even among monarchists.

  13. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 2 years ago

    If the US Constitution doesn’t apply to those citizens outside the US, why do people born of US citizens outside of the US still enjoy US Citizenship? Your logic is flawed.

    The Constitution applies to all of America’s Citizens, regardless of their location. Jurisdictional laws may apply to the host country (i.e. committing a crime in Japan nets you a punishment under Japanese law), but we as a nation cannot bypass the Constitution just because people’s feet aren’t inside our borders. Americans are Americans, regardless of their physical location. Otherwise, as soon as troops left our soil they would no longer be protected by the Constitution or subject to the UCMJ, which they are.

  14. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, almost 2 years ago

    @dannysixpack

    ’People outside our borders DO NOT HAVE constitutional rights.’

    Pardon? You mean, they do not have American constitutional rights? But why would they if they are not American? They do have constitutional rights, from their own countries as Lonecat mentions above.
    By the by, Amsterdam is not a country, it is a city, the capital of the Netherlands. England is a country but forms part of the United Kingdom. While the Netherlands & the United Kingdoms may have a monarchy, they do not have absolute power; these countries are constitutional monarchies.i.e. their monarchies are constitutionally bound, restricted by parliament. Not the other way around. What you’re seem to be talking about has long passed into history. I’m a little concerned that I have had to mention this…

    So, to answer your question:"what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the usa as ‘collateral damage’? they have constitutional rights too? "


    Yes, yes they do.

  15. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    @omQR
    ok i should have said US Constitutional rights. The social contract in monarchies did not originate from their constitutions.

    Wraithkin just because a person is a US citizen does not give them US constitutional rights when they are abroad, nor does their being abroad somehow cancel their citizenship. They are separate issues as is the UCMJ.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).