US govt "debates" more extrajudicial murders of own citizens

[grue 1]

quade

***I'm gonna start calling out bullshit behavior from the government at the start, in hopes it doesn't escalate into something even more evil.

Well, you better get a time machine because you sure as hell isn't doing this "at the start" in this case and because of that it certainly does appear as if the reason you're doing it has little to do with the actual act itself, but rather who in particular you'd like to blame for it.

At the start of my learning of it, anyway. I won't pretend that I gave much of a shit about politics until about 2004.

As for who I'd like to blame? I blame the US government going back a long fucking way in a general sense, but Bush and his cronies really amped it up, and every single person who voted for PATRIOT, MCA, FISA Amendments and all that shit are complicit. But there's not really a point in railing against people who aren't in office now, because I can't change what they did… but it's not too late to STOP what they're doing NOW.

In the end I suppose I'm probably trying to piss into the wind here. Can't let concepts like "learning from history" or "not being a murderous shitlord" get in the way of a good sand nigger killin'. Giddyup.

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

This woman got her situation unfucked after years of fighting. What recourse do the dead have?

thanks for the timely illustration.

[Skyrad 0]

quade

******
Sort of like they kept the Tsarnaev brothers under surveillance in Boston, eh>?

if they had enough cause to shoot them on sight, then they probably could have just arrested them.

So, lemme ask you this little hypothetical.

You're sitting in your den and you hear some shots outside. Looking at your security system, you can see a guy off your property aiming a rifle at your home. You can clearly see the guy and can identify him as one of your relatives. Let's call him Cousin Joey. Cousin Joey isn't fooling around. He's clearly looking to kill your family.

You pull your self defense weapon out.

You certainly have, "enough cause to shoot" him "on sight."

Do you cut him some slack because he's family or do you stop him? Does the guy get a free pass? Does it matter one way or another? Or is the ONLY thing that matters is that he's actively attempting to kill your family?

I say it doesn't matter one fricken bit. You stop him.

And having shot him you are then the subject of a judicial investigation. Your analogy doesn't work.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Well, you better get a time machine because you sure as hell isn't doing this "at the start" in this case and because of that it certainly does appear as if the reason you're doing it has little to do with the actual act itself, but rather who in particular you'd like to blame for it.

And it seems that you're willing to accept any form of government overreach because of the guy currently in power.

The difference would be that we're actually subscribing to the Constitution and you're in the land where it's ok to kill every Arab on earth without any checks.

[quade 3]

grue

In the end I suppose I'm probably trying to piss into the wind here. Can't let concepts like ...

I don't think so. I think if you're truly trying to get proper perspective, then it's difficult to do that while also trying to accelerate from 0 to 100.

I see it as a bit like then guys who are drug addicts and alcoholics in one part of their life, then over night turn into Jesus freaks. Okay, we get it. You think "God is good." Great.

Meanwhile, nothing really changed from yesterday to today no matter how much you want to point out to me with great enthusiasm that eating meat on Fridays is somehow now a "sin" or something equally trivial in reality.

Yes. Killing innocent people is wrong. No question. I'd like to avoid that as much as the next guy. Maybe even more than quite a few.

Yes. Totally random killing of US citizens by its own government would be wrong as well. But that's NOT what is happening, nor is that ever going to be a "Nazi-Socialist takeover of 'Merica" possibility just because we, as a country decide to kill a terrorist regardless of what happens to be stamped on his passport.

Try to keep things in perspective.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]And it seems that you're willing to accept any form of government overreach because of the guy currently in power.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

Yes. Killing innocent people is wrong. No question. I'd like to avoid that as much as the next guy. Maybe even more than quite a few.

Yes. Totally random killing of US citizens by its own government would be wrong as well. But that's NOT what is happening...just because we, as a country decide to kill a terrorist regardless of what happens to be stamped on his passport.

Indeed. Under the Constitution there are merely presumed innocent. Forget that. These guys are terrorists. And the Constitution doesn't mention terrorists.

They are people, Quade. Maybe evil. Maybe try them and then kill them. Or give them LWOP, because we are more enlightened.

[Quote]Try to keep things in perspective.

The above is my perspective. The Constitution was designed to protect those people the government likes. It was to protect the people we as a country really don't like.

I view it from an entirely different angle. Grue sees it the same way I do. It's not about who the government is doing it to. It's about what the government is doing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

lawrocket

[Reply]Then each side accuses the other side of hypocrisy.

And they're both right.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

The Constitution was designed to protect those people the government likes. It was to protect the people we as a country really don't like.

You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sfzombie13 312]

i cannot believe you are cherry picking the goddamned constitution. wait, yes i can. read the first three words: "we the people", not "we the people, except terrorists" or any other form of it. at the time of the writing, it didn't mean women or blacks, but we amended it to include them. that means that now, it means all of us. every legal citizen of the us has the same rights as every other legal citizen. period. when they are tried in a court of law with the proper jurisdiction, then they may forfeit certain rights, but not until then.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[ryoder 1,412]

quade

You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

And if the founding fathers knew that the current government has so twisted the meaning of the word "defense", that is being used to justify assassinations in sovereign nations on the opposite side of the globe, they would be spinning in their graves.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

***
You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

And if the founding fathers knew that the current government has so twisted the meaning of the word "defense", that is being used to justify assassinations in sovereign nations on the opposite side of the globe, they would be spinning in their graves.

These aren't assassinations.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assassination

In fact, assassinations are specifically prohibited via EO 11905 and EO 12333.

I feel this should be revoked, because it would mean fewer deaths.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,412]

quade

******
You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

And if the founding fathers knew that the current government has so twisted the meaning of the word "defense", that is being used to justify assassinations in sovereign nations on the opposite side of the globe, they would be spinning in their graves.

These aren't assassinations.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assassination

In fact, assassinations are specifically prohibited via EO 11905 and EO 12333.

I feel this should be revoked, because it would mean fewer deaths.

And I can find a dictionary that says it is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assassinate

OK, let's just call it state-sanctioned murder.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

OK, let's just call it state-sanctioned murder.

Then what is war?

Which is the greater and which is the lesser evil; risking 79* (or so) of our men to invade a hostile country to attempt to "capture or kill" a terrorist (which might also cause innocent civilian deaths**), or a drone strike which poses absolutely no risk to any of our guys?





*79 appears to be the total number of guys (aviation + SEALs + CIA) we sent over the border into Pakistan to "capture or kill" bin Laden. Number may be off by a couple.

**5 killed, 17 captured, 1 injured.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

These aren't assassinations.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assassination

In fact, assassinations are specifically prohibited via EO 11905 and EO 12333.

I feel this should be revoked, because it would mean fewer deaths.

Pesky laws...let's ignore then when we think it's a lesser evil. Those EOs came about for good reason.

So if you don't like "assassination," even though that's the perfect word to describe putting someone on a kill on sight list and then acted to to do, we could instead have

premeditated murder or
judgefree execution or
unconstitutional

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***The Constitution was designed to protect those people the government likes. It was to protect the people we as a country really don't like.

You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

I accept your proposal. The Constitution was viewed as giving the government too much power.

So the Bill of Rights was created. And passed. And the Constitution was Amended to assert individual rights. That's why the Fifth Amendment states: "Nor shall any person ... Be deprived of lifen liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Questions for Quade:
(1) Are "terrorists" people? If yes, then:
(2) Is there an unbiased tribunal!v
(3) Is the terrorist informed of why the government wants to kill him?
(4) Is the terrorist allowed to try to persuade why the government shouldn't kill him?
(5) Is the terrorist given the right to present evidence?

So, Paul, about this "establish justice" thing. About this "domestic tranquility" part. And even the common defense deal.

I think you are making the judgment that some people don't deserve rights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mistercwood 287]

quade

***OK, let's just call it state-sanctioned murder.

Then what is war?

Which is the greater and which is the lesser evil; risking 79* (or so) of our men to invade a hostile country to attempt to "capture or kill" a terrorist (which might also cause innocent civilian deaths**), or a drone strike which poses absolutely no risk to any of our guys?

What war? You're not even AT war with most of the countries you've performed drone strikes in...

I've brought this hypocrisy up before in the context of drone strikes. If another country - let's use China as an example - sent in a drone strike against one of their "dissident" citizens who was hiding in Mexico and took out a few locals who happened to be nearby, America would collectively lose its shit. There would be outrage, and sabre-rattling, and probably even military escalations.

China in the meantime basically sit back and say, "Well, they've been saying they wanna hurt our government, and we talked about it in a closed room but our secret lawyer said we were good to go and we couldn't get Mexico to find them and hand them over so we just blew them up. It's all kosher from our pov so just deal with it".

Now, I'm sure you can pick apart my hastily assembled analogy (I'm on my way to work and in a hurry), but please try to look at my underlying point - why is the US allowed to play fast and loose with the rules globally? There was a time you were supposed to set the benchmark for human rights, what the hell's happened since then?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[sfzombie13 312]

your analogy holds water in my book. our government needs reigned in. someone needs to do something, maybe an embargo would get the point across?

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Erroll 53]

quade

You might want to re-read the preamble and take note of the sentence fragments, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense."

Does this mean the word 'insure' has been misused by the 'founding fathers' already??

[Amazon 7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings

Do you think the families of the dead support ridding the world of terrorists??

Do you prefer to wait till after they stike.. or send them off for their virgins before your family or friends are dead..

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings

Do you think the families of the dead support ridding the world of terrorists??

Do you prefer to wait till after they stike.. or send them off for their virgins before your family or friends are dead..

I prefer a nation of laws. I prefer that people not be executed without due process before they can commit a crime. I prefer leadership to dictatorship.

I prefer freedom to security.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings

Do you think the families of the dead support ridding the world of terrorists??

Do you prefer to wait till after they stike.. or send them off for their virgins before your family or friends are dead..

I prefer a nation of laws. I prefer that people not be executed without due process before they can commit a crime. I prefer leadership to dictatorship.

I prefer freedom to security.

I don't remember all that much hand wringing when King George II and his evil Rasputin.

War is hell... I prefer the enemy to be the ones dying for their god.

[kelpdiver 2]

Amazon

I don't remember all that much hand wringing when King George II and his evil Rasputin.

I sure do.

But, hey, Quade, at least now you have a second person that is willing to defend it just because Obama is the leader now.

[quade 3]

kelp diver

. . . is willing to defend it just because Obama is the leader now.

Your premise is incorrect. For me, this has zero to do with the person in the Oval.

I'm more than willing for you to take a search through the database though and find where I was against any previous President taking actions against terrorists. Go for it.

I will admit I had concerns about innocent civilians as collateral damage, but again that had zero to do with the person sitting in the office.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

This is yet another reason we need to get out of the world police business.

Let some other countries and/or corps do it.

This way we can all look down our noses at their "human rights violations" publicly and those that choose to look further at what the "human" they violated did or was part of can thank them later.

You can't be reasonable with unreasonable people.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.