A judge threw a "unique and extraordinary" lawsuit out of court Tuesday, leaving open the question of whether the U.S. government can legally target American citizens for death abroad without a trial.
In an 83-page opinion, Bates declared that it was up to the elected branches of government, not the courts, to determine whether the United States has the authority.
Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...
Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.
The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.
Well, more fair game. Doesn't matter if he still retained citizenship, he no longer lives in the country and is a member of a group actively seeking to cause harm to the US and its citizenship.
Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...
I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.
So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?
The idea that this is a precedent for anything horrible is a bit of a logical leap. You really can't sue those guys Al-awhatisname's dad was trying to sue. And determining whether or not the US has the right to take military action is not under the court's jurisdiction. There is no new precedent in this case. The judge basically laid out the status quo as it is and has been for awhile.
Besides. There's nothing stopping the government from pulling an Andrew Jackson anyway. Explosions are way cooler than trials. Judges should stop being party poopers
agroszkiewicz wrote:I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.
No you're not. You're talking about the specifics of this case.
He's a known target. That's why he's on a CIA compiled list of capture OR kill targets.
This isn't the government issuing a blanket kill order for any American citizen who's joined Al-Qaeda. This is a specific individual, targeted for a reason(reason: he was the man communicating and encouraging the Ft. Hood shooter).
So where's the "frightening judicial precedent" there?
A judge threw a "unique and extraordinary" lawsuit out of court Tuesday, leaving open the question of whether the U.S. government can legally target American citizens for death abroad without a trial.
In an 83-page opinion, Bates declared that it was up to the elected branches of government, not the courts, to determine whether the United States has the authority.
Godamighty, thats frightening.
I assume you understand the concept of legal precedent right?
In case you are just too stubborn to read that here is a quote from the first sentence of the page.
establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
I guess I should just spell it out for you. There is now a legally recognized precedent set by a member (albeit very junior in the scheme of things) the judicial branch that states it is the sole province of elected officials NOT any form of judiciary body to determine the legality of targeting any American citizen that is not currently residing in the US.
Kanluwen wrote:So where's the "frightening judicial precedent" there?
The Obama administration is arguing that it has the right to assassinate American citizens either abroad or domestically, in it's sole discretion, with absolutely no oversight, and that it's a state secret to even discuss the matter. You don't see a problem with this?
The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).
The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.
There is no precedent set by this case. This is the way things have been. Mr. Miller sums this up pretty well:
court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action
Precedent says the court can't do anything. The President is commander and chief. Congress determines when he can go to war and under what means he can conduct it. The Judicial branch has no power here.
LordofHats wrote:
There is no precedent set by this case.
??????????????????
Persuasive precedent
Main article: Persuasive precedent
Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, State courts versus Federal courts in the United States), and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
Okrite? Hell, I'll even point out the part that one of you guys is going to point out about how my point isn't valid.....but it is because I already considered that.
LordofHats wrote:The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations.
LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
LordofHats wrote:The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations.
Mkay. How about this bit: "EO 12036 would be superseded by new legislation in the future." Which would be this one: EO 12333. An Executive order can be undone by another executive order. It's only legally binding so long as no president decides to write a new EO invalidating the previous one. An EO isn't really an obstacle in this situation.
There is also a difference between covert assassination and military operation to kill someone. Besides. If an EO sets up a bunch of advisory boards to make sure proper procedures were followed when deciding to kill someone, and we're about to kill someone, guess the advisory boards and oversight committees said it was okay?
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
Because the only precedent this sets is that war powers are given to the Legislative and Executive branches. Surprise surprise. That's in the Consitution. It's not a matter of precedent it's a matter of constitutional law.
LordofHats wrote: Which would be this one: EO 12333. An Executive order can be undone by another executive order. It's only legally binding so long as no president decides to write a new EO invalidating the previous one
Funny you should say that. Have you read EO 12333? It actually strengthened the proscription against assassinaton. Are you making the argument members of the CIA or the US military are not in the employ of, or working on behalf of, or agents of, the United States?
LordofHats wrote: Besides. If an EO sets up a bunch of advisory boards to make sure proper procedures were followed when deciding to kill someone, and we're about to kill someone, guess the advisory boards and oversight committees said it was okay?
Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...
So kill him, if it's clear and obvious to everyone involved that he needs killing then there'd be no problem in getting authorisation passed through a special court. But you really need to have that special court, or else you risk a case where the powers that be want to kill someone, and it really isn't so cut and dry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.
The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.
Citizenship does not work that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?
That's a very poor comparison. Assange is an Australian citizen, so not under any protection from the US constitution, the ability of the US government to kill him remains the same regardless of this decision. He isn't being killed because he is currently residing in the UK, who are close allies with the US, and with Sweden, to whom they are beginning a process to see if he needs to face trial there. Meanwhile, Australia is beginning a process to see if he has broken any laws here, if that looks likely the UK and Swedish governments will extradite him back here to face trial.
Instead, the issue is what you do with US citizens who represent a threat, but are living in places where it is not practical to capture them.
The idea that this is a precedent for anything horrible is a bit of a logical leap.
No, it's really how it works. Well meaning or seemingly practical legislation is used by governments looking to expand their power, it's pretty much how governments go bad.
You know, for a country that keeps talking about how it needs to keep guns to protect itself from its government, it's incredible how indifferent so many of you are to actually maintaining constitutional checks on your government.
And determining whether or not the US has the right to take military action is not under the court's jurisdiction. There is no new precedent in this case. The judge basically laid out the status quo as it is and has been for awhile.
It's been held for a long time that the full extent of the powers granted to the legislative and the executive by the constitution are interpreted by the courts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).
The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.
There is no precedent set by this case.
You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?
sebster wrote:You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?
This is fething ridiculous.
Meanwhile, all these tea party guys are screeching about how a government that's incapable of dealing with a flood, locating a single dude on a mountain hooked to a dialysis machine for nearly a decade, running an efficient post office, hospital for veterans, or department of motor vehicles is clearly incapable of administering health-care, yet - inexplicably - can be trusted with these literally unchecked powers previously reserved for kings and would never abuse or misuse them.
Ouze wrote:Meanwhile, all these tea party guys are screeching about how a government that's incapable of dealing with a flood, locating a single dude on a mountain hooked to a dialysis machine for nearly a decade, running an efficient post office, hospital for veterans, or department of motor vehicles is clearly incapable of administering health-care, yet - inexplicably - can be trusted with these literally unchecked powers previously reserved for kings and would never abuse or misuse them.
Makes sense to me! Totes.
It’s very odd, isn’t it?
I mean, I'm not surely there's really anything else to be said other than that. It's just very odd.
It's been held for a long time that the full extent of the powers granted to the legislative and the executive by the constitution are interpreted by the courts.
And the court said it didn't have the power to review the case, which seems constitutionally consistent to me. Power to declare war and operate war fall under the other two branches in very clear language which seems to be what Bates was referring to in his decision. EDIT: Then again this is the 'War' on Terror.
You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?
Did I say that? I'm not arguing that the president should be able to go and kill anyone he wants. I'm saying that saying this case sets a precedent that says he can is not logically consistent at all. There is oversight for this sort of thing these days. A lot of it. It's not as simple as "government wants him dead so they gonna kill him."
Kanluwen wrote:Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.
The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.
Citizenship does not work that way.
No gak sherlock. However, calling him a "citizen" is inflammatory at this point.
It's like when people protesting the Israeli blockade pointed towards the American "citizen" who was killed, ignoring the fact that the guy never actually lived in the US(was raised and lived in Turkey), but was only born here.
I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.
I also wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you publicly state that you want nothing more to do with the country, other than to bring about its downfall.
LordofHats wrote:So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?
That's a very poor comparison. Assange is an Australian citizen, so not under any protection from the US constitution, the ability of the US government to kill him remains the same regardless of this decision. He isn't being killed because he is currently residing in the UK, who are close allies with the US, and with Sweden, to whom they are beginning a process to see if he needs to face trial there. Meanwhile, Australia is beginning a process to see if he has broken any laws here, if that looks likely the UK and Swedish governments will extradite him back here to face trial.
He's not being killed because he's a useless pecker. Plus, it's far far far more useful to discredit him and drag him through the mud exposing him for the self-righteous, chauvinistic piece of trash he is than it would be to kill him.
Killing him makes him a martyr, thus...it's not worth it.
Instead, the issue is what you do with US citizens who represent a threat, but are living in places where it is not practical to capture them.
No, that's not the issue. The issue is really this:
Why is the ACLU still pulling this crap?
This isn't a "Kill" list. That's a fallacy that keeps being espoused by the ACLU nonstop.
The CIA maintains a "Capture or Kill" list. It puts the, in their opinion, biggest threats to national security on there. It even makes mention of
LordofHats wrote:The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).
The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.
There is no precedent set by this case.
You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?
This is fething ridiculous.
And you're overreaching.
There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.
sebster wrote:
You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?
This is fething ridiculous.
The frightening part for me is that the actual precedent is simply for "elected officials" to determine the legality of targeting a US citizen abroad for death.
Kanluwen wrote:There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.
Oversight - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I've used the word once.
Maybe you should learn to count?
Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?
Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".
Kanluwen wrote:No gak sherlock. However, calling him a "citizen" is inflammatory at this point.
No, he is a citizen, it isn't inflammatory to call someone what they are.
It's like when people protesting the Israeli blockade pointed towards the American "citizen" who was killed, ignoring the fact that the guy never actually lived in the US(was raised and lived in Turkey), but was only born here.
I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.
I also wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you publicly state that you want nothing more to do with the country, other than to bring about its downfall.
Nor would I, but the law considers them a US citizen, and grants them the same protections as other US citizens. The issue is we've already seen the US abduct and kill non-citizens on pretty dubious grounds, and now you're looking to remove those protections on your own citizens. With no formal consideration given to whether those citizens are inside or outside of the US.
It was bad when it was just other people's citizens, but when it's your own it is a whole other level of dangerous. There's a reason the CIA was prevented from operating inside the US, you know.
He's not being killed because he's a useless pecker. Plus, it's far far far more useful to discredit him and drag him through the mud exposing him for the self-righteous, chauvinistic piece of trash he is than it would be to kill him.
Killing him makes him a martyr, thus...it's not worth it.
That’s a load of nonsense, drawn from some crappy action movie or something. No-one, anywhere in the world is asking ‘should we kill this Assange guy?’ while some other guy replies ‘no, that’d just make him a martyr for his cause’. Nothing like that is happening.
What is happening is that Assange has brought himself in to police custody, to make a statement regarding the rape allegations. Meanwhile, other governments are looking to see what laws he’s broken, and what successful prosecutions might be brought against him. This is how you deal with criminals in countries with long histories of co-operation.
Which is entirely different to countries where their governments are ineffective, indifferent or outright supportive of terrorists living there.
And you're overreaching.
There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.
What? You’re claiming an arm of government forming a list, which is then approved by a single person is adequate oversight for the governmental power to kill it’s own citizenships?
If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.
It's a reference to The Princess Bride. I wouldn't advise you try the overly literal approach in this debate, it'll only hurt the chances of any real communication, and you're really unlikely to win it.
Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?
Are you claiming that Homeland Security, the CIA and FBI are immune to governmental influence? Because that'd be very stupid.
Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".
Obama is not the only President the US will ever have, and executive powers have a habit of lasting for a long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.
What makes it a military operation? The target isn't part of any military that the US is at war with.
I can't use that Princess Bride quote without it. In any event, my issue is not with how many times you used it, but the incorrect context with which you did so. The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA are subservient to the executive branch of the government. They are not capable of providing oversight to it. Your example is like saying a bank president can't make bad policy if his secretary agrees with him. The conflict of interest is so inescapable that no such relationship could possibly exist.
Meaningful oversight can only be provided to the executive branch by the legislative branch, which in turn is checked by the judiciary.
Kanluwen wrote:Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?
Not only are they capable of it, I would indicate in case of the CIA it's very nearly their sole function. They are absolutely within their purview to determine who they consider to be a threat. They are not, however, authorized to determine "who we'd like killed". We're a nation of laws. If this man, who is an American citizen, committed a crime, we should charge him with a crime. We should indict him, and we should ask Yemen to hand him over. Then we should send him to jail for the rest of his life. That's how we do things in a lawful country.
Kanluwen wrote:Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".
Who knows? You've seen as much of the list and the rationale behind it's entries as I have, which is, none at all. It's a state secret.
If we keep discussing this, I'd like to divorce "the president" from "Obama", as I'm speaking of the executive branch in general, not Obama in particular. I assure you, i'm as repulsed by the reflexive leaning towards extrajudicial measures espoused by this president as I was by the previous one and trust neither of them, nor any future president we may have, with such unchecked powers.
In the history of this country, we've managed to survive the bottom half of the country going to war with the top half, the white house being burned to the ground, and two world wars without losing our core values that no man is above the law which is enshrined in the constitution. I hardly think a row over a few diplomatic cables no one will even remember in 90 days is worth turning our backs on it now.
Emperors Faithful wrote:If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.
What makes it a military operation? The target isn't part of any military that the US is at war with.
I was under the impression he had been accused of leading an Al-Qaeda cell in Yemen. I'm not sure if the US can even be at war with an organization, but Al-Qaeda surely has to be an illegal organization? It would be interesting to know how welcome US operations in Yemen would be to the local government. Of course, extradition from Yemen isn't the problem that scenario, it's catching/(killing?) him in the first place.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I was under the impression he had been accused of leading an Al-Qaeda cell in Yemen. I'm not sure if the US can even be at war with an organization, but Al-Qaeda surely has to be an illegal organization? It would be interesting to know how welcome US operations in Yemen would be to the local government. Of course, extradition from Yemen isn't the problem that scenario, it's catching/(killing?) him in the first place.
Even if you declare an organisation illegal, how do you properly determine who is and who isn't a member? How do you determine who is and who isn't capable of being captured, and needs to be killed instead?
People are arguing that those questions are obvious in this case, well then fine, a court can rubberstamp this and move on. But it means the oversight of that court will be there when targets are produced where the above isn't so obvious.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I was under the impression he had been accused of leading an Al-Qaeda cell in Yemen. I'm not sure if the US can even be at war with an organization, but Al-Qaeda surely has to be an illegal organization? It would be interesting to know how welcome US operations in Yemen would be to the local government. Of course, extradition from Yemen isn't the problem that scenario, it's catching/(killing?) him in the first place.
Even if you declare an organisation illegal, how do you properly determine who is and who isn't a member? How do you determine who is and who isn't capable of being captured, and needs to be killed instead?
I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitiveand take him alive if they can. I don't even understand what the father is suing for. What damages could possibly be awarded (especially if he's so far avoided capture or death)?
People are arguing that those questions are obvious in this case, well then fine, a court can rubberstamp this and move on. But it means the oversight of that court will be there when targets are produced where the above isn't so obvious.
So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?
Kilkrazy wrote:^^ All of that -- the Rule of Law and everything.
What is the problem with following due process?
Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitive
Fugitive from what? He hasn't been charged with a crime.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitive
Fugitive from what? He hasn't been charged with a crime.
Wait...so what is he then? I thought the whole point was that he was part of an illegal organization (namely Al-Qaeda). What is he wanted for?
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?
What? I didn't say this was a conspiracy. I just wondered if people were worried that this list may be expanded to include them. I did enjoy the whole journey though.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.
It's truly stomach turning how quickly some people are willing to trade liberty for expediency.
Why don't you guys move to Iran, or China? I think you'd find their treatment of dissidents more in line with your views.
You've never even heard a joke in your life have you?
LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
Nowhere does the Constitution protect the world from the US Air Force.
Well, if you targetted Doctor Haneef (on a suspicion and without a trial) or something through an airstrike I'd be fairly pissed. Just becuase you have a competent airforce doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.
Frazzled wrote:He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
At this point we're mingling the news story of Julian Assange (Australian citizen) and Anwar al-Awlaki (US Citizen). I believe he was referring to the latter.
As this guy holds joint citizenship in Yemen and the US, couldn't the US Government just revoke his citizenship? Leaving him as a citizen of Yemen.
Denaturalization is how the US government revokes or cancels your US citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen. There are several things that can jeopardize your citizenship:
* Concealing facts or lying to the immigration officials
* Refusing to testify before the US Congress
* Joining certain organizations
* Receiving certain military discharges
Solving the problem in the first place. I know there are some problems about leaving people stateless (meaning Britain needs to look after 'captain hook'), but this guy has another state so I wouldn't imagine this to be an issue. Would like clarification though.
I believe that this does set a precedent with the potential for abuse, yet that doesn't mean it will be abused.
But knowing the government, it's anyone's guess.
In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, assasination is totally justified. But the process for targeting a US Citizen overseas should be a little more than the President signning a few papers and then handing things over to the CIA. It sort of skips over the whole idea of checks and balances.
Y'know, that thing our government is sort of based on.
It should be something along the lines of, the president makes a request to have x person killed and/or captured due to them presenting y threat to national security, blah, blah, etc. And then it is then given to a congressional commitee to review, and so on, and then given to the courts for the stamp of approval.
Kanluwen wrote:
No gak sherlock. However, calling him a "citizen" is inflammatory at this point.
No, its legally accurate.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's like when people protesting the Israeli blockade pointed towards the American "citizen" who was killed, ignoring the fact that the guy never actually lived in the US(was raised and lived in Turkey), but was only born here.
Yes, and that makes him a citizen insofar as he enacted his claim to citizenship.
Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.
You would be wrong no to do so.
Kanluwen wrote:
I also wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you publicly state that you want nothing more to do with the country, other than to bring about its downfall.
Its nice that you feel that way, but it has no relevance to the matter at all.
Kanluwen wrote:
He's not being killed because he's a useless pecker. Plus, it's far far far more useful to discredit him and drag him through the mud exposing him for the self-righteous, chauvinistic piece of trash he is than it would be to kill him.
Killing him makes him a martyr, thus...it's not worth it.
Also because engaging in clandestine operations within nations that are close allies and members of NATO, without their permission, is foolish; especially given that Assange isn't a significant threat.
Honestly, it isn't even particularly useful to drag him through the mud. There will always be people willing to publish illicit documents, the trick is insuring that they're never allowed to receive them.
Kanluwen wrote:
And you're overreaching.
There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.
Yes, because clearly law enforcement and intelligence services are above and beyond Presidential influence.
Its certainly not point and click, but let's at least not try and pretend that Sebster's comment was wholly off the mark. It certainly wasn't any more of an over extension than your definition of citizenship according to personal judgment.
Medium of Death wrote:As this guy holds joint citizenship in Yemen and the US, couldn't the US Government just revoke his citizenship? Leaving him as a citizen of Yemen.
Denaturalization is how the US government revokes or cancels your US citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen.
You're confusing revoking citizenship with denaturalizing someone, which has much less stringent requirements. The latter is not applicable, because he is not a naturalized citizen - he was born in New Mexico. The former is extremely, and rightfully, nearly impossible to do - he would have to explicitly renounce his US citizenship and file papers to that effect with a foreign embassy.
He could also lose it by serving as an officer in a foreign military, or at any rank if that military is engaged in hostilities with the US. As we do not recognize Al-Qaeda as an actual army, and we're not at war with Yemen, that's out.
I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.
...Yemen would not extradite U.S.-born radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki to the United States if he were captured. Although the U.S. has requested extradition, Yemen’s constitution forbids extradition of Yemeni citizens to another country.
However, al-Awlaki is being pursued by Yemen authorities in their efforts against al-Quida, and is one of the individuals they have targeted for capture.
So you need to get Yemen to revoke his Citizenship... the plot thickens...
Ouze wrote:
I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.
Yemen doesn't have the capacity to extradite him. Really, the relative weakness of their government is the central issue in US-Yemen relations due to the number of wanted terrorists there.
What we really need to do is develop legislation regarding what actually constitutes war, a foreign military, and other such things.
Frazzled wrote:He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
At this point we're mingling the news story of Julian Assange (Australian citizen) and Anwar al-Awlaki (US Citizen). I believe he was referring to the latter.
He renounced his citizenship.
Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.
I was not aware that we had already requested he be extradited.
We're still not without options. For one, we can have congress legally issue a letter of marque to organizations like Blackwater to capture him - this would be my preferred option. We could indict him, and then have bounty hunters or the CIA snatch him and bring him either here, or to a third party - Canada or the UK - and extradite him from there. If he's an American fugitive, these guys are just serving a lawful warrant, not kidnapping him.
It's not that I think he's innocent, I don't want to be misconstrued. Nor am I some pacifist who abhors the thought of the death penalty. I'd like nothing better then to see this man brought back to the US, tried for treason, and executed.
I just think we have adequate remedies within our legal system to do so in a way that is wholly consistent with our laws and values. Whatever damage this man has done, whatever damage he could possibly do, would be dwarfed by setting the precedent that the US President can decide a US citizen who has not been charged with a crime can be lawfully murdered, with no recourse or oversight.
Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.
Nuts.
So you're arguing that he's a regular member of a foreign military, indicating the tacit renunciation of citizenship, and therefore making him subject to the Geneva Conventions?
However, the executive is charged with enforcing the rulings of the courts, and it's up to congress to impeach him for not doing so. They obviously chose not to do so.
Frazzled wrote:
Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.
That argument has been made frequently, and usually very well. The counter-argument is that civil wars entail the breakdown of the legal system, so it really doesn't matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
[needs citation]
Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.
dogma wrote:Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.
Not to mention the US Government has been fighting tooth and nail for years to establish the precedent that Al Qaeda is not a organized military, to avoid all the awful entanglements that would create.
Ouze wrote:
I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.
Yemen doesn't have the capacity to extradite him. Really, the relative weakness of their government is the central issue in US-Yemen relations due to the number of wanted terrorists there.
What we really need to do is develop legislation regarding what actually constitutes war, a foreign military, and other such things.
Why the feth do we need legislation regarding "a foreign military"?
Al-Qaeda isn't a foreign military. It's an organization that, for all intents and purposes, is a private entity backed by people from multiple countries.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Wait...so what is he then? I thought the whole point was that he was part of an illegal organization (namely Al-Qaeda). What is he wanted for?
In 2004, a German citizen was snatched in Macedonia and allegedly taken to a secret prison by the CIA. Agents had apparently mistaken him for an al-Qaeda suspect. A 2007 cable from the US embassy in Berlin details the efforts the US made to persuade Germany not to issue international arrest warrants for the CIA agents accused of involvement.
In an account of a high-level meeting between US and German officials, the cables states that US diplomats “pointed out that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the US”.
Khaled El-Masri, was an innocent who had a misfortune to have the same name as a terrorist suspect. He was illegally kidnapped, imprisoned in Afghanistan, interrogated and tortured.
For over a year. His family had no idea what had happened to him. He had no chance to defend himself, to seek legal representation, every human right he had was taken from him. He had to go on a hunger strike for 27 days before he was able to force a meeting with a prison official and a CIA official. And this was taking place after they’d already found out that his passport was genuine and that he was innocent.
Eventually, after the news finally worked it’s way up to Condoleeza Rice and she ordered his release, they flew him out of Afghanistan and dumped him out of a van on a back road in Albania with no apology and no funds to get home.
That’s the equivalent of a Brit being abducted while on holiday in Ireland and being dumped in Iceland. Imagine that was you, or that he was your family member. Imagine the ordeal he and his family have gone through.
The US government and judiciary have blocked any attempts at proper recompense, or to bring those responsible for this appalling act to justice. And now finally it is revealed that they tried to prevent Germany from issuing arrest warrants for the agents responsible.
This just takes the biscuit. There are not the words strong enough to describe this outrage. This was a crime, a crime against the most basic of human rights and against the whole concept of liberty, democracy and civilisation. The fact that the US and German governments ultimately protected those responsible from any punishment or justice reveals just how wrong things have gotten.
I accept that there are terrorists, I accept that we need to defend ourselves and I accept that the nature of what security services do is not always pleasant. But there is not, and never can be an excuse for this kind of injustice. We are meant to be better than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we certainly claim to be. But things happen in our name which are just as abhorrent and the failure of our governments to put a stop to it is disgusting.
Don’t kid yourself that the UK isn’t complicit in this kind of thing. Maybe not in this incident but there have been others. And just think of how many more like Khaled there could be or will be in the future. What happened to Khaled and which continues to happen is utterly vile.
I am outraged by this and ashamed to know that we have been complicit in exactly this kind of crime and are allies with people who commit these crimes.
Kanluwen wrote:
Why the feth do we need legislation regarding "a foreign military"?
What is a foreign military? What distinguishes a foreign military from a foreign militia? From an organization like Al-Qaeda? How do we treat the members of each in a legal sense? How do international treaties apply to members of each?
That's just a short list of questions that are either unresolved, or have tentative resolutions.
Kanluwen wrote:
Al-Qaeda isn't a foreign military. It's an organization that, for all intents and purposes, is a private entity backed by people from multiple countries.
Did I indicate that it was a foreign military?
I don't think I've even written the proper name "Al-Qaeda" in this thread.
Kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, all without an explanation, and then dumped on his ass hundreds of miles from his home without so much as a, "Our bad man, here's a few thousand bucks to get home comfortably."
And then no attempt to make up for the damage they did.
Sucks to be him is an understatement.
The fethers who did this should be subject to harsh fines and then fired after making an official apology. And this guy should get some sort of financial compensation for being imprisoned ILLEGALLY for over a YEAR.
dogma wrote:Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.
Not to mention the US Government has been fighting tooth and nail for years to establish the precedent that Al Qaeda is not a organized military, to avoid all the awful entanglements that would create.
And remember we dont have prisoners or war whe have "enemy combatants".
The question is how do you handle a citizen who is a domestic terrorist vs a citizen who is part of a foreign terrorist organization? When is it acceptable to kill terrorists without due process? only when its in a foreign country?
Obviously noone is saying if you cant take him alive you cant do anything, the question is if he can be captured shouldent that be persued instead of signing a death warrant?
Pretty sure in this particular case the only precident set (which has been set many times) is that you must have correct legal standing to bring a case to court. Crap Bag's daddy did not, so the case got booted.
I am positive that if Crap Bag showed up at a US Embassy or Consulate and decided to come home and bring suit himself it would not be thrown out.
He's clearly an enemy combatant. Just because he hold US citizenship (even ignoring that he renounced), it doesn't mean he's immune from being treated as a valid target.
And, really, this doesn't set any precedent. This was a district court decision. If it gets appealed, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.
Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:
Some ACLU dill weed wrote:The American Civil Liberties Union, which backed the suit, called the outcome inconsistent with the Constitution and dangerous to American liberty.
"If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. Jaffer was one of the lawyers on the case.
How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:
Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?
Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:
Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?
They are not upholding our rights. Like everyone they have an agenda. They consistently come out on the wrong side of 2nd A cases.
Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?
Meh, let's not pretend they're purely champions of liberty. They're considerably more political than that, and it's unfortunate. If you like them, fine, but it's not clearcut.
Anyway, as far as this cleric goes, what I find interesting is that everyone here is concerned about assassinating him because he's an American citizen. Why is it ok to assassinate non-Americans, then? On some level I'd think it'd be MORE ok to assassinate your own people, since they're at least "yours."
I also don't really understand why we draw such a distinction between "assassination" and "war." If you're in a "war" you're trying to kill the enemy. If you can kill their high military leadership, you do it. That's just wonderful from a military perspective. So why is that "war" and not "assassination?"
It's also worth noting that the lines become very blurry when you're doing things like Predator strikes on mountain compounds. What if you happen to kill an American citizen who was at a meeting of Taliban leadership? Is that to be avoided? Is that "precedent?" Is it "illegal?"
We can point to "legal remedies" but the fact is that they're incongruent with the conduct of a war, and our definitions of "war" become somewhat insufficient and vague when nobody is willing to engage the US in a proper "war" anymore, knowing they'll lose that sort of thing in a week.
I think ultimately what's happening here is we've got a genuine policy decision that needs to be made, our leadership needs to decide what it will do in these situations, and that's what the judge has said.
In this thread we've got people trying to pretend that there is already existing law for what we must do, and that's simply not the case. These are new conditions that require a more nuanced, precise understanding of what constitutes "war" and what makes somebody a "wartime enemy."
This has actually been going on for as long as the "war on terror" has been going on.
It's a particularly ironic twist that Obama, huge fan that he is of the "treat it as law enforcement" stance of the Democrats, is also a huge fan of using Predator drones to kill people off in countries we're currently not at war with.
That alone should give you an idea of how simple this question isn't.
At the end of the day, we just have to decide how it works. What it will come down to is creating a better definion of "war," a better description of what is acceptable in conduct of war, and then we just need to be clear about what we're doing.
"Any person of any nation who allies with or supports Organization X will be considered a combatant and may be killed or captured subject to war guideline WG-12345-2010. This includes person Y and person Z, who are known to have blah blah blah."
To me, that's really the best that you're going to do. Set up the rules, say how they're going to work, and then say who it means you're going to kill.
The precedent may be "scary" but what's even scarier is what we're doing now: operating with no formal rules at all.
I'd rather they set the precedent than they just killed the guy and nobody can say if it was acceptable or not.
Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.
Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.
Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.
Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.
Although i thought you were only guilty of treason if you were found guilty by a court
Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.
Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.
Although i thought you were only guilty of treason if you were found guilty by a court
Eh, moral treason.
I could give a feth about the legal precedents. If we have him on file encouraging the Ft. Hood shooter, then as far as I'm concerned, that's a confession.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:
Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?
I'm fine with them doing that... For the people that deserve it. For those who don't, we deserve the right to defend our liberties with our trigger fingers.
Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:
Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?
I'm fine with them doing that... For the people that deserve it. For those who don't, we deserve the right to defend our liberties with our trigger fingers.
Exactly.
I don't care what else you do. Once you defend NAMBLA you should be rounded up and burned at the stake.
Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.
Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.
See, this is where i start having issues.
Im as pro-military action as it gets, you guys know me by now. I loathe hippies and I love raining some death down on AQ or whatever, but all you guys (the right leaning Americans basically!) are at odds with me on this simply because you seem to just.. trust?
I mean, have you seen how useless and incompetent our governments are?
Im all for slotting people who deserve it. gak, i think we should have wrapped Abu Hamza in a pigskin, shot him in the head then buried him upside down months ago, but don't you think we need to have real safeguards, LOADS of due process?
If your happy with the prez just "deciding" that an American citizen gets a bullet in the head while he is watching the TV, whats to say that they (intelligence services etc) won't feth it up and you end up slotting the wrong bloke?
Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)
I don't really have a problem with this ruling, and here's why:
1. The suit wasn't even brought by the guy who is being targeted by the government, but rather a family member (his father).
2. The person in question has renounced his citizenship and called for attacks on the US...if that doesn't make him an enemy, I'm not sure how else you could define it.
3. If the person in question truly wanted the protections of the US legal system, there is nothing preventing him from walking into the nearest US Embassy and surrendering himself.
Honestly, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent that an average law-abiding citizen can suddenly be targeted for elimination by the government.
Commander Endova wrote:I like you a lot, Monster Rain.
Aww, gee whiz. I like you too, buddy!
mattyrm wrote:Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)
I'm not saying "kill em all" though. I'm saying that if you go as far as this guy has gone to turn on your own country in the name of savages like AQ I really don't have a problem with the government going after them.
I agree with you that we shouldn't go too crazy but again, in cases like these, we shouldn't mess around.
Im as pro-military action as it gets, you guys know me by now. I loathe hippies and I love raining some death down on AQ or whatever, but all you guys (the right leaning Americans basically!) are at odds with me on this simply because you seem to just.. trust?
The only people I trust are myself and my own judgment, and those who have earned my trust. But that doeasn't mean I live my life thinking everyone and everything is out to get me. I'm not that paranoid, or that self important. I'm pretty sure it would be hard for the president, sitting in front of his TV, to decide I should get plugged, considering he has know idea I even exist.
I mean, have you seen how useless and incompetent our governments are?
Im all for slotting people who deserve it. gak, i think we should have wrapped Abu Hamza in a pigskin, shot him in the head then buried him upside down months ago, but don't you think we need to have real safeguards, LOADS of due process?
If your happy with the prez just "deciding" that an American citizen gets a bullet in the head while he is watching the TV, whats to say that they (intelligence services etc) won't feth it up and you end up slotting the wrong bloke?
Due process? Well, that's a complicated issue. I'm all in favor of you know, being sure the accused actually DID the crime we're accusing him of. That's great and all. My problem is letting known terrorists go because someone fethed up the proceedings. Hell, I'm fine with that, so long as we can legally keep an F/O team on them 24/7 ready to make the pink mist if he so much as neglects to pick up his dog's poop.
I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman! If you invade that persons privacy for no reason? Then handing over your badge and gun should be the least of your problems.
Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)
Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)
Hey, I met those kinds of people too, when I was in. I know what you mean. That said, I'm not going to leave any sort of sorting or decision making to an entity I deny the existence of.
Commander Endova wrote:I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman!
You must be using a different meaning of the word of "accountable" then I am familiar with. In your version, being "accountable" appears to mean "there is no consequence to your lawbreaking if you wear a badge". Interesting.
Commander Endova wrote:Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)
Ah, in 2010, when being a "real 'Murkikan" means openly advocating treason and insurrection in the name of the constitution. What times we live in, where military coups are considered "patriotism". I had always considered the remedy for a lawless executive to be Article 2, Section 4, but I suppose I'm just being quaint, now.
Frazzled wrote:He renounced his citizenship.
Grakmar wrote: Just because he hold US citizenship (even ignoring that he renounced)
Ruckdog wrote:The person in question has renounced his citizenship and called for attacks on the US...
I repeat - [needs citation]. I can't find a single source that indicates he has, in fact, renounced his citizenship. I bet you guys can't either, because he never has done so. If he had done so, we wouldn't have stuff like this impending. Renoucing your US citizenship if you are a natual born citizen is impossible by a third party, and difficult for a first party; You can't just say it and have it be true, any more then I can say Christina Hendricks is coming around my place in 30 minutes for some nookie, and have it be true. There is a process you must follow.
Although I know we're almost certainly on an irrevocable descent into Wikiality, lets try and hold off - as long as we can - on a future where things that are untrue become true if you repeat them enough.
Commander Endova wrote:I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman!
You must be using a different meaning of the word of "accountable" then I am familiar with. In your version, being "accountable" appears to mean "there is no consequence to your lawbreaking if you wear a badge". Interesting.
Hardly. There should be no consequence for doing your job, for putting people who deserve it in jail. The consequences for for a policeman breaking the laws should be more severe than they already are.
Commander Endova wrote:Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)
Ah, in 2010, when being a "real 'Murkikan" means openly advocating treason and insurrection in the name of the constitution. What times we live in, where military coups are considered "patriotism". I had always considered the remedy for a lawless executive to be Article 2, Section 4, but I suppose I'm just being quaint, now.
I'm not debating that impeachment is usually a better course. But at the risk of sounding cliche, some of us swore an oath to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If a government gets to the point where it can order the execution of anyone whatever reason, (unlike in the case above, where the person in question is in favor of wholesale harm to the people) then we have the right and the duty to fight off that oppression. But that's an extreme case and we're nowhere near that point.
LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
Nowhere does the Constitution protect the world from the US Air Force.
What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?
Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.
Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen
Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.
You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.
All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.
I know the conversation has veered of course, but it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent, but this is almost certainly going to be appealed, and the decision by the circuit court of SCOTUS will become precedent. So don't worry to much about precedent.
As always, i'm suprised that the same people that point out how obviously bad a person is seem to have no confidence in the governments ability to prove that to a tribunal. I mean, if a person really is a traitor and a threat and all that jazz, then run it by a court, get the authorization, and move forward. Federal judges tend to be pretty smart.
It also doesn't seem like the father was suing for wrongful death damages. he was simply suing to stop the attack, which isn't just a standing issue, or a soveriegn immunity issue, it's also a mootness issue (it's long done).
Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent
LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
Nowhere does the Constitution protect the world from the US Air Force.
What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?
Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.
Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen
Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.
You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.
All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Polonius wrote:I know the conversation has veered of course
It wasn't originally about the legal status of citrus fruits in regards to leash laws?
Silly rabbit, it was about the legal status of leash laws in regards to citus fruits. Learn to read posts!
Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent
What?
Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.
LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.
Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.
He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.
Nowhere does the Constitution protect the world from the US Air Force.
What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?
Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.
Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen
Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.
You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.
All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod... 2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Polonius wrote:I know the conversation has veered of course
It wasn't originally about the legal status of citrus fruits in regards to leash laws?
Silly rabbit, it was about the legal status of leash laws in regards to citus fruits. Learn to read posts!
The United States requires that an expatriating individual visit a U.S. Embassy to expatriate except in times of war under special circumstances.[6] During the procedure the individual must complete a number of documents, explain the reason for renouncing citizenship, and demonstrate proof of foreign residence, or failing that, evidence that they intend to enter the United States as an alien with documentation to that effect.[7]
Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.
Never said you were, just asked. Difference between question and accusation....but point taken none the less.
Please refer to the link I posted.....he IS a US citizen whether you like it or not. I also never said that proper legal process has not been followed regarding this individual, simply that the case in question establishes a deeply disturbing legal precedent for elected officials to bypass the judicial branch when it comes to the targeting of US citizens outside of US borders.
Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing
Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent
What?
Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.
Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.
Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing
Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.
Frazzled wrote:
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.
Technically, for the US to legally recognize the renouncement of US Citizenship, you have to do three things.
1) Appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer
2) Be in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate)
3) Sign an oath of renunciation
If you haven't done that, you haven't actually renounced your citizenship.
Oh, nope, guess not. Hey, we didn't even get that authorized by congress as a military action! Neato! You should sell your guns fraz, you're a darn terrible constitutionalist.
Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent
What?
Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.
Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.
Actually it hasn't set a legal precedent yet as the legal process is still in motion. When the process is finished than we will have a precedent or we will not.
agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.
I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.
It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.
Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing
Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.
If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.
Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.
Please show me where we are in a state of war with ANYONE on the globe. You are confusing an official declaration of war with Congress approved military action.
"In the United States, only the U.S. Congress may declare war"
"the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war"
Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing
Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.
If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.
+1
I still can't tell if Frazzled is trolling or being serious. Thats not a flame.....I've been told by more than 1 folks that you are really good at pwning noobs in efights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.
I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.
It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.
Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.
Please show me where we are in a state of war with ANYONE on the globe. You are confusing an official declaration of war with Congress approved military action.
"In the United States, only the U.S. Congress may declare war"
"the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war"
Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing
It doesn't say war has to have been declared by Congress. It says a state of war.
Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.
If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.
+1
I still can't tell if Frazzled is trolling or being serious. Thats not a flame.....I've been told by more than 1 folks that you are really good at pwning noobs in efights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.
I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.
It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.
Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
Personally I find some of the comments you've made such as "you're wrong, let me give you my glasses" to be a flame, but apparently thats OK since you're a mod.
Folks are being quite civil in the thread, lets not have it degenerate into nasty little name calling and "yer stoopid".
Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
Personally I find some of the comments you've made such as "you're wrong, let me give you my glasses" to be a flame, but apparently thats OK since you're a mod.
Folks are being quite civil in the thread, lets not have it degenerate into nasty little name calling and "yer stoopid".
I was serious. He can use my glasses. But watch out they are right next to the koolaid Shuma says I am drinking. But of course, as he has confirmed, it may be laced with LSD.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Putting Frazz on ignore is the best thing I've ever done on Dakka. He's simply a troll that abuses his pathetic power every chance he gets.
Polonius wrote:Putting Frazz on ignore is the best thing I've ever done on Dakka. He's simply a troll that abuses his pathetic power every chance he gets.
I don't mind a decent debate opponent, I just want it to stay in the realm of factual data as opposed to personal interpretation....where ever possible that is. I'm not going to ignore someone simply because they take a stance that doesn't mirror my own.
Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?
*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.
So you think that constitutionally illegal events that were suspended following the civil war (a war of the U.S. against itself wherein the functionality of law broke down at its core) is a legal precedent for then copying them again during a time of peace and international police operations?
Sell your guns fraz. You're about as soviet as they come. I thought you were a small government man.
Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?
*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.
Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?
Edit: I know you are trolling just for the sake of trolling. It is however quite amusing to see almost 2 pages of "Frazzled, you are wrong" posted by other Americans.
Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?
*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.
So you think that constitutionally illegal events that were suspended following the civil war (a war of the U.S. against itself wherein the functionality of law broke down at its core) is a legal precedent for then copying them again during a time of peace and international police operations?
Sell your guns fraz. You're about as soviet as they come. I thought you were a small government man.
Now I know you don't mean that, because you didn't know my granddad escaped from said Soviets in his younger days (although they were Bolshevik Russians to him), and that, had you said that to me in real life, would elicit a negative emotional response. I know you didn't try to hurt my feelings. But alas, you have hurt me, hurt me as a person, hurt me as a human being.
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?
***Nope. On the positive I wasn't Johnson (that name is ironical isn't following two dead presidents), else there wouldn't have been a South left.
Edit: I know you are trolling just for the sake of trolling. It is however quite amusing to see almost 2 pages of "Frazzled, you are wrong" posted by other Americans.
***Only two pages? I am losing my touch. Now are these South, Central, or Northern Americans?
Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.
Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?
***Nope. On the positive I wasn't Johnson (that name is ironical isn't following two dead presidents), else there wouldn't have been a South left.
Lol, then don't use it as a basis of support for your arguement.
Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.
Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?
Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.
Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?
Wait... what? ? ?
You stated that the abolishment of slavery was a result of the Civil War (which is true). To which I replied with the question of whether or not you think slavery exists in America today. Pretty cut and dry question. I'd love to hear your answer to it.
Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
To be honest, I do have three Venezuelan dwarfs that I bought at discount from the flee market for $45. Those guys really know how to tidy up. I haven't clean my house in years and they made it spotless in a matter of hours and it only cost me $45!
Frazzled wrote:Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
You quoted me the ammedment, but you didn't answer the question. Also, stating illegality does not make any kind of statement as to the existence or nonexistence of a behavior or pattern of behavior.
Do you think that slavery exists in America today?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:To be honest, I do have three Venezuelan dwarfs that I bought at discount from the flee market for $45. Those guys really know how to tidy up. I haven't clean my house in years and they made it spotless in a matter of hours and it only cost me $45!
Cute, I'll ask you the same question.
Do you think that slavery exists in America today?
Again, all this case proves is that if youy do not have proper legal standing you cannot file suit. Daddy did not have proper standing to file a suit for Crap Bag. That is why the judge tossed the case.
If Crap bag wants to file on his own behalf I am sure the case would not be chucked (at least for that reason).
Those stating this case sets a precedent for Evil Executive Branch Killing US Citizens have not read the decision or do not understand what they read. Again, the reason it got tossed is because Daddy did not have the legal standing to file the suit on his son's behalf.
Slavery will always exist on some small scale. It is known that girls are brought over and forced into slavery as prostitutes. I think the important fact here is that slavery is no longer an accepted industry within the country. It is illegal and the criminals are sought after.
Now if you try and say something such as people who work minimum wage are slaves, or Americans are slaves to the government or some hog wash you should be slapped.
Slavery in America was a dark spot, and a terrible travesty. What our country did to generations of people was aweful, and anyone who compares bad salary or our crappy government/tax system to slavery is disrespecting the pain and suffering of what real slavery was.
Frazzled wrote:Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Slavery was already illegal via the preamble and constitution of the united states. This amendment essentially formalized what was already there but not explicitly stated (which was a central concern given the fact that slavery was prevalent from the inception of the country and at the time of the constitutions writings the freedoms it ensured were not given to the "subhuman" slave class). Abolition also pre dated the civil war, did it not? Besides, I said unconstitutional laws suspended immediately following a war that conceptually violated all forms of constitutional and judicial law anyway. They threw the constitution out the window for that fight, I'm loving the fact that you're so willing to do it again.
Conservatives are the last group that should ever try to claim that they honor the constitution.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.
This is what comes of trying to use Civil War era precedents as a basis for your argument regarding modern conditions.
Fallacy is fallacy or more accurately....
Irrelevant Conclusion
* Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
o Example
Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)
o Special cases:
+ purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
+ popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
+ fear (argumentum ad baculum),
+ conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam—appeal to authority)
+ to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
+ proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
+ assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy)
o Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"
So we don't make a distinction between institutionalized slavery and illegal activity? To my mind there is a difference between the government allowing slavery and the black market of human trafficking.
Gonna go play LoL for a couple of hours and work on my DP.
Viva la internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:So we don't make a distinction between institutionalized slavery and illegal activity? To my mind there is a difference between the government allowing slavery and the black market of human trafficking.
Of course there is, just like there is a huge difference between modern military actions and the standards set by governmental policy during the Civil War. I was making a point in using irrelevant information as a basis for sustaining an argument.
I felt bad when I read it. I tend to assume conservative support for this sort of stuff is just the needed practice at cognitive dissonance for them to hold their many conflicting views at once. It's not easy being that inconsistent with yourself, so don't rag on their hard work.
LordofHats wrote:[quote=]Cute, I'll ask you the same question.
Do you think that slavery exists in America today?
Well obviously. I just said I own 3 Venezuelan dwarfs.
I for one welcome our new venezuelan dwarf overlords...wait who am I kidding, we can kick their ass!
That last comment started to worry me Frazz. I was really worried since I thought you were a wiener dog loyalist turned dwarf overlord lover. Then I read the rest of it and was able to breath easier.
For feth’s sake, people, mattyrm and I are in agreement. What does that tell you about how ridiculous you're being?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitiveand take him alive if they can. I don't even understand what the father is suing for. What damages could possibly be awarded (especially if he's so far avoided capture or death)?
And given the Yemeni government is largely incapable of taking him, and unwilling to be seen as overtly aiding the US government, what happens when the US decides it isn’t possible to sent a special ops team on an extradition mission? Typically that’s time to launch a missile from a drone…
Which has happened with non-US citizens… so don’t you see the danger when that same approach is taken to US citizens, purely on the assessment of the President, with no oversight from congress or the judiciary?
So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?
Umm, what? I don’t care much for the silly ideas of most conspiracy theorists, but you’re kidding yourself if you think the US has never gotten up to mischief, or that people in power in many nations around the world haven’t used their powers to gain greater power for themselves.
Seriously, go look up Operation Northwoods, then come back and tell me you’re alright with unchecked power in the hands of the Presidency.
Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.
These things can be approved by overnight courts, convened and settled incredibly quickly. There are provisions for other powers such as wiretaps to be assessed after the event. So the claim of expediency doesn’t really hold.
And if it’s so clear that someone needs to be killed, then the oversight committees will approve. If there’s a chance they won’t approve, well the obviously the case wasn’t so cut and dry that we should be alright with one person being given absolute power to decide.
Frazzled wrote:Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.
Nuts.
Because Lincoln successfully pursued the war by ordering predator drone strikes on US citizens living civilian lives while being suspected of conspiring against the US. Make more sense.
Frazzled wrote:Sucks to be him. Oh well.
There you have it folks. This is the mentality of those arguing for reduced rights in the face of the war on terror. It’s a ridiculous, indefensible position, only possible through, basically, putting your hands over your ears every time a case like El-Mazri’s comes up, trying to forget as soon as possible, so they can go back to cheering for every possible predator drone strike possible.
At some point it becomes very obvious this has nothing with any actual understanding of the war on terror, and everything to with creating a false sense of security by fantasising about committing as much violence as possible on those that you fear.
Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.
Umm, to penalise someone for treason you actually need to convict them in a court. Someone isn’t guilty just because the President says so.
Phryxis wrote:Anyway, as far as this cleric goes, what I find interesting is that everyone here is concerned about assassinating him because he's an American citizen. Why is it ok to assassinate non-Americans, then? On some level I'd think it'd be MORE ok to assassinate your own people, since they're at least "yours."
Because of the incredibly dangerous precedent set in terms of domestic politics. There’s a reason the CIA isn’t allowed to operate inside the US, you know.
I also don't really understand why we draw such a distinction between "assassination" and "war." If you're in a "war" you're trying to kill the enemy. If you can kill their high military leadership, you do it. That's just wonderful from a military perspective. So why is that "war" and not "assassination?"
Because there’s no Republic of Al-Qaidastan. There’s just people the CIA says are really important, dangerous members of Al-Qaida, and killing them isn’t nearly so clear cut as killing people who are formally members of a military.
I think it’s necessary, given the modern world, that such people need to be killed. I just think you can’t hand that power out to the executive without placing oversight upon it.
It's also worth noting that the lines become very blurry when you're doing things like Predator strikes on mountain compounds. What if you happen to kill an American citizen who was at a meeting of Taliban leadership? Is that to be avoided? Is that "precedent?" Is it "illegal?"
It’s pretty well established by now that if proper precautions are taken to minimise collateral damage, then the accidental killing of third parties is tragic, but accepted.
In this thread we've got people trying to pretend that there is already existing law for what we must do, and that's simply not the case. These are new conditions that require a more nuanced, precise understanding of what constitutes "war" and what makes somebody a "wartime enemy."
This has actually been going on for as long as the "war on terror" has been going on.
Are you claiming there’s nothing in the constitution arguing that the President can’t just decide which US citizens need killing? How did no-one notice that for all this time…
Monster Rain wrote:It's not treason anymore though, is it?
He's an enemy combatant, by his own actions.
No. He’s an enemy combatant by the contents of a CIA report, the accuracy of which has not been allowed for review by anyone outside of the CIA.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't care what else you do. Once you defend NAMBLA you should be rounded up and burned at the stake.
Yes, because freedom of speech is only for the groups we like. What the hell?
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying "kill em all" though. I'm saying that if you go as far as this guy has gone to turn on your own country in the name of savages like AQ I really don't have a problem with the government going after them.
I agree with you that we shouldn't go too crazy but again, in cases like these, we shouldn't mess around.
So you agree there should be congressional and judicial oversight on orders to kill?
Commander Endova wrote:The only people I trust are myself and my own judgment, and those who have earned my trust. But that doeasn't mean I live my life thinking everyone and everything is out to get me. I'm not that paranoid, or that self important. I'm pretty sure it would be hard for the president, sitting in front of his TV, to decide I should get plugged, considering he has know idea I even exist.
Civil liberties violations are only a problem if they might happen to you? What the hell?
Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)
Your assumption that armed revolt, and not constant vigilance of individual rights, is the best way to protect freedoms, is well, incredibly naïve and shows little or no understanding of the history of government.
Ahtman wrote:No, everyone, me, you, sebster...all of us, should feel bad.
I do feel bad. This thread has reminded me how so many people really just don't understand how personal freedoms work, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
And thanks for the shoutout Shuma, but plenty of other folk have been making good points in this thread. Probably more than half the posters. It's just hard to notice sometimes, when the claims made by the other side can be so very ridiculous.
sebster wrote:
I do feel bad. This thread has reminded me how so many people really just don't understand how personal freedoms work, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
+1
Yet again drives home the fact that the American people seem driven to willingly give up personal freedom whenever the government yells about a terrorist. This is pretty much what Bin Ladin and every other anti-US player has wanted for years.
sebster wrote:No. He’s an enemy combatant by the contents of a CIA report, the accuracy of which has not been allowed for review by anyone outside of the CIA.
Meh. How do you know so much about it then? Anyway, I'm sure that more people than the evil CIA know about it, just like they knew about water boarding. The difficulty about us internet know-it-alls finding out about it is that its not really public knowledge.
sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:I don't care what else you do. Once you defend NAMBLA you should be rounded up and burned at the stake.
Yes, because freedom of speech is only for the groups we like. What the hell?
Oh yeah, I forgot. We aren't allowed to have societal standards of behavior. Wouldn't want to be intolerant.
sebster wrote:So you agree there should be congressional and judicial oversight on orders to kill?
Nah.
sebster wrote:This thread has reminded me how so many people really just don't understand how personal freedoms work, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
Saints preserve us. This post has reminded me of how sanctimonious people can be, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
How about this: I know how personal freedoms work, and if you behave like this donkey-cave featured in the OP they should be immediately revoked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
sebster wrote:
I do feel bad. This thread has reminded me how so many people really just don't understand how personal freedoms work, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
+1
Yet again drives home the fact that the American people seem driven to willingly give up personal freedom whenever the government yells about a terrorist.
How is it giving up freedom to not mind if someone who joins the ranks of AQ and their ilk gets blown up by a predator drone?
Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
sebster wrote:
I do feel bad. This thread has reminded me how so many people really just don't understand how personal freedoms work, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
+1
Yet again drives home the fact that the American people seem driven to willingly give up personal freedom whenever the government yells about a terrorist.
How is it giving up freedom to not mind if someone who joins the ranks of AQ and their ilk gets blown up by a predator drone?
feth that guy and everyone like him.
Oh for god sake, I am NOT linking the explanation of legal precedence again. People are clearly too focused on the fact that this guy is a terrorist and NOT focused on the fact that there is now a junior legal precedent on the books that allows "elected officials" to specifically target a US citizen living abroad for either CIA or military operations. Do you not grasp the ramifications of that precedent?
I could care LESS what happens to this Ackbar alama laka guy....if he gets shot boo hoo he's a dick. If not, oh well then we let another one through the cracks. The guy is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and you are supporting the stance that one branch of the government can order the death of an american citizen without any oversight or due process in a civilian court of law. That is the point of this thread, not the fact that yet another Islamic militant is going to eat a hellfire up the cornhole.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Oh for god sake, I am NOT linking the explanation of legal precedence again. People are clearly too focused on the fact that this guy is a terrorist and NOT focused on the fact that there is now a junior legal precedent on the books that allows "elected officials" to specifically target a US citizen living abroad for either CIA or military operations. Do you not grasp the ramifications of that precedent?
I grasp it.
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
Run it by the same people that they have to run the wire-taps by, then. The more dead terrorists the better.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot. We aren't allowed to have societal standards of behavior. Wouldn't want to be intolerant.
Political correctness something, something...
I want an image for this one... Hmm...
None of these pics are all that appropriate, so I'll save myself the stress and just say that you are setting standards that are not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
Something, something, something, nothing, something, nothing, something... I can paint you in ten different ways, none of which are appealing to the senses.
Run it by the same people that they have to run the wire-taps by, then. The more dead terrorists the better.
Wrexasaur wrote:None of these pics are all that appropriate, so I'll save myself the stress and just say that you are setting standards that are not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous? You're trolling me.
Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?
I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?
You're trolling me.
Nope, and I generally consider you to be an interesting poster.
So's your mother.
My emotions are rarely moved by references to my parents. When you consider the scope of what you're discussing I'm not entirely sure why you hold your position with such confidence.
Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?
I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?
That is an excellent point, actually. feth it. Let them keep on keeping on, I suppose.
Wrexasaur wrote:
You're trolling me.
Nope, and I generally consider you to be an interesting poster.
Likewise. I do hope we aren't actually cross with each other.
Wrexasaur wrote:
So's your mother.
My emotions are rarely moved by references to my parents. When you consider the scope of what you're discussing I'm not entirely sure why you hold your position with such confidence.
I could have put an emoticon in there, but I thought that it would be a ridiculous enough statement so as to not be taken as a serious attack. Let me say that it was spoken purely in a "good-natured ribbing" sort of sense.
I acknowledge that this is a difficult issue, but I have faith that once someone with actual standing to file suit in a case like this will have it all sorted out in the end.
Monster Rain wrote:
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
./facepalm
There is now a legal precedent on the books that states its OK for an elected official to target an American citizen outside of the US for death by....whatever. Its also been established that they can legally do this without oversight from the judicial branch, which basically represents a check to the power of the executive branch.
Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?
I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?
That is an excellent point, actually. feth it. Let them keep on keeping on, I suppose.
The level of stupid involved in supporting pedophilia is an eyesore that my OCD just can't handle. So much so that I am compelled to allow it to destroy itself.
Likewise. I do hope we aren't actually cross with each other.
I've literally been pissed two or three times when cruising Dakka^Dakka.
You don't have to worry much about me freaking out over discussions on a gaming site. I leave that to folks who revel in it.
I could have put an emoticon in there, but I thought that it would be a ridiculous enough statement so as to not be taken as a serious attack. Let me say that it was spoken purely in a "good-natured ribbing" sort of sense.
I'm well aware, and I say that with nothing but good will.
I acknowledge that this is a difficult issue, but I have faith that once someone with actual standing to file suit in a case like this will have it all sorted out in the end.
Monster Rain wrote:
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
./facepalm
There is now a legal precedent on the books that states its OK for an elected official to target an American citizen outside of the US for death by....whatever. Its also been established that they can legally do this without oversight from the judicial branch, which basically represents a check to the power of the executive branch.
Monster Rain wrote:Meh. How do you know so much about it then? Anyway, I'm sure that more people than the evil CIA know about it, just like they knew about water boarding. The difficulty about us internet know-it-alls finding out about it is that its not really public knowledge.
We've been told he's on a CIA list. We've been told they believe he's a senior AQ member, and poses a direct threat. Which is fine. So capture him, and if that can't be done then blow him up.
But don't just do it because the CIA told the president, and the president said 'okay' and no-one reviewed it beyond that. It really isn't that hard to place a check on the president's ability to blow up your own citizens.
Oh yeah, I forgot. We aren't allowed to have societal standards of behavior. Wouldn't want to be intolerant.
No, of course you can standards of behavious. No-one said you couldn't, you're just inventing that, and that's very lazy of you.
The ACLU is not arguing for paedophilia. They are arguing that NAMBLA, provided they break no laws, should be allowed to argue their case for paedophilia, because free speach includes free speach you don't like, and freedom of association means groups can freely associate, if they're not breaking any laws.
The paedophiles will lose, because 'we think you should be able to have sex with young boys' is not a very successful argument. But they should get to make their argument, the same as everyone else.
Nah.
So you don't believe there should be any oversight over the ability of the President to sign the order to kill US citizens?
I can't believe I just wrote that, to be honest.
Saints preserve us. This post has reminded me of how sanctimonious people can be, and that's never a good thing to be reminded of.
Given this thread, it's about right. The understanding of civil liberties in this thread is very poor.
How about this: I know how personal freedoms work, and if you behave like this donkey-cave featured in the OP they should be immediately revoked.
And you also appear to believe that it is okay for those personal freedoms to be revoked by the president, without any check on his power to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I grasp it.
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
The problem is that governments have a long history of taking powers granted for one purpose and using them for other purposes. That you keep ignoring this means you really don't grasp it.
Run it by the same people that they have to run the wire-taps by, then. The more dead terrorists the better.
I already suggested that, and a range of other checks. When I asked if you felt any checks were necessary, you said 'nah'.
So again, do you think there should be some level of oversight placed on the president's ability to order the killing of US citizens?
Now I think this answers some of the questions being asked here:
this Court does not hold that the Executive possesses "unreviewable authority to order the assassination of any American whom he labels an enemy of the state." See Mot. Hr'gTr. 118:1-2. Rather, the Court only concludes that it lacks the capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an "operational" member of AQAP, see Clapper Decl. ¶ 15, presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him.
Okay. So the president can't kill any US citizen he wants just cause he wants to. Sweet. Now we can move on with life.
Commander Endova wrote:
Hardly. There should be no consequence for doing your job, for putting people who deserve it in jail. The consequences for for a policeman breaking the laws should be more severe than they already are.
Well, strictly speaking, the job of any given LEO is to enforce the law, not to put people in jail. Sometimes that means arresting people, and that might lead to them being put in jail, but that isn't the same thing as a focus on putting people in jail.
In any case, I'm confused. You just endorsed illegal search and seizure in the event that it bears fruit, and yet you want to the consequences for illegal action by LEOs to be more severe?
It seems to me that what you really want is a fundamental change with regard to what constitutes legal search and seizure, because the alternative is essentially contradictory.
Monster Rain wrote:
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
./facepalm
There is now a legal precedent on the books that states its OK for an elected official to target an American citizen outside of the US for death by....whatever. Its also been established that they can legally do this without oversight from the judicial branch, which basically represents a check to the power of the executive branch.
I'm pretty sure I already addressed this.
Your argument is circular.
It justifies killing on the basis that killing an enemy shows that they needed to be killed.
* Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion. o Example
Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.
sebster wrote:
No. He’s an enemy combatant by the contents of a CIA report, the accuracy of which has not been allowed for review by anyone outside of the CIA.
Okay, didn't quite grasp this part. Now that you've just gone and said it so simply I feel a bit dumb. But I still don't understand what the father was suing for.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But I still don't understand what the father was suing for.
He was suing President Obama and several intelligence agency bigwigs in order to keep them from ordering a strike against his son. Reasonable actions on the part of a scared father IMO.
I see, I was under the impression that there had to be damages or some form of compensation to be had in civil cases. There goes my hopes of a Law degree.
Oh boy, I love being able to discuss the difference between remedies of law and remedies of equity.
Courts can do two things: order payment in damages (equity), or order that a specific action be done, stopped, delayed, etc. (law) Hundreds of years ago, different courts had different abilities. Now nearly all courts can do both.
The father was suing to get the judge to declare the executive action of ordering his son dead illegal and thus prevent it. It didn't work for two reasons:
1) only a person with standing can sue. Basically, if you're going to be involved in the problem, you can sue. The dad, while affected, isn't involved.
2) Courts can't rule on "political questions." You can't sue the president because he enacted new regulations, unless those conflict with higher law. In this case, the judge is basically saying that the president has the power to order killings, and deciding who is on the list is a political question.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I see, I was under the impression that there had to be damages or some form of compensation to be had in civil cases. There goes my hopes of a Law degree.
Polonius wrote:Oh boy, I love being able to discuss the difference between remedies of law and remedies of equity.
Courts can do two things: order payment in damages (equity), or order that a specific action be done, stopped, delayed, etc. (law) Hundreds of years ago, different courts had different abilities. Now nearly all courts can do both.
The father was suing to get the judge to declare the executive action of ordering his son dead illegal and thus prevent it. It didn't work for two reasons:
1) only a person with standing can sue. Basically, if you're going to be involved in the problem, you can sue. The dad, while affected, isn't involved.
2) Courts can't rule on "political questions." You can't sue the president because he enacted new regulations, unless those conflict with higher law. In this case, the judge is basically saying that the president has the power to order killings, and deciding who is on the list is a political question.
the key thing to remember about this court case (and it ain't done, I can assure you), is that nobody really cares about this guy's rights. No matter what oversight is put into place, no matter what rules for extrajudical killings are enacted, this guy it taking a dirt nap.
Anybody that's seen a cop show has seen them "read Miranda" to soembody that was arrested. Miranda rights are named after Mr. Miranda, who was convicted of rape due to statements he made without a lawyer and under pretty extreme interrogation, as he didn't know that he could keep quiet. SCOTUS tossed that conviction, said you have to protect suspect's 5th amendment rights, and so the Warning came into being as a way of showing that the police are following the rules.
Anyway, Mr. Miranda was re-tried for the same crime, and eventually convicted again on different evidence. He did his time, was released, and soon after was stabbed to death in a bar, after which his killer was, of course, read his Miranda Rights.
My point here is that the guilty ones are usually still found guilty. If there was a secret court where the president had to get a sign off to kill a US citizen who can't be brought in (and is not residing in a nation we're at war with, or actively fighting for their side), then a guy like this would be damn near rubber stamped.
The fear is that if there is no oversight, the next guy might not be so clearly a terrorist. If the President can literally say "he's a terrorist, kill him," than that gives him enormous, unchecked power. For example, he could order the death of opposing politicians as soon as they cross the border. Having a court look this stuff over would prevent abuse. And, just like anything else, there would be exceptions for exigent circumstances, no doubt.
Monster Rain wrote:Really? Disapproving of NAMBLA is dangerous?
I'd rather have pedophiles speaking their mind quite frankly. How many fething people do you think they are going to convince?
Thats not sane.
I thought so at first, but then its kind of a handy way to find out a lot of their IP addresses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
What else is there to focus on? Do you think that they'd be attempting to kill him if he wasn't a terrorist?
./facepalm
There is now a legal precedent on the books that states its OK for an elected official to target an American citizen outside of the US for death by....whatever. Its also been established that they can legally do this without oversight from the judicial branch, which basically represents a check to the power of the executive branch.
I'm pretty sure I already addressed this.
Your argument is circular.
It justifies killing on the basis that killing an enemy shows that they needed to be killed.
No...
I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
As I've said before, eventually someone with standing will bring this case to court and they'll sort it out. In the meantime, I'll shed few tears for the terrorist that has been marked for death in this instance.
Oversight doesn't even need to be public. I'm comfortable with the idea of having a federal judge with top secret clearance give secret death warrants.
I just dont' like one person and his aides making that call.
I also think that anybody that's a truly dangerous threat will be eliminated completely clandestinely.
Shadowy death panels can so easily make mistakes, or be misused.
If there is some truth in a notion, surely it can withstand the light of day?
Yes. I'm sure it could. I also don't think killing someone is a nice thing to have happen, and I know this pretty well considering I've been to Iraq. It's a nasty world we live in. I don't think I can make my position any clearer than this:
Monster Rain wrote:As I've said before, eventually someone with standing will bring this case to court and they'll sort it out. In the meantime, I'll shed few tears for the terrorist that has been marked for death in this instance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Oversight doesn't even need to be public. I'm comfortable with the idea of having a federal judge with top secret clearance give secret death warrants.
Like they do with wiretaps, right? That's totally fine.
Polonius wrote:I also think that anybody that's a truly dangerous threat will be eliminated completely clandestinely.
I think that's the main issue here. Do we know how everyone found out about this in the first place? How did his father even know this was going on?
Procedural Due Process is the concept that a person has the right to certain procedural steps before a decision is made about him, his life, property, etc. These can vary depending on the circumstances, but the idea is that there are rules that must be followed.
Dont' think that Due Process is only important because it's crucial to protect people's rights (even though it is). Due Process adds legitimacy to any operation.
Legitimacy is the goal of any government. If the president announces that he ordered the death of a US citizen, but it was approved by a federal judge because they were outside of the reach of law enforcment and a viable threat, I'm more likely to accept it. If the president says "he had cause" to kill them, I get more suspicious.
So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?
What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?
Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.
Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...
Frazzled wrote:So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?
What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?
Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.
Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...
The difference is that an enemy combatant that is currently attacking you is totally fair game. It's just like a crazy person shooting at the cops or has a bomb or something. The cops are allowed to kill that person without a trial first because there's an immediate threat.
Someone threatening to kill a cop at a later date, or even making a detailed plan to kill a cop is not a valid target for lethal force. That person (as long as they don't pull out a gun and aim it at someone) can't just be killed, they have to be apprehended.
There's also a difference between saying "Let's find this guy and kill him" and "Let's bomb this enemy munitions factory that happens to have a US citizen inside".
Specifically targeting a US citizen that is not posing an immediate threat with lethal force is the issue.
Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.
How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?
I just have trouble understanding what the problem with oversight is. The people on this list are probably not going to be surprised that we don't like them very much. Any oversight proceedings can be carried out under a security clearance if that's an issue. Expediency isn't much of a reason since you can secure the blessing ahead of time and just look for an opening or else have the people in charge of the oversight on your speed dial. Finally, if the case against these guys is solid enough to have them killed it should be solid enough to get a judge to sign off on it.
I just don't see how making the government jump through a few hoops before it can just start offing citizens is a bad thing.
Frazzled wrote:So is the argument the military can't take him out because he's a citizen? Why?
What about German/Japanese who returned to those countries in WWII?
Again, what about the combatants in the Civil War? They were civilians.
Otherwise you have this weird get of jail free card. If they are citizens then they can't be attacked only apprehended. But if they can't be apprehended then they are safe? Er..ok...
The difference is that an enemy combatant that is currently attacking you is totally fair game. It's just like a crazy person shooting at the cops or has a bomb or something. The cops are allowed to kill that person without a trial first because there's an immediate threat.
Someone threatening to kill a cop at a later date, or even making a detailed plan to kill a cop is not a valid target for lethal force. That person (as long as they don't pull out a gun and aim it at someone) can't just be killed, they have to be apprehended.
There's also a difference between saying "Let's find this guy and kill him" and "Let's bomb this enemy munitions factory that happens to have a US citizen inside".
Specifically targeting a US citizen that is not posing an immediate threat with lethal force is the issue.
No its not. He's effectively an officer in an enemy noncombatant force. He's a target of opportunity no different than Yamamoto. Except now we can pop him with a drone missile instead of P-38's.
Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.
How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?
Kilkrazy wrote:No, the argument is that the military can't take him out just because some functionary in the bowels of the Ministry of Love said it would be okay.
How about sergent Bob deep in the bowels of the Pentagon?
You mean the Ministry of Peace?
Actually the Hall of Justice. And by Sergent Bob I mean Aquaman. After all aquaman is always there, making sandwiches for the other super heroes. Sandwiches made of tuna!
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
No, it just points to the need for a functioning international police force and a UN designed common set of laws for how to handle terrorist activity in an international setting. As it is terrorists are criminals sometimes, soldiers sometimes, civilian sometimes, and none of the above most of the time. There is no clear way to handle these people, and frankly, despite whatever your liberal attitudes may be they need to be dealt with in one way or another by a law keeping force.
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
No, it just points to the need for a functioning international police force and a UN designed common set of laws for how to handle terrorist activity in an international setting. As it is terrorists are criminals sometimes, soldiers sometimes, civilian sometimes, and none of the above most of the time. There is no clear way to handle these people, and frankly, despite whatever your liberal attitudes may be they need to be dealt with in one way or another by a law keeping force.
Liberals! Laws! Who needs em! Of course we can trust the CIA to always do the correct thing and police the world for everyone.
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
No, it just points to the need for a functioning international police force and a UN designed common set of laws for how to handle terrorist activity in an international setting. As it is terrorists are criminals sometimes, soldiers sometimes, civilian sometimes, and none of the above most of the time. There is no clear way to handle these people, and frankly, despite whatever your liberal attitudes may be they need to be dealt with in one way or another by a law keeping force.
So who labels who the terrorist? I mean, and internationally recognised definition of the word would be helpful.
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
No, it just points to the need for a functioning international police force and a UN designed common set of laws for how to handle terrorist activity in an international setting. As it is terrorists are criminals sometimes, soldiers sometimes, civilian sometimes, and none of the above most of the time. There is no clear way to handle these people, and frankly, despite whatever your liberal attitudes may be they need to be dealt with in one way or another by a law keeping force.
So who labels who the terrorist? I mean, and internationally recognised definition of the word would be helpful.
At the moment individual countries unless they fall into one of the categories that would label them as an international criminal or combatant. Most governments don't want them to fall under those terms though, as they weren't designed to accommodate militancy in this way and make them hard to capture or prosecute.
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
No, it just points to the need for a functioning international police force and a UN designed common set of laws for how to handle terrorist activity in an international setting. As it is terrorists are criminals sometimes, soldiers sometimes, civilian sometimes, and none of the above most of the time. There is no clear way to handle these people, and frankly, despite whatever your liberal attitudes may be they need to be dealt with in one way or another by a law keeping force.
Your interpretation of my statement is a little different from the message I was trying to convey. Let me be a bit more clear.
I think its a problem that (I take this on faith for some reason) as an American citizen of above average intelligence simply takes it on blind faith that an organization (ANY organization) without judicial oversight will make the morally and ideologically sound choice when it comes to marking another citizen of America for execution at the hands of our military.
I have no issues with someone being killed for treason, but I don't view it as the sole province of the executive branch to make that choice.
Next I'm going to point out exactly what kind of fallacy you use to discredit my view.
Oversight is oversight. As long as proper procedures are in place to ensure that the process is proper I don't see the problem. The oversight could be judicial, it could be another party functioning under the Legislature or the Executive.
I would surmise that when making these decisions the US intelligence services hands off information to some panel or board that goes over it all and decides what to do (the first level of oversight), and that panel or board is likely covered by another panel or board (the next level) so on and so forth until you reach whatever Congressional committee and/or Executive official that is in charge of these things.
A decision like killing Al-Awaki would have gone through a bunch of different levels of oversight to ensure the process works is fair and proper etc. It can still not work, so I wouldn't suggest the process is perfect (especially since we don't know exactly what it is), but strictly limiting oversight to the judiciary seems flawed, especially when you may need a decision quickly and the executive is best equipped to make quick decisions.
How quick do you need it done? You can get a federal warrant quicker than you can get a pizza these days.
the reason you dont' want oversight to be in the same branch, especially the executive, is that fundamentally they all report to a single guy. If a general or bureaucrat wont' sign off, the president can fire him and find somebody who will.
LordofHats wrote:Oversight is oversight. As long as proper procedures are in place to ensure that the process is proper I don't see the problem. The oversight could be judicial, it could be another party functioning under the Legislature or the Executive.
I would surmise that when making these decisions the US intelligence services hands off information to some panel or board that goes over it all and decides what to do (the first level of oversight), and that panel or board is likely covered by another panel or board (the next level) so on and so forth until you reach whatever Congressional committee and/or Executive official that is in charge of these things.
A decision like killing Al-Awaki would have gone through a bunch of different levels of oversight to ensure the process works is fair and proper etc. It can still not work, so I wouldn't suggest the process is perfect (especially since we don't know exactly what it is), but strictly limiting oversight to the judiciary seems flawed, especially when you may need a decision quickly.
Hmm, I think the fundamental issue I take with it is that there isn't any consideration taken to the level of transparency demanded by a large portion of the population these days....or at least a disproportionally loud portion of the population. The government is there to serve the interests of the common man, not the other way around.
As for the bolded portion, I probably wouldn't have a problem with Senate or Congressional oversight provided the details of the case were laid out clearly and in a manner that the average citizen could easily understand, not to mention a matter of public record on display for the international community. Targeting a citizen of your country with the military arm of your country is a pretty bid deal in my mind.
Polonius wrote:How quick do you need it done? You can get a federal warrant quicker than you can get a pizza these days.
the reason you dont' want oversight to be in the same branch, especially the executive, is that fundamentally they all report to a single guy. If a general or bureaucrat wont' sign off, the president can fire him and find somebody who will.
Polonius wrote:How quick do you need it done? You can get a federal warrant quicker than you can get a pizza these days.
That's not a bad thing. I've gotten plenty of free pizzas , which is great cause I have 3 dwarves to feed.
the reason you dont' want oversight to be in the same branch, especially the executive, is that fundamentally they all report to a single guy. If a general or bureaucrat wont' sign off, the president can fire him and find somebody who will.
Executive oversights are usually oversought(???) by Congressional Committees. And not everyone who works in the executive branch can be fired, contrary to popular belief. The president can remove most appointees and through his appointees fire other employees but there are some he isn't allowed to touch without an oversight committee/panel/board looking into it first as Congress has passed several laws to check the presidents ability to just what you're talking about (blame Nixon).
I'm not saying never let the Judiciary oversight, just that strict judicial oversight in situations may complicate an issue. The executive is the fastest moving branch and should be used to speed up the process as much as you can without compromising the accuracy of results. (It's the fastest in some ways, we all know that if the pizza is slower than the warrants, the DMV is slower).
As for the bolded portion, I probably wouldn't have a problem with Senate or Congressional oversight provided the details of the case were laid out clearly and in a manner that the average citizen could easily understand, not to mention a matter of public record on display for the international community. Targeting a citizen of your country with the military arm of your country is a pretty bid deal in my mind.
Transparency is good for legitimacy but just because the process is secret doesn't mean that something dirty or underhanded is going on. It is a big deal, but if you're dealing with your enemies, the information used to determine whether or not the US citizen in question is a threat can be dangerous. It can tell what we know and reveal how we know it. I know the whole 'national security' thing gets thrown around a lot these days but there is a legitimate need for some things to remain secret (EDIT: For a little while. The information ideally should be released to public record once the conflict is resolved). It's a nasty balancing game.
Again, judicial oversight can be made pretty quick. I'd also think that if there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take out a guy, you take it and try to clear it up later.
You pick a few judges, swear them to absolute secrecy, give them phones. If something comes up, you call them, send the file over. A judge can bounce it back in a half hour. Even for a lengthy case, it's maybe a day.
And yes, there are some people that the president can't just fire. But he can sure make their lives difficult. You can't do that with a federal judge.
Kilkrazy wrote:>>I'm saying that if they need to be killed, they should be.
Without oversight, how do you know they needed to be killed?
I guess I'm naive.
I assume that if you're misbehaving to the point that the CIA considers you an enemy combatant that there's probably some truth there.
This represents a huge problem with the typical American way of thinking, at least to my mind.
Right back at you, actually.
You and Jesse Ventura are the only ones that really know what's going on. You think it's silly to assume competence on the behalf of the CIA. I think that this whole "The Government is Evil and Trying to Make it Legal to Kill Us Without Trial" is equally goofy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Again, judicial oversight can be made pretty quick. I'd also think that if there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take out a guy, you take it and try to clear it up later.
You pick a few judges, swear them to absolute secrecy, give them phones. If something comes up, you call them, send the file over. A judge can bounce it back in a half hour. Even for a lengthy case, it's maybe a day.
And yes, there are some people that the president can't just fire. But he can sure make their lives difficult. You can't do that with a federal judge.
This is totally fine. I'm sure it will be what is eventually the system that will be set in place.
LordofHats wrote:Oversight is oversight. As long as proper procedures are in place to ensure that the process is proper I don't see the problem. The oversight could be judicial, it could be another party functioning under the Legislature or the Executive.
Nah, the Executive placed considerable political pressure on CIA analysts to giving favourable reports indicating WMDs in Iraq in the build up to the war. That's just the nature of government, and why governments created independant branches in the first place.
Monster Rain wrote:This is totally fine. I'm sure it will be what is eventually the system that will be set in place.
So, earlier on, when I was saying that's what is needed and you were saying 'nah' you were confused, or being boneheaded or what?
I guess I was confused. /shrug
I've said a few times that they can treat this like they do wiretapping. Have some judges that they run this sort of thing by to see if there's enough evidence to go on.
Polonius wrote:Again, judicial oversight can be made pretty quick. I'd also think that if there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take out a guy, you take it and try to clear it up later.
You pick a few judges, swear them to absolute secrecy, give them phones. If something comes up, you call them, send the file over. A judge can bounce it back in a half hour. Even for a lengthy case, it's maybe a day.
That's what I'm talking about, however unclear I may be. Cut out full trial and use an executive/congressional committee to speed the process of information gathering and analysis and get the information to someone who can give a go ahead/no can do. A judge is good for that. I'm most thinking of the idea of a full trial/due process as it is commonly thought of, which is a complication that can drag these issues out.
It's probably because it's 3am which is why i'm not understanding it well....
But the fact that this guy is calling for a 'Jihad in the west' should be enough for them to throw the case out of court.
"You don't like us? Fine. Suing us for your son's terrorist activities? Well, I know somewhere where you can shove that lawsuit."
Wolfun wrote:It's probably because it's 3am which is why i'm not understanding it well....
But the fact that this guy is calling for a 'Jihad in the west' should be enough for them to throw the case out of court.
"You don't like us? Fine. Suing us for your son's terrorist activities? Well, I know somewhere where you can shove that lawsuit."
If you read the article, let alone the thread, that's not the point here.
Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?
Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?
Wolfun wrote:It's probably because it's 3am which is why i'm not understanding it well....
But the fact that this guy is calling for a 'Jihad in the west' should be enough for them to throw the case out of court.
"You don't like us? Fine. Suing us for your son's terrorist activities? Well, I know somewhere where you can shove that lawsuit."
Hi, I don't read the articles or the thread either, but I love to comment!
I've said a few times that they can treat this like they do wiretapping. Have some judges that they run this sort of thing by to see if there's enough evidence to go on.
Yeah, you got yourself very confused. From earlier in the thread;
sebster wrote:So you agree there should be congressional and judicial oversight on orders to kill?
Monster Rain wrote:Nah.
Seriously, dude, in future just try and think about your position and what you really believe. Getting caught up in just rejecting whatever the other person has written will make discussion a waste of time for you and your opponent.
sebster wrote:Seriously, dude, in future just try and think about your position and what you really believe. Getting caught up in just rejecting whatever the other person has written will make discussion a waste of time for you and your opponent.
You act like this isn't a waste of time when I'm not confused.
It is because people tend to adopt positions not based on facts but on personal prejudices.
There is some interesting psychological research which indicates that when someone has their views challenged by facts, they start to find fault with the facts.
Kilkrazy wrote:Another study -- unfortunately I have lost the link -- indicates that political views can become more entrenched when they are shown to be wrong.
I'd like to see that.
I'd like to think that I am pretty thoughtful about my political views.
Anyway, I remember a study that showed when people that were heavily active in politics were shown speeches and the like the pleasure centers of their brain would activate. You can't just take someone high away like that by bringing facts into the situation!
I don't remember the specifics anymore but there was research that showed that it was human nature to want to protect a lie fiercely once it was evident that it was a lie. it was more likely for a person to dig themselves into a hole than to come clean.
Ahtman wrote:Anyway, I remember a study that showed when people that were heavily active in politics were shown speeches and the like the pleasure centers of their brain would activate. You can't just take someone high away like that by bringing facts into the situation!
Any speeches, or just just speeches they agreed with?
Monster Rain wrote:You act like this isn't a waste of time when I'm not confused.
I think when people look to discuss interesting subjects, and that conversation doesn't sink into contrarianism, then it's basically the exact opposite of a waste of time.
That such a thing happens only rarely is not a reason to not take forum discussion seriously, but a reason to hold forum discussion to a high standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It is because people tend to adopt positions not based on facts but on personal prejudices.
There is some interesting psychological research which indicates that when someone has their views challenged by facts, they start to find fault with the facts.
sebster wrote:I think when people look to discuss interesting subjects, and that conversation doesn't sink into contrarianism, then it's basically the exact opposite of a waste of time.
Just for the sake of argument; had I been deliberately contrary, what would bringing it up two days after the fact have accomplished?
I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:That such a thing happens only rarely is not a reason to not take forum discussion seriously, but a reason to hold forum discussion to a high standard.
Monster Rain wrote:Just for the sake of argument; had I been deliberately contrary, what would bringing it up two days after the fact have accomplished?
"Just for the sake of argument".... ? Um, you were contrary, whether it was deliberate or not we can't say, but we do know that you were asked if something was reasonable you said it wasn't, then later suggested that same thing yourself.
Why bring it up? Because I'd hoped encourage you to take a less aggressive approach to your threads, and maybe that'll encourage you to be more constructive in future, and the conversation you enter would be the better for it.
I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?
Yes, it would. You should do that.
Won't someone please think of the children?
You've used that meme poorly there. It's used to make fun of people who are attempting to avoid debate by shortcutting to specious, emotionally loaded arguments.
Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?
Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?
Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.
sebster wrote:Why bring it up? Because I'd hoped encourage you to take a less aggressive approach to your threads, and maybe that'll encourage you to be more constructive in future, and the conversation you enter would be the better for it.
some handsome devil wrote:I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?
sebster wrote:Yes, it would. You should do that.
We'll have to agree to disagree as to what makes a conversation better.
Sexual Tyrannosaurus wrote:Won't someone please think of the children?
You've used that meme poorly there. It's used to make fun of people who are attempting to avoid debate by shortcutting to specious, emotionally loaded arguments.
What meme? I was making fun of someone who was putting way too much gravitas on something that didn't matter to anyone that happened two days ago.
Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?
Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?
Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.
You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?
Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?
Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?
Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.
You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?
Monster Rain wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree as to what makes a conversation better.
Are you really coming down on the side of pointless contrarianism over discussion? Wow, you'll really say just about anything to avoid accepting someone else's point.
Let's try something here... I think puppies are cute. Do you agree or disagree?
What meme? I was making fun of someone who was putting way too much gravitas on something that didn't matter to anyone that happened two days ago.
"Won't someone think of the children" is a common internet meme. It isn't used to make fun of someone you feel is placing excessive gravitas on a situation, it is used to to make fun of someone who's attempting to avoid logic and reason and instead invoke an emotional, but specious or even non-sensical argument.
Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?
Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?
Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.
You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?
Let it be known that at this point I am 100 percent and without reservation accepting sebster's point and agreeing with him.
I feel like we had a real breakthrough just now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:"Won't someone think of the children" is a common internet meme. It isn't used to make fun of someone you feel is placing excessive gravitas on a situation, it is used to to make fun of someone who's attempting to avoid logic and reason and instead invoke an emotional, but specious or even non-sensical argument.
Monster Rain wrote:What would an appropriate meme be?
"Lighten up, Francis"
I love that joke.
@ Monster Rain: the thing is, here in the bowels of Dakka, it's worth knowing who is trolling just to troll, and who actually has a point. There's a small collection of guys here that actually have a pretty solid perspective and post stuff worth reading, even if you don't agree. if somebody is just throwing elbows cause it's fun, then you handle them a bit different.
I'm not going to deny that. Nearly everybody posts something valuable occasionally.
The thing is, there are posters that I know i can engage with, that won't screw around during a serious discussion, that will admit when they were wrong, will be magnamanious when I'm wrong, and post far more useful stuff than flames. I'm more willing to discuss ideas with them, than with somebody who does a lot of arguing for the sake of arguing.
