Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I win at this thread. None can defeat me!


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.

<shrug>

I win at this thread. None can defeat me!


Gonna go play LoL for a couple of hours and work on my DP.


Viva la internet.

I'll shoot you to death with teemo.

This entire thread has been bad from the start and everyone but sebster should feel bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:This entire thread has been bad from the start

No disagreement here.

ShumaGorath wrote:and everyone but sebster should feel bad.

No, everyone, me, you, sebster...all of us, should feel bad.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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!

Well yea. Once you have the heavy backup of weiner dog power, you can take anything.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'll shoot you to death with teemo.

No, not cute little emo. He's so deadly and so sweet!

ShumaGorath wrote:This entire thread has been bad from the start and everyone but sebster should feel bad.

Something very yaoi about that post.

Also, I regret nothing.

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?

feth that guy and everyone like him.

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.

You're a terrorist.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:You're a terrorist.

So's your mother.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

Edited for absolute quote tag failure.

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:

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

I certainly hope it works out that way.

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.

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?

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?

LOL.

Well I finally managed to find Bates decision online without having to go to the third page of the search results

Here it is: Decision (PDF).

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:

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.

Ahem....

Begging the question

* 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.