Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 18:45:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
I was at our MN state fair and was amazed at the number of Bernie items at the "Official" Dems booth. I thought it would be all Hilary and Bernie would have a token section. I was wrong.
I looked for the Repub booth to see the amount of Trump stuff but did not find it. I did find the Independence and Constitution party booths too. FYI.
Point? I don't have one.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 19:44:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Easy E wrote:I was at our MN state fair and was amazed at the number of Bernie items at the "Official" Dems booth. I thought it would be all Hilary and Bernie would have a token section. I was wrong.
I looked for the Repub booth to see the amount of Trump stuff but did not find it. I did find the Independence and Constitution party booths too. FYI.
Point? I don't have one.
Feel.The.Bern.
In other news... as much as I don't like Trump... he's an equal opportunity Trollmaster:
Just announced that because of "Trump", advertising rates for debate on @CNN are going from $5000 to $200,000, a 4000% increase.PAY CHARITY?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2015
He's poking everyone's eyes here...
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 22:04:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver
|
He will only achieve 'master' level if he wins the presidency and turns into a bleeding heart save the whales liberal.
Then and only then.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 22:26:22
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
You guys see where John McAfee is running for Pres?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/08/news/john-mcafee-for-president/index.html
John McAfee, the antivirus software magnate who fled Belize after police tried to question him for murder, confirmed to CNNMoney that he plans to run for President in 2016 and that he'd created his own party -- the Cyber Party.
More at the link. Seems to be big on the privacy issue.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 23:38:21
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Yeah. let's elect the guy who can't even make a decent anti-virus software to run privacy for the whole country. That'll end well. I can see it now;
"Mr. president, we think we've finally solved all our internet security issues. We are now secure against Russian, iranian, and Chinese cyber-attacks."
"Are you sure Mr. Defense Secretary? We should test it. Make sure it's safe. Send a copy of all our security protocols to the Chinese. If anyone can find a way through, it's them."
"..."
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 23:59:16
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
This is enlightening...
Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies
I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.
Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.
First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.
Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.
Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.
Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.
The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twice determined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty emails, out of the 30,000 she has handed over to investigators (to say nothing of the 30,000 more that Hillary deleted), the mind boggles at how many actually classified (if unmarked) emails Hillary and her Foggy Bottom staff put on her personal server. As I’ve recently explained, this is a complex counterintelligence investigation that will last for months yet.
The core of this debate is what makes information classified in the U.S. Government. Much of what’s marked — and it’s always marked — classified relates to policy matters and is customarily classified at the CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET level. The vast majority of the information identified as actually classified in Hillary’s “unclassified” emails is in this group, with most being CONFIDENTIAL, the lowest level of classification.
Critics of secrecy (including some Hillary defenders) love to point out that the U.S. Government, the Pentagon especially, habitually overclassifies things. While this is a hoary Beltway cliché it contains more than a grain of truth, and anybody who’s spent time in our secret government and is honest will admit to having seen things that were marked classified, usually at low levels, that really didn’t need to be. Some of this is mere bureaucratic habit while some can be placed at the doorstep of those three most important letters in Washington, DC; C-Y-A.
That said, what Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised was mainly what the State Department terms Foreign Government Information and, when it involves high-level diplomatic conversations — say, discussions between a Secretary of State and a foreign counterpart — that sort of FGI is always considered classified at Foggy Bottom. Secrecy lies at the heart of international diplomacy and always has, and if Hillary planned to change that she really needed to inform the countless allies and friends abroad who confided in her with the expectation that their conversation would remain out of view of the public and foreign intelligence agencies — and not on Hillary’s unencrypted private email and server.
The most serious allegations facing Team Clinton, however, focus on the compromised intelligence. Exposing TOPSECRET information is a much more serious matter, legally and practically, than compromising less classified things. If, as now appears certain, Hillary and/or her staff placed such highly sensitive information, reported to deal with North Korean WMDs, in private unclassified email, that is something the FBI will be unable to ignore.
How the Intelligence Community classifies its information is opaque to outsiders yet needs clarification as such knotty issues occupy an important part of the #EmailGate story. I’ve previously elaborated in detail how intelligence analysis from multiple classified sources winds up on the desks of senior policymakers inside the Beltway, creating a complex picture.
How that information gets classified in the first place needs explanation. Most, though by no means all, of the Intelligence Community’s output consists of information that’s been purloined one way or the other. As I like to explain to outsiders, the business of any spy agency is learning things that they are not supposed to know. Which is really a nice way of saying the core work of every intelligence service is breaking the laws of foreign countries.
How classified any information is derives from a process termed intelligence sources and methods. This is so critical that it’s called “the heart of all intelligence operations” in Washington, DC. All this really means is that how intelligence has been obtained determines its classification level, not the information itself.
Since our Intelligence Community is a seventeen-agency behemoth with a lot of people churning out a lot of information — remember, they’re not stovepipes, they’re “cylinders of excellence” — sometimes the same information gets reported through different channels at very different levels of classification. This provides an ideal example of showing how sources and methods actually work.
Let’s say that Zendia’s top general officer, Abu Jackson, is deathly ill and may not have long to live. High-ranking people in Washington, DC, care about this because General Jackson is considered a friend of the United States and he has been cooperative regarding hush-hush joint counterterrorism operations in his country.
If his illness is revealed in local press, that will likely be picked up by our Embassy there and probably also by the CIA’s Open Source Center, which translates foreign media. Since this is open press, it’s considered UNCLASSIFIED (though the Embassy may put a Sensitive But Unclassified — SBU, or what the Pentagon calls For Official Use Only or FOUO — stamp on it as a formality). Of course, Zendian press is sensationalist and it’s good not to put much credence in such reports without independent corroboration.
However, if our defense attaché hears whispers that General Jackson is seriously ill through his or her channels, which really amounts to hall gossip inside the Zendian Ministry of Defense, that will be reported by the Defense Intelligence Agency at the CONFIDENTIAL level, SECRET at most.
Meanwhile, if a Central Intelligence Agency case officer learns from a cultivated and validated human source about General Jackson’s illness and possible impending death, that report will flow through Langley with a SECRET//NOFORN stamp on it (unless the Zendian asset is unusually well placed, in which case a TOPSECRET//NOFORN marking and even special compartments could apply).
Let’s say, that same day, the National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a top Zendian officer, a senior staffer to General Jackson, who tells a counterpart in Dirtbagistan, on what both believe to be a secure line, that his boss is dying of cancer and has three or four months to live. That will be reported by NSA at the TOPSECRET//SCI level since it relies on that Agency’s ability to decipher encrypted Dirtbagistani defense communications, and it will be given a high level of credibility by U.S. decision-makers since it’s “horse’s mouth” testimony.
The salient point is that the essential information — that General Jackson is a seriously unwell man — is identical. How this information was obtained by our intelligence services, the relevant sources and methods, alone determine classification levels.
The fact of General Jackson’s grave illness came from several different sources:
— Foreign press reporting, termed Open Source Intelligence or OSINT;
— Low-level Human Intelligence or HUMINT from DIA;
— High-level HUMINT from CIA;
— High-grade Signals Intelligence or SIGINT from NSA.
This complexity also goes some way to explaining why the Intelligence Community is prone to overclassifying things, for instance labeling press reports that appear in U.S. Government correspondence — as has happened with #EmailGate — as classified. This sounds crazy to outsiders but is commonplace since these are comments by senior officials who are reading classified intelligence in addition to press accounts (insiders term these “reflections”).
The next time a member of the media or a Hillary advocate, few of whom possess any real understanding of intelligence matters, presents these issues brought forth by #EmailGate as simple or straightforward — or, alternately, so complicated that no mere mortal could be expected to understand classification — remember that in fact they are complex yet comprehensible. As I have explained here.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 01:40:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ouze wrote:
My guess is he goes to the primary, the establishment finds a way to screw him out of the nomination his polling numbers warrant, and then he runs as an independent.
I honestly think that him running as an independent would be the best thing for anyone on the left side of the aisle running... Whether the nominee is Sanders or Clinton. The only real difference there is, if Sanders has the nomination, I'll vote; if Hillary does, I won't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 03:30:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
LordofHats wrote:Yeah. let's elect the guy who can't even make a decent anti-virus software to run privacy for the whole country.
Forget whatever problems his software might have had, the guy is straight up crazy. As in moved to a South American country and maybe ran a meth lab, suspected of killing a guy, and fled back to the US.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 03:56:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Oh I forgot about that XD
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 04:07:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Oh yes, all that murder and drug insanity...
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 11:55:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Very slightly OT, but still relevant to this thread.
You may or may not now that the big news story in the UK is the death of 2 British citizens in Syria who were members of ISIL.
The two men were killed by a RAF drone attack. As a result, there is a massive debate about the legality of it under UK/international law.
Now, for the American angle. Obviously, the US has been doing this for a while, and I believe that a few US citizens have been killed by drone attacks.
What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?
I'm curious to know.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 12:14:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?
I'm curious to know.
It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.
The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/10 12:19:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 13:10:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
LordofHats wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?
I'm curious to know.
It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.
The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.
I see, thanks. It's bound to happen again in the future, so I suppose that the courts may have to rule on it sooner or later.
From the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that article 3 section 3 of the constitution says that treason against the USA is dependent on the testimony of 2 witness and that the 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, which I'm sure a drone attack qualifies as!
Like you say, I doubt if anybody cares about this, but I suppose a good lawyer could make a case out of it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/10 13:17:28
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 13:23:26
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.
Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 14:39:09
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Stubborn Hammerer
|
whembly wrote: Ouze wrote:I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.
I still think that'll likely happen...
I just watched Hillary whip and then I watched her Nae nae, shes so hip and cool.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 14:40:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
whembly wrote:No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.
Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.
According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, technically, there is no provision for executive orders in the constitution. Every president since Washington has made it up as they went along
As for checks and balances, the SCOTUS has struck down a handful over the years (mostly in the 1930s) but these military strikes fall under the 72hrs war powers or something, so there's not a lot anybody can do about Obama's decision making on this.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 14:48:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: whembly wrote:No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.
Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.
According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, technically, there is no provision for executive orders in the constitution. Every president since Washington has made it up as they went along
As for checks and balances, the SCOTUS has struck down a handful over the years (mostly in the 1930s) but these military strikes fall under the 72hrs war powers or something, so there's not a lot anybody can do about Obama's decision making on this.
What happened is that Obama's had his Attorney actually justifiy under existing laws... Ouze been really on this topic, he may be able to whip up some post in abit.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 15:26:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: LordofHats wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?
I'm curious to know.
It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.
The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.
I see, thanks. It's bound to happen again in the future, so I suppose that the courts may have to rule on it sooner or later.
From the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that article 3 section 3 of the constitution says that treason against the USA is dependent on the testimony of 2 witness and that the 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, which I'm sure a drone attack qualifies as!
Like you say, I doubt if anybody cares about this, but I suppose a good lawyer could make a case out of it.
In the modern world, I don't think drones count as cruel and unusual. Really whats the difference between a drone and a sniper? And snipers have been around since the 18th century, the Revolutionaries were quite happy to snipe out officers and such.
Anyway, if you can absentee convict someone of terrorism it stands to reason you could absentee convict someone of treason. Seems like the evidence gathered showing his terrorism links would be sufficient.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 15:44:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
Except the administration never attempted to 'absentee convict' them of anything...
Wether you are for or against capping those guys, the way the administration went about the justification/explanation really was poorly done. There were ways they could have made the case that their actions were tantamount to renouncing citizenship for example, and the admin could have worked with the congress critters to firm up that case.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 15:47:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
I think that in general the premeditated killing of Americans overseas violates EO 12333's assassination ban, and the rights to due process. It well exceeds the AUMF that is claimed to be the basis for it.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 15:50:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Well yeah. He should have gone through the courts for sure.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 16:13:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
CptJake wrote:Except the administration never attempted to 'absentee convict' them of anything...
Even one of those sham-trials you get in third world countries against guys that aren't even there would have been a vast improvement over the actual "we get to kill him because we said so and it's hard to go find him to actually capture him but if he doesn't like it he can always let us arrest him and fight his assassination in court" tactic that was used.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:21:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor
|
Personally, I think that anyone who leaves a country to go fight for ISIS/L forfeits any rights and nationality they may have had beforehand and deserves to be shot/bombed/executed/dronestruck/ on sight just like you would a rabid dog.
(I disapprove of torture or killing them painfully though - I'm not vindictive.)
Still, some process should be in place where proof of their departure to join these nutjobs should be documented and registered. I do disapprove of dronestriking people (even traitors) without some proof to be presented (whether before or after the fact) that they are indeed traitors.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:24:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
I think there should be some process.
Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:31:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
Grey Templar wrote:I think there should be some process.
Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.
There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom- de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.
Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:34:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.
We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:46:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Grey Templar wrote:Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.
We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.
Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:46:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
If such a law was put in front of a court it would be rightfully slammed down. It would lead to Bad Things. Who 'proves' the citizen is engaging in terrorist activities? What burden of proof would be acceptable?
We've kind of brought this upon ourselves. We mix 'war' and the set of laws that govern it with 'policing' and the laws that govern it, and intel collection and the laws that govern it. We've created gray areas then failed to adopt polices or pass legislation that can help define those gray areas and how we can and should handle them.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 19:46:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Prestor Jon wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.
We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.
Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?
Something for Congress to do that might actually be useful
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 20:03:25
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Grey Templar wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.
We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.
Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?
Something for Congress to do that might actually be useful
Even after Congress passes legislation the accused would still have to be tried. Congress can make terroristic activity a federal capital crime but you'd still have to determine if the accused citizen is guilty. Congress can't just remove the right to due process from a citizen based solely on the particular crime he/she is accused of committing. If the govt can accuse a citizen of committing terrorism, try them in absentia and keep all of their evidence classified, pronounce them guilty and order their execution via drone then there's actually no meaningful accountability at all and we're right back where we started with the govt assassinating US citizens without due process. If we, as US citizens, have a right to due process then we have the right to a fair trial, not a super secret govt trial we're not allowed to attend where evidence we're not allowed to see is presented as proof that we're guilty. If the govt has the power to circumvent our rights whenever they want then what's the point of codifying our rights into law?
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
|