Without due process of law even identification of an individual is shaky. How happy would the drone strike supporters be to get hellfired from a drone because a drone decided you were a 75% match with a "bad guy?" How hard is that to figure out? If the state is performing target assassinations, using field intelligence to do it, of US citizens abroad...
I honestly have no worry what-so-ever about getting drone striked.
Pretty much this, since having a process would ensure that they would have to provide irrefutable proof that one was involved in an terrorist group (IIRC isn't their video where this guy pledges his loyalty and denounces his citizenship?) and happens to be in a country where the government can't safely apprehend the individual (be it with our own people or having the government of that country do it for us).
Look I'm not going to black and white this thing because that's pretty unrealistic. Yes, when you can safely apprehend people like this, you should, but the reality is you can't always safely apprehend them. It's just like an officer can't always resolve a confrontation without deadly force either, sometimes the situation calls for taking a shot and if the guy dies, he dies. You can't let murderers roam free because you decide they have to have their day in court and it's better to let them continue to do harm when you can't take them alive. Seriously, fuck that mentality.
When the KKK/Neo-Nazi terrorist groups kill a couple thousand people? You'll notice they haven't really done anything since the FBI came down on them like the fist of Almighty God following the OKC bombing.
Y'all do know we support an entire country that the PRC views as a rebel state, right?
Yeah but strangely we don't care what China calls a rebel state if it's obviously not one.
It sure seems to me you're saying we don't care about the perspective of other countries, and you don't think there will every be a time when they might use our precedents of preemptive force against us. That seems... unwise.
China can think what they want and it's certainly good to know what they think cause it helps in dealing with them, but it's stupid to just believe something because they do.
And the idea that China would use a drone against the US in the US is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.
I was merely pointing out the idea that we wouldn't someone China views as an enemy to the state as farcical is... kind of absurd. China's position is indeed silly on this issue (and many others!).
I think the somewhat better hypothetical does involve China assassinating Taiwanese nationalists though. Even though that's still dumb.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
For those that have the time it's well worth listening to the full debate:
Without due process of law even identification of an individual is shaky. How happy would the drone strike supporters be to get hellfired from a drone because a drone decided you were a 75% match with a "bad guy?" How hard is that to figure out? If the state is performing target assassinations, using field intelligence to do it, of US citizens abroad...
I honestly have no worry what-so-ever about getting drone striked.
Pretty much this, since having a process would ensure that they would have to provide irrefutable proof that one was involved in an terrorist group (IIRC isn't their video where this guy pledges his loyalty and denounces his citizenship?) and happens to be in a country where the government can't safely apprehend the individual (be it with our own people or having the government of that country do it for us).
Look I'm not going to black and white this thing because that's pretty unrealistic. Yes, when you can safely apprehend people like this, you should, but the reality is you can't always safely apprehend them. It's just like an officer can't always resolve a confrontation without deadly force either, sometimes the situation calls for taking a shot and if the guy dies, he dies. You can't let murderers roam free because you decide they have to have their day in court and it's better to let them continue to do harm when you can't take them alive. Seriously, fuck that mentality.
When a human being, deputized by the state to enforce the law, identifies and attempts to apprehend a suspect and then is placed in a situation necessitating the use of deadly force to prevent harm to themselves or others; well then so be it. When an agent, operating abroad murders another human being remotely without first identifying them personally, there's a problem.
The first process in due process of law is identification. Without that, you've opened yourself up to a world of evil. Not to mention, the US as a super power sets the tone for the actions of other states.
CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE PLUNGES TO DEATH IN FAULTY GUARDRAIL SCANDAL
Quite a few people have mailed me over the last couple of days, asking for my feelings about the death of Osama bin Laden. Read the headline above and you’ll have a rough idea. On the one hand, yeah, it’s a disgrace that the municipal authority has allowed a vital safety feature to get into such a lethally dangerous state. On the other hand – well, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
But someone sure as shit needs to fix that guardrail.
Instead of which, from the prevailing media current in the US it seems that opinion runs more along the lines of “Hey, that’s cool, a broken guardrail – just what we need! With a bit of luck, a whole bunch of other violent offenders are going to fall through that gap and smash on the rocks below!” The thought that any decent god-fearing folk like you and me might get hurt seems not to have registered. The idea that broken guardrails are a bad idea in general seems not to have penetrated the public consciousness very much.
Then again, is anybody very surprised? The problem is that political debate – particularly in the US, but increasingly in the UK as well – has reached such levels of dumbed-down emotive populism that we no longer seem able to disentangle two very VERY basic philosophical concepts from each other – the concept of Who and the concept of What. And if I were asked to name a single characteristic that differentiates the Civilised from the Barbaric, then it’s exactly that – the basic ability to think in terms of objective facts rather than subjective emotional ties. To ask the question what happened? rather than who was involved?
Barbarism is punishing a crime if it’s committed by someone you don’t like, but cheerfully approving of it if the perpetrator is your pal. Barbarism is law enforcement for other people, and laissez faire for ourselves. Barbarism is human rights for us over here, rendition, torture and summary execution for you guys over there.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone. And it’s a tough gig. Because it goes against all our ingrained tribalistic sensibilities, our self-serving, self-deceiving self righteousness and our bloodthirsty appetite for scapegoats and vengeance. And nor, by the way, is this in any way a simple dichotomy of left and right wing. We’re all susceptible to this failing, you just have to re-tune slightly to get each person’s particular tribalism focused. Recall, if you will, the various leftist pundits gleefully declaring after 9/11 that, well, dreadful business, to be sure, but hey, those Americans really had it coming, didn’t they. Go back further still and recall the insane twistings of logic so beloved of all those hardline socialists justifying tanks on the streets of Budapest and Prague while simultaneously decrying imperialist intervention in South America and Vietnam. Moronic tribal myopia is by no means the exclusive preserve of the Republican right.
So do I care that Osama bin Laden was shot dead, despite being unarmed and offering precious little in the way of resistance? No. He was an evil old fuck, he had it coming. I have better things to do with my compassion than waste it on guys like that. (Things, for example, like be impressed by and thankful for the SEAL training that enabled a mission in which random women and children – for once – didn’t bear the brunt of the massive collateral damage that usually accompanies western military intervention. Is this a better model than drones and aerial bombardment? You bet it is.)
However – do I care that the US (and probably the UK, in its slavish puppy-like Me-tooism) seems to feel it has the sovereign right to send out death squads and murder with impunity wherever its geo-political interests are threatened. Hell, yes, I care. That is no way to run a civilisation. Because next time, it might not be guys as accomplished as SEAL team 6. Or next time, the intelligence might be of the standard we more normally associate with the C.I.A. (i.e for shit, or a loosely bundled pack of hegemony-serving lies). Next time, we might be back to drones because it’s just so much easier to pull off.
Next time, someone who doesn’t deserve to die might get hurt. Because generally that’s the way it goes. Iraq, anybody?
So by all means let’s celebrate the immaculately-effected death of an evil old fuck who really had it coming. You’ll get no argument from me on that.
But meantime, let’s also for fuck’s sake get that guardrail looked at. Before something happens that wipes the smile off everybody’s face; something that leaves us casting about in our barbarian hypocrisy for some grubby Fox News tribal justification or other to cover up whatever new atrocity it is we’ve just permitted in our name.
In other words, let’s try to do civilisation like we mean it.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And the idea that China would use a drone against the US in the US is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.
I gave it a pretty good start.
Target assassinations? Extraordinary renditions? Not quite as ridiculous.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
It sounds like we lost the arms race in apprehending criminals vs. escaping arrest. If the gap between detention capability and evasion of justice maintains this widening trend, wouldn't it be better to phase out the traditional court system in the end, which depends on the ideal assumption that the perpetrators of a crime are arrested in a timely fashion? Should we not instead mobilize the justice system, perhaps in the form of intelligence gathering operatives with the ability to judge evidence and execute a verdict on site with superior surveillance and armamentation technology? Perhaps we can train these people with universal access to the entire process of the justice system to be mobile judges, who account for out of court trials post hoc.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It sounds like we lost the arms race in apprehending criminals vs. escaping arrest. If the gap between detention capability and evasion of justice maintains this widening trend, wouldn't it be better to phase out the traditional court system in the end, which depends on the ideal assumption that the perpetrators of a crime are arrested in a timely fashion? Should we not instead mobilize the justice system, perhaps in the form of intelligence gathering operatives with the ability to judge evidence and execute a verdict on site with superior surveillance and armamentation technology? Perhaps we can train these people with universal access to the entire process of the justice system to be mobile judges, who account for out of court trials post hoc.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
Except that terrorists are quite clearly being terrorists.
Now, I think we need to take a good long, hard look on how we're conducting this war on terror, but that doesn't change that fact that there are actual terrorists out there.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Pro tip: Republicans are the only ones who say "Democrat" when they mean "Democratic".
Clearly not.
But in line with your position that anyone who criticizes a bad policy held by a democrat, then they must ipso facto be a republican.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
So what you're saying is, Ron Paul 2012?
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
Except that terrorists are quite clearly being terrorists.
Now, I think we need to take a good long, hard look on how we're conducting this war on terror, but that doesn't change that fact that there are actual terrorists out there.
True. But the position of indiscriminate assassination of pro-ported terrorist was against 25 years of executive decree, against the last 1000 years of western jurisprudence, and significantly to the right of Reagan.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Pro tip: Republicans are the only ones who say "Democrat" when they mean "Democratic".
Clearly not.
What is truly amazing here is that you have some good points and could be a valuable member of the community. If you didn't insist on being such a an ass constantly. Seriously man I get that your first few experience here weren't the best and that's on us but how about you save the snark for when other people start shit, huh?
War in the present is very different from it used to be and I think we need to have a lot of serious talks regard what is ok. Unless I've misunderstood Dethrin even he appears to be ok with targeting enemy combatants in countries where getting to the Terrorist would be impossible but fears that this sets a terrible precedent that could lead to the president being able to have anyone he pleases killed. I sorta agree with this I just think what needs to happen is for the people of this country to have an adult discussion on where the line is and how these things should work.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
It's cool that you think that Seruko, but it's not the case.
Hacksaw on
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
Except that terrorists are quite clearly being terrorists.
Now, I think we need to take a good long, hard look on how we're conducting this war on terror, but that doesn't change that fact that there are actual terrorists out there.
True. But the position of indiscriminate assassination of pro-ported terrorist was against 25 years of executive decree, against the last 1000 years of western jurisprudence, and significantly to the right of Reagan.
I won't deny it. I'm uncomfortable with anyone having that power, but I understand the mindset that has led us here. And I'm not very happy with it, if I'm honest.
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Pro tip: Republicans are the only ones who say "Democrat" when they mean "Democratic".
Clearly not.
What is truly amazing here is that you have some good points and could be a valuable member of the community. If you didn't insist on being such a an ass constantly. Seriously man I get that your first few experience here weren't the best and that's on us but how about you save the snark for when other people start shit, huh?
War in the present is very different from it used to be and I think we need to have a lot of serious talks regard what is ok. Unless I've misunderstood Dethrin even he appears to be ok with targeting enemy combatants in countries where getting to the Terrorist would be impossible but fears that this sets a terrible precedent that could lead to the president being able to have anyone he pleases killed. I sorta agree with this I just think what needs to happen is for the people of this country to have an adult discussion on where the line is and how these things should work.
More echo chamber tribal non-sense. You can call me an ass. And I'll continue to follow the rules and only call you a goose. There are a whole lot of people here who feel emboldened to judge me because I point out how obviously bad, wrong and EVIL policies like assassination by robot airplane are. There is no adult discussion here. Just massive circles of pro-democrat peer judgement, demonizing of anyone who disagrees and endless pointless personal attacks. Save for two or three characters.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Pro tip: Republicans are the only ones who say "Democrat" when they mean "Democratic".
Clearly not.
What is truly amazing here is that you have some good points and could be a valuable member of the community. If you didn't insist on being such a an ass constantly. Seriously man I get that your first few experience here weren't the best and that's on us but how about you save the snark for when other people start shit, huh?
War in the present is very different from it used to be and I think we need to have a lot of serious talks regard what is ok. Unless I've misunderstood Dethrin even he appears to be ok with targeting enemy combatants in countries where getting to the Terrorist would be impossible but fears that this sets a terrible precedent that could lead to the president being able to have anyone he pleases killed. I sorta agree with this I just think what needs to happen is for the people of this country to have an adult discussion on where the line is and how these things should work.
More echo chamber tribal non-sense. You can call me an ass. And I'll continue to follow the rules and only call you a goose. There are a whole lot of people here who feel emboldened to judge me because I point out how obviously bad, wrong and EVIL policies like assassination by robot airplane are. There is no adult discussion here. Just massive circles of pro-democrat peer judgement, demonizing of anyone who disagrees and endless pointless personal attacks. Save for two or three characters.
Yeah see you're not getting this. I actually agree with parts of what you say and things I don't I'd be interested in hearing you arguing your point. My problem is you end every post with "but none of you will really consider what I have to say because you are just a eco-chamber.
Drones are a pretty horrible thing that make it even easier for people in power than it already is to detach themselves from the decision of whether or not to remove inconvenient brown people.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
I dont think as many people care about it as claim they do. It's just something to latch onto to get to be 'against the system'.
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Pro tip: Republicans are the only ones who say "Democrat" when they mean "Democratic".
Clearly not.
What is truly amazing here is that you have some good points and could be a valuable member of the community. If you didn't insist on being such a an ass constantly. Seriously man I get that your first few experience here weren't the best and that's on us but how about you save the snark for when other people start shit, huh?
War in the present is very different from it used to be and I think we need to have a lot of serious talks regard what is ok. Unless I've misunderstood Dethrin even he appears to be ok with targeting enemy combatants in countries where getting to the Terrorist would be impossible but fears that this sets a terrible precedent that could lead to the president being able to have anyone he pleases killed. I sorta agree with this I just think what needs to happen is for the people of this country to have an adult discussion on where the line is and how these things should work.
More echo chamber tribal non-sense. You can call me an ass. And I'll continue to follow the rules and only call you a goose. There are a whole lot of people here who feel emboldened to judge me because I point out how obviously bad, wrong and EVIL policies like assassination by robot airplane are. There is no adult discussion here. Just massive circles of pro-democrat peer judgement, demonizing of anyone who disagrees and endless pointless personal attacks. Save for two or three characters.
Flatly untrue. You're too new to know, but I was generally treated very cordially when I identified as a Republican when I wasn't being a dick.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Psn:wazukki
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not a Democrat and I don't get hounded constantly. There are also several cases over the last 87 pages where people have taken Obama to task.
PA's left leaning, and it can get echoey at times, sure, but it's hardly a liberal bastion where conservatives are tarred and feathered.
Several mainstream conservative stances are factually incorrect, reality does have a left wing bias
Things like global warming for example. If the Republican party of the 90s existed today, you'd have a lot more conservatives on this board. The Republican party left us in a lot of cases, for myself I ended up just going further and further left, but I used to be a republican. I voted Bush in 2004.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
Supporting drones and new presidential powers for Obama is hypocritical, but no one is actually doing that - people are merely refusing to withhold their votes from Obama and democrats just to make a stand on these issues.
No one is going "Well, if it's a democrat let's have indefinite rendition and incarceration by all means!". It's more like "Wish he wouldn't, but I have the choice between voting democrat or not and this is not the issue that's going to make me stay home in November."
Besides, nearly all republican politicians have worse morals and are worse people than their democratic counterparts, so saying Obama can be entrusted with predator drones doesn't mean you entrust a beast like Romney with them. But that is a weak qualifier - precedent is what it is, so it is certainly a cynical and sad state of affairs.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
Didn't he put a stop to torture?
Hmm... I can't find a definite source one way or the other. I may be thinking of the continued indefinite detention.
I know I'm angry about something in that general moral spectrum, at the very least.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
What companies has he giving prosecutorial immunity too? Hadn't heard that. That's all kinds of fucked up.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
I'm honestly just trying to figure out how to improve the situation. What process can be implemented to help ensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered to target an individual. That appropriate action is taken against the individual and the principles which we hold dear are not compromised? Or is it completely the wrong question to ask? Do we just take a very broad and multi-faceted diplomatic approach in which we encourage our allies to do what they can, where they can, when they can, and meanwhile try to win over countries that would/are harboring terrorists? But otherwise not engage in any direct action in foreign countries that we have not declared war on without prior authorization. I feel like we tried to follow this plan with Turkey and it just didn't work out. That's not representative of how the strategy would work in general, of course, but I'm just grasping for some kind of course we should be taking.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
Didn't he put a stop to torture?
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Posts
This. A thousand time, this.
I beat you to it, though. :P
They've certainly tried.
I was merely pointing out the idea that we wouldn't someone China views as an enemy to the state as farcical is... kind of absurd. China's position is indeed silly on this issue (and many others!).
I think the somewhat better hypothetical does involve China assassinating Taiwanese nationalists though. Even though that's still dumb.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129941946
When a human being, deputized by the state to enforce the law, identifies and attempts to apprehend a suspect and then is placed in a situation necessitating the use of deadly force to prevent harm to themselves or others; well then so be it. When an agent, operating abroad murders another human being remotely without first identifying them personally, there's a problem.
The first process in due process of law is identification. Without that, you've opened yourself up to a world of evil. Not to mention, the US as a super power sets the tone for the actions of other states.
I think Morgan Says it better than I ever could.
http://www.richardkmorgan.com/news/719/sophistication/
CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE PLUNGES TO DEATH IN FAULTY GUARDRAIL SCANDAL
Quite a few people have mailed me over the last couple of days, asking for my feelings about the death of Osama bin Laden. Read the headline above and you’ll have a rough idea. On the one hand, yeah, it’s a disgrace that the municipal authority has allowed a vital safety feature to get into such a lethally dangerous state. On the other hand – well, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
But someone sure as shit needs to fix that guardrail.
Instead of which, from the prevailing media current in the US it seems that opinion runs more along the lines of “Hey, that’s cool, a broken guardrail – just what we need! With a bit of luck, a whole bunch of other violent offenders are going to fall through that gap and smash on the rocks below!” The thought that any decent god-fearing folk like you and me might get hurt seems not to have registered. The idea that broken guardrails are a bad idea in general seems not to have penetrated the public consciousness very much.
Then again, is anybody very surprised? The problem is that political debate – particularly in the US, but increasingly in the UK as well – has reached such levels of dumbed-down emotive populism that we no longer seem able to disentangle two very VERY basic philosophical concepts from each other – the concept of Who and the concept of What. And if I were asked to name a single characteristic that differentiates the Civilised from the Barbaric, then it’s exactly that – the basic ability to think in terms of objective facts rather than subjective emotional ties. To ask the question what happened? rather than who was involved?
Barbarism is punishing a crime if it’s committed by someone you don’t like, but cheerfully approving of it if the perpetrator is your pal. Barbarism is law enforcement for other people, and laissez faire for ourselves. Barbarism is human rights for us over here, rendition, torture and summary execution for you guys over there.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone. And it’s a tough gig. Because it goes against all our ingrained tribalistic sensibilities, our self-serving, self-deceiving self righteousness and our bloodthirsty appetite for scapegoats and vengeance. And nor, by the way, is this in any way a simple dichotomy of left and right wing. We’re all susceptible to this failing, you just have to re-tune slightly to get each person’s particular tribalism focused. Recall, if you will, the various leftist pundits gleefully declaring after 9/11 that, well, dreadful business, to be sure, but hey, those Americans really had it coming, didn’t they. Go back further still and recall the insane twistings of logic so beloved of all those hardline socialists justifying tanks on the streets of Budapest and Prague while simultaneously decrying imperialist intervention in South America and Vietnam. Moronic tribal myopia is by no means the exclusive preserve of the Republican right.
So do I care that Osama bin Laden was shot dead, despite being unarmed and offering precious little in the way of resistance? No. He was an evil old fuck, he had it coming. I have better things to do with my compassion than waste it on guys like that. (Things, for example, like be impressed by and thankful for the SEAL training that enabled a mission in which random women and children – for once – didn’t bear the brunt of the massive collateral damage that usually accompanies western military intervention. Is this a better model than drones and aerial bombardment? You bet it is.)
However – do I care that the US (and probably the UK, in its slavish puppy-like Me-tooism) seems to feel it has the sovereign right to send out death squads and murder with impunity wherever its geo-political interests are threatened. Hell, yes, I care. That is no way to run a civilisation. Because next time, it might not be guys as accomplished as SEAL team 6. Or next time, the intelligence might be of the standard we more normally associate with the C.I.A. (i.e for shit, or a loosely bundled pack of hegemony-serving lies). Next time, we might be back to drones because it’s just so much easier to pull off.
Next time, someone who doesn’t deserve to die might get hurt. Because generally that’s the way it goes. Iraq, anybody?
So by all means let’s celebrate the immaculately-effected death of an evil old fuck who really had it coming. You’ll get no argument from me on that.
But meantime, let’s also for fuck’s sake get that guardrail looked at. Before something happens that wipes the smile off everybody’s face; something that leaves us casting about in our barbarian hypocrisy for some grubby Fox News tribal justification or other to cover up whatever new atrocity it is we’ve just permitted in our name.
In other words, let’s try to do civilisation like we mean it.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Target assassinations? Extraordinary renditions? Not quite as ridiculous.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
This right here.
Perfect example.
I was against the enemy combatant designation under bush and it's continuation under Obama.
Like many of Bush's insane policies carried out by Obama.
My guess would be most here thought the practices was awful under Bush.
Just more crazy Democrat echo chamber non-sense.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
You do realize that you took that COMPLETELY OPPOSITE meaning from that post as MagicPrime was intending, right? He's saying that the people making all the noise about how awful these drone strikes are, are just making noise for the sake of being against the system.
And once again, fuck off with the echo chamber fucking bullshit.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Except that terrorists are quite clearly being terrorists.
Now, I think we need to take a good long, hard look on how we're conducting this war on terror, but that doesn't change that fact that there are actual terrorists out there.
More Tribal Democrat Echo Chamber NON-sense.
What he's really saying is anyone disagreeing with the Majority position are doing so just to disagree with Obama's position. Which is part of the Tribal Insanity practiced here. Like what you write. The desecration of about a thousand years of European Jurisprudance, by both this president and the previous one is CRAZY.
1. Is simply a bad practice.
2. Erodes whatever moral leadership the US had
3. Emboldens the enemies of the US
4. Gives credence to the argument that the US is a bad actor
5. Legitimizes the tactics by other governments
6. Legitimizes the tactics by terrorist organisations.
Feel free to Goose on and on about Horseshit. Well played.
Clearly not.
But in line with your position that anyone who criticizes a bad policy held by a democrat, then they must ipso facto be a republican.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
True. But the position of indiscriminate assassination of pro-ported terrorist was against 25 years of executive decree, against the last 1000 years of western jurisprudence, and significantly to the right of Reagan.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
What is truly amazing here is that you have some good points and could be a valuable member of the community. If you didn't insist on being such a an ass constantly. Seriously man I get that your first few experience here weren't the best and that's on us but how about you save the snark for when other people start shit, huh?
War in the present is very different from it used to be and I think we need to have a lot of serious talks regard what is ok. Unless I've misunderstood Dethrin even he appears to be ok with targeting enemy combatants in countries where getting to the Terrorist would be impossible but fears that this sets a terrible precedent that could lead to the president being able to have anyone he pleases killed. I sorta agree with this I just think what needs to happen is for the people of this country to have an adult discussion on where the line is and how these things should work.
I won't deny it. I'm uncomfortable with anyone having that power, but I understand the mindset that has led us here. And I'm not very happy with it, if I'm honest.
You do realize Democrats and liberals criticize Obama on this forum, right?
More echo chamber tribal non-sense. You can call me an ass. And I'll continue to follow the rules and only call you a goose. There are a whole lot of people here who feel emboldened to judge me because I point out how obviously bad, wrong and EVIL policies like assassination by robot airplane are. There is no adult discussion here. Just massive circles of pro-democrat peer judgement, demonizing of anyone who disagrees and endless pointless personal attacks. Save for two or three characters.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Yeah see you're not getting this. I actually agree with parts of what you say and things I don't I'd be interested in hearing you arguing your point. My problem is you end every post with "but none of you will really consider what I have to say because you are just a eco-chamber.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Flatly untrue. You're too new to know, but I was generally treated very cordially when I identified as a Republican when I wasn't being a dick.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
PA's left leaning, and it can get echoey at times, sure, but it's hardly a liberal bastion where conservatives are tarred and feathered.
Things like global warming for example. If the Republican party of the 90s existed today, you'd have a lot more conservatives on this board. The Republican party left us in a lot of cases, for myself I ended up just going further and further left, but I used to be a republican. I voted Bush in 2004.
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
No one is going "Well, if it's a democrat let's have indefinite rendition and incarceration by all means!". It's more like "Wish he wouldn't, but I have the choice between voting democrat or not and this is not the issue that's going to make me stay home in November."
Besides, nearly all republican politicians have worse morals and are worse people than their democratic counterparts, so saying Obama can be entrusted with predator drones doesn't mean you entrust a beast like Romney with them. But that is a weak qualifier - precedent is what it is, so it is certainly a cynical and sad state of affairs.
Didn't he put a stop to torture?
Hmm... I can't find a definite source one way or the other. I may be thinking of the continued indefinite detention.
I know I'm angry about something in that general moral spectrum, at the very least.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What companies has he giving prosecutorial immunity too? Hadn't heard that. That's all kinds of fucked up.
I'm honestly just trying to figure out how to improve the situation. What process can be implemented to help ensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered to target an individual. That appropriate action is taken against the individual and the principles which we hold dear are not compromised? Or is it completely the wrong question to ask? Do we just take a very broad and multi-faceted diplomatic approach in which we encourage our allies to do what they can, where they can, when they can, and meanwhile try to win over countries that would/are harboring terrorists? But otherwise not engage in any direct action in foreign countries that we have not declared war on without prior authorization. I feel like we tried to follow this plan with Turkey and it just didn't work out. That's not representative of how the strategy would work in general, of course, but I'm just grasping for some kind of course we should be taking.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.