Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.
Posts
Well, he is a Democrat. Common behaviors do indicate exactly how bad Democrats are at electing Democrats.
Ed & Larry : "Doesn't matter."
I recently was gifted a thing in Steam. If it was from you, thank you very much!
On charges that if he was actually tried wouldn't carry the death penalty, at that.
So just like every other drone strike.
My heart fucking bleeds...
Doesn't the Constitution say every American has the right to a fair trial? Did his son deserve to die too? If there had been other drone executions of American citizens that makes it worse.
STEAM: Gasman1220 | My Backloggery
Right, so you are upset based on a meaningless bit of sophistry. This time the execution of a random person with no trial was wrong. Because at some point, this one was American! Those other nations? Their citizens don't count.
Please.
Outreach News Your constantly expanding resource for all Mechwarrior news and updates.
(facepalm)
Because when you are at war (and yes, we are at war with al-Qaeda, the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name), the courts don't get involved unless you breech the laws of war.
No, it doesn't, and the fact that you think it does is a huge problem for a number of reasons.
It’s a bad idea to start labeling American citizens as enemy combatants.
You guys did it in war all the damn time.
Why? As I have pointed out in other threads, a fair number of American citizens fought for the Axis. Did that mean we needed to identify them?
Listen, during the Civil War we tried, convicted and allowed appeals of every Confederate solider between volleys.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There is a right to a speedy trial. Don't complain when it's the speediest possible.
Not when they openly advocate war on the United States and the overthrow of the sitting government, and are actively working with and supporting people who have declared war on the United States.
I don't like that it was done, but I understand the reasons why and don't believe it was a violation of al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights.
What part of the AUMF do you not understand?
So we should just starting to execute American citizens living in other countries because there has been some evidence, which we haven't seen, that somehow points him to treason?
Yeah right.
This is veering off topic so I'll drop it except to say that, while Obama is better than the other guy, he has disappointed me, even shockingly so, on several occassions.
Again, what part of the AUMF do you not understand? You may not like it, you may think that it's the wrong approach, but that doesn't make it go away.
Uh....wow. Bill of Rights. Article V. Due process. Are you serious?
Edit: crazy boards. This is in response to CC's post below.
It is meaningless sophistry when people take no umbridge with drone or bombing strikes on foreign nationals but raise hell when it happens to be an American.
I'm sure its obvious but I wouldn't imagine McCain or Romney would have done better in this situation.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
What stops Obama from calling any American he wants an enemy combatant?
Lots of shit. Stop being a conspiracy nut.
Actually, and I was surprised to learn this as well, the Supreme Court has ruled that fighting in another country's army against the United States is not grounds for loss of citizenship. "Another country's army" is obviously the operative phrase, but there is some precedence.
Yes because that is the part that is defying the Constitution.
And yet the fact that is an American is all you are complaining about.
Because it erodes the Fifth Amendment. There is a stark difference between an active battlefield and a targeted assassination.
You can't start making acceptations to laws. Especially when the exception is something as subjective as "terrorism".
If you starts saying, “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists”, you can pretty easily jump to “the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone *except terrorists and murderers”.
You don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, because, while Al-Awlaki would have died within his natural lifespan, the US government will be around for much longer and all you need is one President who's a little off his rocker to take advantage of it.
Like, it's pretty stupid to argue a slippery slope here, it's not like Obama's going to start having Tea Party activists shot or that Romney would start executing OWS peeps.
silly geese are silly
And no one is going to not do this, so if this is your line in the sand, you need to rethink your priorities.
Want to stop it? Lobby your Congressmen. Lobby the President. Run for office, volunteer for civil rights campaigns.
Sitting at home and not voting isn't going to do shit.
Right, which is why your first post in this quote tree is bullshit.
I'll admit that within the "war on terror" framework this makes sense.
I just think that framework is a really really bad one.
Depends on how slippery the slope is.
Can we go back to talking about what Romney's favorite baked good is and what kind of breed Obama finds most delicious?
You could equally say "if you don't give the government the kind of precedent to allow for assassination of citizens, that means we can never go to war, ever, because we might accidentally shoot a citizen."
Sorta.
It's more that the slippery slope only works if you can prove each transitive step along the way. Just assuming they all must be true because they resemble the first one is the logical fallacy technically.