Feral are you seriously advocating the enemy combatant line of executive philosophy? Seriously?
I'm saying that crying "due process!" isn't really an argument.
Neither is suggesting that the planet is a war zone.
Elldren: even in the word 'prison' is used instead of 'jail,' moniker's statement still isn't true. The majority of prisoners got there without ever going to trial.
Through plea bargains &c., but they were still given due process. The cop who arrested him didn't just drive over to the penitentiary's sally port after picking him up.
moniker on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
Oh hey Mike and Will, are you playing Reach. I would like to play that because I haven't yet because I never know when anyone is playing and now I'm going to be a big baby about it with run on sentences and invite me to your games more I'm lonely
Sarksus on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Oh hey Mike and Will, are you playing Reach. I would like to play that because I haven't yet because I never know when anyone is playing and now I'm going to be a big baby about it with run on sentences and invite me to your games more I'm lonely
Yes let's play!
Be on in 5 minutes.
MikeMan on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
Hell yes I'm gonna use the jetpack and pretend I'm playing Tribes 2.
I'm talking about this dude in the article. It seems like he's assuming there isn't any evidence because he personally has not been able to look at it. My question is: why does that make the evidence non-existent? I don't think he gets to make the judgement about whether or not this guy is guilty, which he seems to have done.
Because there's a principle in modern law that the government is required, if they believe someone guilty of a crime, to set forth the evidence that they have that causes them to believe so. And the reason that this has happened is because there's a lot of evidence throughout history that when you don't require this, the government inevitably finds a way to abuse it.
Or to put it simply, we do not accept "because we said so" from our government, and for good reason.
The CIA has a list of High Value Targets. It's roughly analogous to the FBI Most Wanted.
The CIA is expected to apprehend those targets without killing them if possible, but are authorized to use deadly force in the process if necessary.
Normally, the CIA is not required to clear every new entry on the HVT list with the President.
The CIA is not required to publicly reveal the evidence leading them to add a person onto the HVT list. (Maybe they should be.)
The CIA is not chartered to operate domestically. So if they add a US citizen to the HVT list, they have to clear it with the President. Personally, I feel that this is a good thing.
The only valid area of controversy as far as I can see here is the bolded statement. Maybe the CIA should have to publicly explain why they investigate and apprehend the people they do.
That said, this is not an assassination list. Obama authorized the use of deadly force during the apprehension of an American citizen. The news report that says that Obama authorized the assassination of a US civilian is yellow journalism and distorts the issue.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm talking about this dude in the article. It seems like he's assuming there isn't any evidence because he personally has not been able to look at it. My question is: why does that make the evidence non-existent? I don't think he gets to make the judgement about whether or not this guy is guilty, which he seems to have done.
Because there's a principle in modern law that the government is required, if they believe someone guilty of a crime, to set forth the evidence that they have that causes them to believe so. And the reason that this has happened is because there's a lot of evidence throughout history that when you don't require this, the government inevitably finds a way to abuse it.
Or to put it simply, we do not accept "because we said so" from our government, and for good reason.
And they don't give that evidence to just anyone who asks for it.
Feral are you seriously advocating the enemy combatant line of executive philosophy? Seriously?
are you advocating combating heavily armed uniformed guerrillas with something other than soldiers?
So you are then. This line of thinking is what allowed travesties like Guantanamo to exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the government to arbitrarily decide who qualifies as an enemy combatant when it's convenient for them.
Tarranon on
You could be anywhere
On the black screen
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
The CIA has a list of High Value Targets. It's roughly analogous to the FBI Most Wanted.
The CIA is expected to apprehend those targets without killing them if possible, but are authorized to use deadly force in the process if necessary.
Normally, the CIA is not required to clear every new entry on the HVT list with the President.
The CIA is not required to publicly reveal the evidence leading them to add a person onto the HVT list. (Maybe they should be.)
The CIA is not chartered to operate domestically. So if they add a US citizen to the HVT list, they have to clear it with the President. Personally, I feel that this is a good thing.
The only valid area of controversy as far as I can see here is the bolded statement. Maybe the CIA should have to publicly explain why they investigate and apprehend the people they do.
That said, this is not an assassination list. Obama authorized the use of deadly force during the apprehension of an American citizen. The news report that says that Obama authorized the assassination of a US civilian is yellow journalism and distorts the issue.
for comparison, US police forces are authorized to use deadly force during the apprehension of American citizens constantly
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Feral are you seriously advocating the enemy combatant line of executive philosophy? Seriously?
are you advocating combating heavily armed uniformed guerrillas with something other than soldiers?
So you are then. This line of thinking is what allowed travesties like Guantanamo to exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the government to arbitrarily decide who qualifies as an enemy combatant when it's convenient for them.
What is your proposal?
Seriously.
edit: and no, this isn't a binary issue. Things are allowed to be complex ffs
I wanna write a book called "I wish it was 1987" about how everything becomes privatized and people are just as oppressed as they would be in a totalitarian state because now every service sees them as being walking money
but I'm not smart enough to make that satirical while also having some merit
The CIA has a list of High Value Targets. It's roughly analogous to the FBI Most Wanted.
The CIA is expected to apprehend those targets without killing them if possible, but are authorized to use deadly force in the process if necessary.
Normally, the CIA is not required to clear every new entry on the HVT list with the President.
The CIA is not required to publicly reveal the evidence leading them to add a person onto the HVT list. (Maybe they should be.)
The CIA is not chartered to operate domestically. So if they add a US citizen to the HVT list, they have to clear it with the President. Personally, I feel that this is a good thing.
The only valid area of controversy as far as I can see here is the bolded statement. Maybe the CIA should have to publicly explain why they investigate and apprehend the people they do.
That said, this is not an assassination list. Obama authorized the use of deadly force during the apprehension of an American citizen. The news report that says that Obama authorized the assassination of a US civilian is yellow journalism and distorts the issue.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
Within the last couple hours. Coming in from a couple sources, MetalInsider, SiriusXM, etc. He's been battling stomach cancer for several years now, but god... why did it have to be Dio?
Posts
Everywhere here is sold out of ODST.
PSN: Corbius
Neither is suggesting that the planet is a war zone.
Through plea bargains &c., but they were still given due process. The cop who arrested him didn't just drive over to the penitentiary's sally port after picking him up.
Is he like a Jupiter or an Eris or more like a stupid Baldr?
He's if Jupiter, Venus and Mars had a threesome.
Be on in 5 minutes.
Because there's a principle in modern law that the government is required, if they believe someone guilty of a crime, to set forth the evidence that they have that causes them to believe so. And the reason that this has happened is because there's a lot of evidence throughout history that when you don't require this, the government inevitably finds a way to abuse it.
Or to put it simply, we do not accept "because we said so" from our government, and for good reason.
The CIA has a list of High Value Targets. It's roughly analogous to the FBI Most Wanted.
The CIA is expected to apprehend those targets without killing them if possible, but are authorized to use deadly force in the process if necessary.
Normally, the CIA is not required to clear every new entry on the HVT list with the President.
The CIA is not required to publicly reveal the evidence leading them to add a person onto the HVT list. (Maybe they should be.)
The CIA is not chartered to operate domestically. So if they add a US citizen to the HVT list, they have to clear it with the President. Personally, I feel that this is a good thing.
The only valid area of controversy as far as I can see here is the bolded statement. Maybe the CIA should have to publicly explain why they investigate and apprehend the people they do.
That said, this is not an assassination list. Obama authorized the use of deadly force during the apprehension of an American citizen. The news report that says that Obama authorized the assassination of a US civilian is yellow journalism and distorts the issue.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And they don't give that evidence to just anyone who asks for it.
So you are then. This line of thinking is what allowed travesties like Guantanamo to exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the government to arbitrarily decide who qualifies as an enemy combatant when it's convenient for them.
On the black screen
for comparison, US police forces are authorized to use deadly force during the apprehension of American citizens constantly
What is your proposal?
Seriously.
edit: and no, this isn't a binary issue. Things are allowed to be complex ffs
but I'm not smart enough to make that satirical while also having some merit
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
On the black screen
Fuck. Thats depressing.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
FUCK
Google yields no results. How recent was it?
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
Dio can't be dead. I refuse to believe it.
Steam | Twitter
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
I'm counting on you!
FUCK.
Edit: Twitter's going nuts, but still nothing official.
Steam | Twitter
It's all over his facebook page.
Lead singer of Dio and Black Sabbath after Ozzy left.
dude
Rainbow
i guess i'll cope then.
So, I mean, it's possible.
Dio has rocked for a long, long time.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
Now it's time for him to pass the torch.
Steam | Twitter