|
On February 06 2013 21:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 20:53 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote:
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Tell that to the US citizens that were assassinated without being given due process of the law. Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up. So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them?
Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
On February 06 2013 21:23 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote:
Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest. Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day.
Why do you care if the government tracks you? I don't think they're using these efforts to spot you cheating on your spouse. They probably just ignore your information and continue to log more.
|
United States43907 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:27 NoobSkills wrote:
Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker. If the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
|
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
|
On February 06 2013 21:27 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:23 Severedevil wrote:On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote:
Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest. Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day. Why do you care if the government tracks you? I don't think they're using these efforts to spot you cheating on your spouse. They probably just ignore your information and continue to log more.
I don't think I do care, because The Powers That Be have little cause to fuck with me. Suppose, however, that I became a major figure in some sort of political movement, such as Wikileaks. Would you trust the government to use its repository of surveillance data responsibly, rather than exploit that data in any way it can to discredit my efforts?
|
United States43907 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
|
On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Your original line had the word "arbitrary" you know. And now you're talking about a lot of quite probable process which probably still misses out on a lot of checks, systems and considerations that get made before anything of this nature occurs.
So haven't you just proved the difference?
(Though you are raising a new argument of "the system" and there's always potential for flaw there. Not denying that.)
|
On February 06 2013 21:27 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 20:53 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote:
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Tell that to the US citizens that were assassinated without being given due process of the law. Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up. So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them? Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
I am taking a direct and logical look at it, and it seems to me this is in violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
Why should I believe a president would not order the killing of a US citizen without good proof, when the previous president ordered the bombing of an entire country without good proof? If there was good proof (which it seems like there was), why not order him to appear in court? Try him in absentia, and if the proof really is good, then he could be found guilty, and then sentenced to death.
But if you're just going to take shortcuts and ignore people's rights, then why have rights in the first place? If our leaders are so benevolent and just, why would it matter if we had a dictatorship?
Even if you happen to naively trust Obama and his staff to make the right call on matters like this, because "Father Knows Best," these powers that he has just claimed for the presidency won't just disappear when he leaves office. Would you be comfortable with any president having the power to assassinate people at their discretion? Cause I'm not.
|
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote:Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office. The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler +They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton)
What a pile of BS.
Every country uses it`s power to enrich private sector. Look at your country. The only reason it conducts diplomacy is to enrich it`s private sector.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote:The corruption is ridiculously high + Show Spoiler + How else can you explain why USA's "professionals" always have a different view of that of the rest of the world?
Always different to the rest of the world? What a ridiculous red herring.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote:The limitation of Pluralism pretty damn high aswell + Show Spoiler +Little rights for gaymovements and other religious believes that are not Christian.
By "little" ou abviously mean no right to marry? So what. Marriage is a goverment service. If the majority of population belives gays are not entitled to that service, they do not get it.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote:The Electoral College is undemocratic + Show Spoiler +It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President.
You seem to forget that any "democratic" country requires a rulling coalition of 50+%. to rule. The many parties&majority coalition is not different from 2 party system.
EC is a good compromise for when you have a huge country to ensure that all states are reasonably represented and it is impossible to fake elections by voter faud. Sue, today it may be replaced with direct vote, back than, no, and EC sides with the winner of popular vote the vast majority of instances.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote:The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler +Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it.
Again red herring. Science is just an observation of small sample and extrapolation of results to larger sample. Often the small sample is not good enought to make accuraqte measurments.
As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected, so you`re obviously wrong.
|
United States43907 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:47 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? Your original line had the word "arbitrary" you know. And now you're talking about a lot of quite probable process which probably still misses out on a lot of checks, systems and considerations that get made before anything of this nature occurs. So haven't you just proved the difference? (Though you are raising a new argument of "the system" and there's always potential for flaw there. Not denying that.)
No, the point is that the social contract by which the US is governed only allows a citizen to be executed by the state following a death sentence by the judicial system. This is important because the authority of the government is derived from the social contract in which the people empower it to act on their behalf. When the government claims the right to extrajudicial execution of a citizen then the social contract is broken and the citizen becomes a subject to a tyranny. Obama thinking he has a good enough reason does not make the system not arbitrary, for it not to be arbitrary a clear set of rules and safeguards must be established.
|
On February 06 2013 21:27 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 20:53 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote:
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Tell that to the US citizens that were assassinated without being given due process of the law. Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up. So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them? Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
Take the example of the 16 yr old American who was bombed. What was his crime? He was eating at a restaurant with a friend of his, he has a facebook page filled with friends just like any other normal 16 yr old kid. His only crime is that his father was condemned by the US administration without trail either.
Obama is abusing a judicial loophole where he cannot disclose the evidence because of "national security" but at the same time kill people for the "evidence" which he cannot disclose. 2 weeks ago a judge shot down a request to provide proof and this is what she said about the issue:
“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” Judge McMahon wrote, adding that she was operating in a legal environment that amounted to “a veritable Catch-22.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?_r=0
If this isn't dangerous, i don't know what is.
|
On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Again do you really think that Obama is sitting in the oval office and hitting up his check list of everyone who made fun of him in high school? And on the reverse do you really think that Obama could just call up the military and request X be killed without giving them any information? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Do you think that drone strike are committed to with just one source of information? Or more logically that they're attempted for high priority targets who have been confirmed on the ground? I only ask because we don't hear about a drone strike every 30 seconds for the common Al-Qaeda grunt. These are targeted missions against high priority members. What happens if the terrorist is standing next to an innocent civilian, shit happens, causality of war. One to save thousands has to be the motto. Know why? Because those on 9-11 weren't standing next to any military/political personnel. Why if he isn't president forever? Do you think the next guy in office has a high school checklist too? I see this situation working how it was working probably even before 9-11. Government will eliminate threats by any means at their disposal.
|
United States43907 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? Again do you really think that Obama is sitting in the oval office and hitting up his check list of everyone who made fun of him in high school? And on the reverse do you really think that Obama could just call up the military and request X be killed without giving them any information? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Do you think that drone strike are committed to with just one source of information? Or more logically that they're attempted for high priority targets who have been confirmed on the ground? I only ask because we don't hear about a drone strike every 30 seconds for the common Al-Qaeda grunt. These are targeted missions against high priority members. What happens if the terrorist is standing next to an innocent civilian, shit happens, causality of war. One to save thousands has to be the motto. Know why? Because those on 9-11 weren't standing next to any military/political personnel. Why if he isn't president forever? Do you think the next guy in office has a high school checklist too? I see this situation working how it was working probably even before 9-11. Government will eliminate threats by any means at their disposal.
Are you familiar with the military at all? Do you really think the guy controlling the drone by remote is going to demand that the Commander in Chief justify it to his satisfaction. The system rests on the assumption that everyone is accountable to the guy above them and the guy at the top is accountable to the people. Of course Obama doesn't have to justify drone strikes to the military, he makes a decision with his security advisers and then an officer gives the order.
I don't think Obama is a supervillain killing his political enemies left and right, I think a system based on hoping Obama isn't a supervillain or ever wrong or mistaken is inferior to a system of checks, balances, judicial scrutiny and accountability. Saying "but Obama isn't evil" doesn't in any way respond to the issues I'm raising with a system in which the government can execute a citizen without any judicial involvement or even stating their reasons.
|
On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
|
On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
even more important: how do you prevent it from being abused if all you do is TRUST the person in charge.
this guy is definately trolling btw. don't feed him.
|
United States43907 Posts
On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because he's saying "if they didn't deserve to be executed then why were they executed, clearly guilty". It's the same logic as "if he didn't do anything wrong then why is he defending himself in a court" only without the right to a lawyer, to defend yourself, to see the evidence against you or a fair trial.
|
On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
|
United States43907 Posts
Is that a defence of giving the government total opaque power of life and death over its citizens based upon the government's known ability to use time in the most productive fashion?
|
On February 06 2013 22:29 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial? Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out?
|
On February 06 2013 22:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 22:29 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial? Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it. See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out?
WMD or no WMD there were terrorists there. Worked out well in my opinion other than the loss of true soldiers. Btw there is actual evidence that terrorists were there, so we were completely justified. They didn't need the WMD song and dance to enter btw, they already had 9/11 which imo is all they needed.
On February 06 2013 22:32 KwarK wrote:
Is that a defence of giving the government total opaque power of life and death over its citizens based upon the government's known ability to use time in the most productive fashion?
You read wasting scout/spy's time as the only part of that post. How do you really think these drone strikes occur please tell me what you think happens? Sure, I know I don't know what happens, but how do you think it happens? Obama picks a name out of a hat? Picks up his cell phone and calls Jim the drone strike pilot? Give him the coordinates? Done? Seems logical to me.
|
On February 06 2013 22:39 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 22:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 22:29 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 22:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 06 2013 21:58 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2013 21:36 NoobSkills wrote:On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote:
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death? You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it. And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial? Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it. See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out? WMD or no WMD there were terrorists there. Worked out well in my opinion other than the loss of true soldiers. Btw there is actual evidence that terrorists were there, so we were completely justified.
Nope. Al Qaeda only came in after the US invaded, even the government has admitted this.
But that's besides the point. The point is, the government has made critical decisions on bad intelligence in the past. What makes you think they won't do it again? Isn't the point of due process to protect people from this sort of thing? And you don't think people should have that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
