|
Vengarr posted:I feel like this is something of a non-issue if they're going to apply it as narrowly as they are in that memo. Ahahahahaha No really this will not happen
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 04:55 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 18:34 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:gently caress ups and terrible decisions are harsh realities of war. That aspect is never going to change regardless of policy. The entire indiscriminate way the drone program seems to be run is terrible. Harsh realities of war. Harsh realities of war. Harsh realities of war. People have absolutely no understanding of what setting a precedent means any more and how it could affect them in ways that in no way resemble "THEY'RE BUSTING INTO MY ROOM AND GONNA BAG ME". Judakel fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 05:00 |
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 04:57 |
|
|
The US government bombing US citizens without trial? Gee, this has never happened in all of human history and is bound to slippery slope it's way into normal people getting killed! You know, except that the US has used it's air power against it's own citizens several times all the way back to the 19th century, and on US soil in fact. (The one instance I could remember off hand, but there are a few others mostly around the same time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain Now, for those who argue that it's our duty to chase these people down and forcibly drag them back to the states to stand trial then fine. It's impossible and would use more resources then likely available but you likely have some kind of actual legal argument, even if it wouldn't eventually win in the court of law. But, the argument that this is somehow something never before seen or worse the slippery slope scare tactic argument that somehow all sorts of people are going to be targeted for completely unrelated reasons, so we should all be terrified, is laughable. The few citizens who have ended up on this list are well aware that the US government is after them. If they were willing to stand trial or defend themselves in the court of law it would be as simple as having a lawyer arrange for their surrender in the US embassy, in which case if anything DID happen to them I would happily join the pitchfork brigade. I certainly wish it wasn't this much of a grey area but given a case where military intelligence has sufficiently convinced me that a citizen is a terrorist actively seeking physical harm against other citizens, who is aware of the case against them and chooses to hide in a remote country outside of our reach instead of standing trial in order to defend themselves against these charges, I would be hard pressed to come up with another answer to the problem.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 05:48 |
|
|
Did the people who ended up in Guantanamo know that they were going to end up there? Did the people who appear on No-Fly lists know that they were going to end up on them? That sounds like the type of defense you make after-the-fact to mitigate bad PR. I don't get all this poo poo about the government being too lazy to hold a trial or whatever. You mean a few trillion dollars doesn't even give you a few open trials where you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt with public evidence that some guys are dicks? Man, I wish I had sovereign immunity.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 06:47 |
|
|
Vengarr posted:I feel like this is something of a non-issue if they're going to apply it as narrowly as they are in that memo. How dare you think that this will lead to any outcome except hellfire missles raining down upon citizens daily.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 06:56 |
|
|
Anubis posted:The US government bombing US citizens without trial? Gee, this has never happened in all of human history and is bound to slippery slope it's way into normal people getting killed! You know, except that the US has used it's air power against it's own citizens several times all the way back to the 19th century, and on US soil in fact. So you agree that sentencing and execution without trial is necessary to fight The War On Terror. Because you have incontrovertible proof that "The few citizens who have ended up on this list are well aware that the US government is after them". Well that's good enough for me, case closed, shoot the fuckers.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:03 |
|
|
HOLY poo poo I'M BEING TERRORIZED oh wait it was a spider can I still get a sniper in here to take care of that spider the spider was muslim btw
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:08 |
|
|
Anubis posted:You know, except that the US has used it's air power against it's own citizens several times all the way back to the 19th century Not that far back. Pretty sure no country used air power against any people in the 19th century, since the first flight of any kind didn't happen until the very last year of the 19th century. But whatever, I'm being nitpicky, this isn't the big problem with your post. Anubis posted:Now, for those who argue that it's our duty to chase these people down and forcibly drag them back to the states to stand trial then fine. It's impossible and would use more resources then likely available Here it is. You are absolutely full of poo poo. I normally try to be more polite than that, but this is a colossal mistruth. Do you have any earthly idea how many soldiers are sitting on their asses in Afghanistan doing absolutely jack-poo poo? Most of them are ready to spin up and go on a mission at a moment's notice, but don't because they don't have one. We don't ignore these people's rights because we have no choice, we do it because we don't give a poo poo.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:20 |
|
|
So, seriously... how far away are we from the US government just outright declaring everyone on earth as potential targets that can be justifiably killed at any time for any reason?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:31 |
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:HOLY poo poo I'M BEING TERRORIZED So go put the spider on trial.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:33 |
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:So go put the spider on trial. Too late lieberal that terrorist spider is ALREADY DEAD
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:34 |
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Too late lieberal that terrorist spider is ALREADY DEAD What's to say they won't be sniping all arthropods tomorrow?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:38 |
|
|
It's happened before so it's cool if it keeps happening. You know like ethnic cleansing, the US government has done that before might as well let them start back up with out protest. Talking about stuff is for nerds not cool dudes.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:39 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:So, seriously... how far away are we from the US government just outright declaring everyone on earth as potential targets that can be justifiably killed at any time for any reason?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:42 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Well, do you date the founding of America from 1776 or 1783? Hell, I would've accepted 1492 or earlier.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:49 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Hell, I would've accepted 1492 or earlier.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:51 |
|
|
To your average American, a "suspected terrorist" might as well be just a "terrorist." But if you told them that at one point in his life, Martin Luther King Jr. was a "suspected terrorist", that'd probably put a new perspective on things. Probably. People in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen have to live in fear of winged, metal monsters that rain down Hellfire (missiles) on them. You know, like DRAGONS. And the most we hear about it is a small blip on the news ticker below news anchors reporting more informative and relevant news, like a college football player with a fake dead girlfriend. Captain Pancakes fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 07:59 |
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 07:56 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:US government just outright declaring everyone on earth as potential targets The outrage seems to be about AMERICAN CITIZENS. From what I'm reading here everyone else gets to sit at the back of the bus.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 08:00 |
|
|
0dB posted:The outrage seems to be about AMERICAN CITIZENS. From what I'm reading here everyone else gets to sit at the back of the bus. Because killing civilians of other nationalities outside the US in actions sanctioned by congress isn't a crime except in the context of international law. This is a crime in the context of US law. e: Also, you know, because the topic is the executive branch claiming to have the right to order anyone killed for any reason, anywhere, not just in the middle east by drones, as opposed to the topic being drone attacks in general. thehumandignity fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 08:06 |
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 08:02 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Prior to then it would technically have been the action of Britain, Spain, etc. (France was apparently less bad, not sure on details.) They're still US property. The entire world is just dying to be American as far as I understand in context of... something something US exceptionalism? Also, the constitutional declaration of universal rights granted by God which all people should expect to enjoy only applies to people within the official territory of the United States of America. Everyone else ("else" being debatable) can go to hell. Freedom isn't free! ...I seriously didn't learn anything from my Elementary School indoctrination. Am I a terrorist?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 08:17 |
|
|
Is this an actual threat to people or is this just signing statements all over again?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 08:19 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:...I seriously didn't learn anything from my Elementary School indoctrination. Am I a terrorist? Possibly. Only the executive branch knows for sure.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 08:50 |
|
|
When you blow up everyone who hates the actions of the USA/West enough to do something violent? But blowing them up makes some people who knew them (or people killed in the act of said explosion) very hateful of that USA action. Unless you can create such an environment of sudden death that everyone is paralyzed by fear of acting out, it'll just go on. Maybe that's what they're going for. How the gently caress does it end?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 09:39 |
|
|
Captain Backslap posted:Is this an actual threat to people or is this just signing statements all over again? Realistically it's just a threat to people like al-Aulaqi (and if he was an "Average LF poster", then drat that forum must have been hard as gently caress), who probably already operate under the assumption of this possibly happening, but that can interfere with imaging about hellfires raining down on Zucoti park, and how it will happen any day now. To be fair, their is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the legal precedent it has the potential to set.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 10:22 |
|
|
quote:The few citizens who have ended up on this list are well aware that the US government is after them. If they were willing to stand trial or defend themselves in the court of law it would be as simple as having a lawyer arrange for their surrender in the US embassy, in which case if anything DID happen to them I would happily join the pitchfork brigade. I certainly wish it wasn't this much of a grey area but given a case where military intelligence has sufficiently convinced me that a citizen is a terrorist actively seeking physical harm against other citizens, who is aware of the case against them and chooses to hide in a remote country outside of our reach instead of standing trial in order to defend themselves against these charges, I would be hard pressed to come up with another answer to the problem. There were no charges filed against Awlaki. There was no court case. Personally, I think if your nation has recently tortured people accused of terrorism and held them without trial indefinitely it's a hard sell to ask someone to turn themselves in when you haven't even charged them with anything.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 10:33 |
|
|
Roumba posted:How the gently caress does it end? They're gonna paint Judge Dredd on the bombs and call it a day.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 10:54 |
|
|
 Holy poo poo! We blew up the Jewel?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 11:10 |
|
|
People are talking about war and all that poo poo, but from what I'm reading, nothing about this memo says that this applies only to enemy combatants outside of the US who happen to also be US citizens. It could just as well be used to bomb a guy in his home in Delaware without ever bothering to hold a trial or even formally accuse him of anything. Just say "that guy was a terrist" and the perpetrator is off scot free. No evidence required or asked for. How on Earth is that a good thing?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 11:33 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:Here it is. You are absolutely full of poo poo. I normally try to be more polite than that, but this is a colossal mistruth. Do you have any earthly idea how many soldiers are sitting on their asses in Afghanistan doing absolutely jack-poo poo? Most of them are ready to spin up and go on a mission at a moment's notice, but don't because they don't have one. We don't ignore these people's rights because we have no choice, we do it because we don't give a poo poo. That's right, sitting here in my tent in Afghanistan the only thing keeping me from Awlaki was.... oh ya transportation to entirely different continent and a full scale invasion of a brand new country. When we get back we can pop across the border and start a whole new war in Pakistan too! Good thing you told that other guy how full of poo poo he was.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 11:38 |
|
|
Didn't they do that for bin Laden? It is closer though.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 11:49 |
|
|
Vengarr posted:I feel like this is something of a non-issue if they're going to apply it as narrowly as they are in that memo. Any US Citizen working as a senior member of Al-Qaeda could easily be tried in absentia for treason and stripped of their citizenship, which would make them fair game for drone strikes anyway; and presumably, if they were working as a senior member of Al-Qaeda, the evidence wouldn't be difficult to produce. Only naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship that way. This poo poo affects natural born citizens in the exact same way, even though natural born citizens don't lose citizenship when convicted of treason. BoutrosBoutros fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 12:27 |
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:24 |
|
|
I'm like fairly certain that Executive Branch is a cigar brand endorsed by Snoop Dogg.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:26 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:They're gonna paint Judge Dredd on the bombs and call it a day. I'm fine with the whole concept as long as Obama is forced to wear a judge dredd helmet while approving the orders.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:29 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's right, sitting here in my tent in Afghanistan the only thing keeping me from Awlaki was.... oh ya transportation to entirely different continent and a full scale invasion of a brand new country. When we get back we can pop across the border and start a whole new war in Pakistan too! Good thing you told that other guy how full of poo poo he was. Don't be dense, I wasn't saying we could literally take any platoon in Afghanistan, fly them to Manas, and ship them off to wherever we've found a terrorist hiding. I'm saying that with the enormous amount of resources we are wasting in Afghanistan, claiming that we don't have the resources to track down and capture suspected terrorists is ridiculous.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:51 |
|
|
I can get behind this memo and what it represents if and only if DoJ lawyers are used as the missiles in the relevant drone strikes.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:57 |
|
|
Too bad they had to dispute the Dahlgren papers during the confederate insurgency, if they admitted to trying to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet they could have been heroes. Just kidding, Jefferson Davis was white.A Terrible Person posted:So, seriously... how far away are we from the US government just outright declaring everyone on earth as potential targets that can be justifiably killed at any time for any reason? Anubis posted:The US government bombing US citizens without trial? Gee, this has never happened in all of human history and is bound to slippery slope it's way into normal people getting killed!
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 12:58 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:People are talking about war and all that poo poo, but from what I'm reading, nothing about this memo says that this applies only to enemy combatants outside of the US who happen to also be US citizens. It could just as well be used to bomb a guy in his home in Delaware without ever bothering to hold a trial or even formally accuse him of anything. Just say "that guy was a terrist" and the perpetrator is off scot free. No evidence required or asked for. But, they'd never use it for that! Don't be ridiculous. Don't you TRUST our government? What are you, some kind of terrorist?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:03 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:People are talking about war and all that poo poo, but from what I'm reading, nothing about this memo says that this applies only to enemy combatants outside of the US who happen to also be US citizens. It could just as well be used to bomb a guy in his home in Delaware without ever bothering to hold a trial or even formally accuse him of anything. Just say "that guy was a terrist" and the perpetrator is off scot free. No evidence required or asked for. Any administration dumb enough to actually attack American citizens with drones inside the US wouldnohahhahahaha I can't do this.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:12 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:People are talking about war and all that poo poo, but from what I'm reading, nothing about this memo says that this applies only to enemy combatants outside of the US who happen to also be US citizens. It could just as well be used to bomb a guy in his home in Delaware without ever bothering to hold a trial or even formally accuse him of anything. Just say "that guy was a terrist" and the perpetrator is off scot free. No evidence required or asked for.  Why did you kill that guy? He was a terrorist! OkayExcept, you know, the media might ask questions, the guy's friends and family might want some answers, and, oh yeah, that vast legion of heavily armed paranoid schizophrenics a.k.a. Tea Partiers who are convinced that the US government is out to get them. Leaving aside the rest of the US citizenry, who might also show some concern. Get real. If this power were abused in any way to kill an innocent US citizen on US soil, that administration and anyone involved in the strike would be as good as dead. They might as well launch a drone strike on themselves.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 18:34 |
|
|
Un-l337-Pork posted:But, they'd never use it for that! Don't be ridiculous. Don't you TRUST our government? What are you, some kind of terrorist? I trust the government not to use this beyond the scope they've used to justify it because I think assuming the worst of authority without any evidence is a really childish thing to do (I might be biased there), but the thing is I still think it is wrong to claim, let alone exercise, powers like these even if they never cause collateral damage (Which they most certainly do) and even if every single person targeted really is a terrorist (Which they probably aren't).
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:21 |
|
