Election 2012

[Scheavo]

Because they're not unlawful or unconstitutional? Never said they weren't objectionable, I'm just commenting on how the author arranged and phrased those objections.

[skydivingninja]

You see nothing wrong or unlawful about assassinating your own citizens without due process?

[rumborak]

What is this assassination thing referring to?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

You see nothing wrong or unlawful about assassinating your own citizens without due process?

When said person is committing treason, and activity engaging in what can most closely be called warfare, then ya, due process doesn't involve a court appearance. It's pretty ridiculous to say that this is "assassinating" an American "citizen."

Fuck, Lincoln was responsible for hundreds of thousands of American lives being killed. It's called War.

[antigoon]

Treason isn't just some conclusion that the President can arrive at. Its parameters are in Article 3 of the Constitution. Usually we hold trials to figure out what someone is or isn't responsible for before we, uh, kill him. If something like this can be justified as part of the War on Terror, what isn't justified? And this nebulous "war" will never end as our foreign policy only reinforces hatred of our country. So are these targeted assassinations always going to be justifiable?


I'd love for Obama and Romney to be asked, "How do you end a war on terror?" at one of their debates.

[rumborak]

What is this assassination thing referring to?

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'd love for Obama and Romney to be asked, "How do you end a war on terror?" at one of their debates.

Even as a huge supporter of Obama, I would definitely like to see this as well.

[antigoon]

What is this assassination thing referring to?

rumborak

https://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001-57

[skydivingninja]

You see nothing wrong or unlawful about assassinating your own citizens without due process?

When said person is committing treason, and activity engaging in what can most closely be called warfare, then ya, due process doesn't involve a court appearance. It's pretty ridiculous to say that this is "assassinating" an American "citizen."

Fuck, Lincoln was responsible for hundreds of thousands of American lives being killed. It's called War.

That's a horrible comparison.  The civil war was a clearly defined war with a clearly defined enemy, with lives being lost on the battlefield.  Two sides engaging in armed conflict.  That's actual war. 

Now this situation is nothing like that.  The CIA, with Obama's approval, targeted a citizen and assassinated him without bringing him to trial.  You find an American citizen has ties to terrorist groups?  You arrest the motherfucker and put him on trial.  You have proof, great, prove it then kill him.  Its not like he was holding up a convenience store when he was killed.  The crime hadn't happened yet.  As Antigoon said, that right to due process is in the constitution.  He could have been planning to burn my parents alive for all I know, but that doesn't make what happened to him lawful or right. 

I also would love to see both candidates give an honest answer to really "ending" the war on terror.  See if any of them are willing to give up the power that Washington has abused.  Chances are they won't be.

[Scheavo]

Just becuase this isn't conventional war, doesn't mean this isn't War. He put up a video, on line for anyone to see, calling for people to take up arms against the US. He actively recruited people to fight the US. Any trial to prove his guilt would have been a complete show trial, seeing as how a defense wouldn't have been mounted.

[skydivingninja]

Yeah, its war, but this was a US citizen.  He was allowed to be assassinated without trial, against the constitution, against his natural rights, for goodness sake.  That's just plain wrong.  Especially if it would have been an easy conviction, as you imply.  Convict him in a heartbeat, then execute him ASAP.  Problem solved and you do things the lawful way without alienating voters who fear you're increasing wartime powers way more than necessary. 

[Super Dude]

Actually it's one of the big problems we still have to deal with in a new kind of war. And normally I don't argue from this perspective because it does basically give Obama and co. the green flag to continue Patriot Act nonsense, but the rules have changed. We're not fighting on battlefields against armies with uniforms anymore. And I don't think it has to scale up to the sort of paranoia and "guilty until proven innocent" insanity of the last eleven years, but it is going to change the legal and military definitions of a civilian and a soldier permanently.

[skydivingninja]

And I can understand that, its certainly nothing we've really faced as a country, but there are principles we need to stand by, and not shooting any citizen we think is a secret terrorist ought to be one of them.

[Scheavo]

And I can understand that, its certainly nothing we've really faced as a country, but there are principles we need to stand by, and not shooting any citizen we think is a secret terrorist ought to be one of them.

This is like comparing taxes to me personally going over to your house, pointing a gun at your head, and demanding money. Meaning, it's silly. This wasn't "any citizen," and he wasn't a "secret terrorist." He was a recruiter, he was open about what he did and what he thought, and anyone with an internet connection can verify that.

Ya know, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Lincoln is perhaps the worst offender of personal and civil liberties in this countries history. Notice how history has sorta overlooked that aspect of his Presidency? And notice how those fears about what would happen in the future, that this sets some sort of Precedent, hasn't come true? We imprisoned pretty much every Japanese on the western coast in WWII. Notice how it didn't set up some precedent?

[Super Dude]

And Jews can join the army and settle in the southern states.

[rumborak]

Yeah, the problem is, how do you have due process and trial for someone who lives in Yemen? Any "trial" you could try to have would be a mockery since the accused can't defend himself. And I'm sure you agree that this loophole can't mean a US citizen can do whatever he wants (including treason) just because he makes a trial impossible. Because otherwise any all Qaeda person would have an entourage of willing US citizens.
Is it a disturbing precedent? Yes. Was there an alternative? I don't think so.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

I'm a little bit torn on this one.  The dude they whacked with a drone doesn't exactly garner a boat load of sympathy from me as a "United States Citizen" who was "assassinated" to be honest.

I mean, I get the concept that people are concerned about, but not everything is that black and white.  There are always going to be exceptions to some rules and I think when we make ourselves so rigid in our rules that we can't bend them from time to time for good reason, then we're not really doing ourselves any favors.  The case of this terrorist shitbag getting taken out by a drone in a foreign country being couched as "An American Citizen being assassinated without due process" is really very misleading if you don't know the details of the case.  They make it sound like John Q. Citizen was enjoying a nice family dinner somewhere when someone sneaked up behind him and put a bullet in his head for no reason, and that's definitely not what happened with this guy.

[rumborak]

It's also not too different from someone hiding in a house and shooting around. Soon enough the SWAT team will take you out because the body of evidence is crushing and you are continuing to endanger lives. Those people don't get a trial either before being "assassinated" by the government.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

That's a pretty good analogy Rumby

[hefdaddy42]

That's a pretty good analogy Rumby

[kirksnosehair]

Saw this just now and thought it was worthy of addition to this thread.

[rumborak]

The article actually raises an interesting point: How come Paul isn't pro-choice? Seems to me the liberty of self-determination and responsibility for the woman should be paramount.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

The article actually raises an interesting point: How come Paul isn't pro-choice? Seems to me the liberty of self-determination and responsibility for the woman should be paramount.

rumborak

He's a Republican, seeking the Republican nomination for president.    This is one of the dozens of reasons he could never win that nomination.  His lack of warmongering doesn't help either.

[Ħ]

Ron Paul spoke at my school yesterday. Apparently he wants us back on the gold standard - I never knew that. Yeah, I'm not voting for this guy.

[Super Dude]

Ron Paul spoke at my school yesterday. Apparently he wants us back on the gold standard - I never knew that. Yeah, I'm not voting for this guy.

Which is funny considering how in a TV debate with Paul Krugman he vehemently denied it.

[kirksnosehair]

Ron Paul spoke at my school yesterday. Apparently he wants us back on the gold standard - I never knew that. Yeah, I'm not voting for this guy.

Which is funny considering how in a TV debate with Paul Krugman he vehemently denied it.

Apparently he's all over the map with this, because.....

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency.

SOURCE

Note, however, that it reads "was" not "is"

[Super Dude]

Yeah, I just think he has no idea what he's talking about. Here's the video for those who are interested:

https://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

[chknptpie]

An interesting video, although I have no idea what attack ad is being referenced. Also the tumblr statement is quite funny.

https://www.upworthy.com/this-is-how-you-kill-an-attack-ad

[J51]

Is Obama more popular than he should be? I thought this article was pretty interesting: https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/is-obama-more-popular-than-he-should-be/

[Super Dude]

A very interesting article indeed, and a nice silver lining after all the political negativity of the last three years.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I just think he has no idea what he's talking about. Here's the video for those who are interested:

https://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

Jeez Louise. Paul got destroyed on that. To put it bluntly, he is a gynecologist rambling about economic policy.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Isn't he actually?

[skydivingninja]

The article actually raises an interesting point: How come Paul isn't pro-choice? Seems to me the liberty of self-determination and responsibility for the woman should be paramount.

rumborak

I think he's said that his experiences as a doctor lead him to believe that life begins at conception. 

[rumborak]

Isn't he actually?

That's my point. I read a commentary about the interview where the guy said after listening to Paul it's rather apparent that his economics is mostly a series of assertions, none of which are particularly grounded in evidence. As Krugman himself pointed out later, the problem is that Paul gets away with those statements because there's no way to put a pause on it and check the validity of his assertions. He just rattles on, and unless you do a followup yourself to inform yourself better you'll never know that most of his beliefs are based on "the good ol' days where everything was better. Oh, and government sucks.".

rumborak

[Sigz]

Wait, the Roman empire fell because they diluted metal?