The Glade 4.0

Ah but you see, I'm generally not opposed to assassination under some circumstances. (other than my abhorance at killing anyone) If we accept that war is killing, striking at the leadership is certainly a valid tactic. Why should generals and political leaders not share the risks?

Indeed, they should be the primary targets.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Okay, fair enough. But neither of you answered my question, though. Would you feel differently if, twenty years down the road, you found out about this when some guy blabbed his mouth, instead of Obama holding a press conference the day after?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I think my point is that I'm saying it WAS an assassination therefor I'm not part of the group you're asking the question to

As I stated earlier, the government is under no obligation to tell us if they got OBL...most military actions like this are classified. They just have a vested interest in telling us this time.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

http://world-ice.com/Articles/Assassinations.pdf

It's an interesting article all around, beginning with a brief discussion on why the most powerful empires able to carry out an assassination without fear of reprisal have also historically been the most reluctant to utilize it. Page 5 points to a rather relevant tidbit, considering Taly's claim that no U.S. statute forbids them from assassinating Osama bin Laden. Let's see what our racist, slave-owning barbarian ancestors thought about the matter.



It is interesting that in our rise to enlightenment and casting off the grave sins of our past, we have relapsed into barbarism. The Lieber Code is (or was, I don't know if it's still in effect) a U.S. military regulation. It's not an international treaty imposed on our troops, although it apparently served as the basis for later treaties that would restrict acceptable actions by belligerent parties.

Bin Laden was killed by U.S. troops, ultimately under the order of members of the government who would have been bound by the relevant executive orders. Is it illegal? Well, after reading that article, that seems to be a tricky question. However, to say that there are no U.S. statutes to forbid assassinating bin Laden would be false. There most certainly are. Now, in the worst case scenario, one of the parties involved does possess the authority to issue full pardons.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Every person the government assassinates brings us closer to Nazi Germany / Soviet Russia / 1984.

Not to herp your derp there, but maybe you should reread that? Last I checked captor means: a person who has captured a person or thing. If they were using "English" then what they are describing above is summary execution, not assassination as you mean it.

/edit assassination: to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

_________________

You mean how the nazis tried to assassinate Hitler?

I find this all very humorous...

We're ok with dropping Navy Seals into private residences in foreign countries and ventilating the skulls of known terrorists, but somehow our sensibilities are offended if we take them into custody and dunk them in water...

Why would that be suprising? We forbid cruel and unusual punishment but it doesnt remove the possiblity of the death penalty.

I believe you're mistaking me for Montegue. Which is really offensive, actually. But anyway...

Once you take someone into custody, you have accepted responsibility for them as a prisoner. They're in your custody, subject to your laws, and your rules. If you never take them into custody, they're just enemy combatants. You know what you do with enemy combatants? You are not obligated to try to take enemy troops into custody. You don't need to try to minimize casualties, or force them to surrender. It's war. You can KILL THEM.

Does everyone forget what war is? People in Canada and the USA seem to get all upset every time a couple soldiers step on an IED and get blown up, and OMG Afghanistan/Iraq are costing us so much, so many lives.

Jesus Christ, the entire number of NATO troops lost in both countries in the last 8 years is about equal to one bad day in WW2. We've gotten soft. We think everything can be solved with morality and taking the high road and diplomacy. There are plenty of reasons you shouldn't have bothered going into Iraq, but this isn't one of them. Once you start a conflict, you kill. And you kill with extreme prejudice. Get the job done, and let nothing stand in your way. Don't handicap yourself with rules to restrict warfare - Do what must be done to win as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Diamondeye had a quote in his signature once, it was quite good. I can only remember the substance of it, not the exact words, but it went, "Countries do not survive by being an example for others. They survive by making an example of others." Like it or not, it's true. That's how the world works. It's human nature. You can let your hearts bleed all you want about ideology and rights and freedom and other bullshit. You have your freedom and rights only to the extent your government is willing to deny other people of their rights to protect that freedom. Everything is relative, and all-in-all, I'd rather be in the country/alliance of countries that survives and protects its people by being the big bad gorilla, than the one that takes some moral high road and falls by the wayside. Massive wars of imperialism (along with the intrigue and espionage that goes with it) are the default state of humankind. We're in a 66 year lull right now. It will happen again. And the way we act about it these days, society won't be prepared to deal with it when it does.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Taly, we haven't gotten soft. Our sense of outrage scales with the conflict. If we care about 5 soldiers being killed now, it's only because it's not as common as it was in WWII. If we lost 2,000 every day, we wouldn't be outraged over 5.

Also, I question how "outraged" we really are about the numbers killed. We like to say we are... but we're not.

I'm not sue what this has to do with the issue since OBL was not, you know, captured, when he was shot.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

At which point, we're essentially an elected monarchy or something.

Break all the laws you want, so long as you've got the backing of the King to pardon you for your crimes done at his implied behest.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Apart from the whole bit where in a democracy that power has been granted by the people

No, Kaffis is quite correct that the presidential pardon is one of the most controversial powers of the office, and one that almost wasn't given to him. Also, don't kid yourself - you didn't elect Obama any more than the people elected Bush in 2000 and 2004, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, etc. Fewer than half the states in the Union have laws requiring their electors to vote in accordance with the state, and as Taly said to me once a number of years ago, if a third-party candidate ever happened to carry the popular vote in enough states, we would find out exactly how little influence we really have over the office of the presidency as the electoral college handed the position to either the Red or Blue candidate.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

If I were made dictator for a day, I would dictate that no current democrats or republicans be eligible for the next presidential election....

That would be pretty sweet.

I assume you mean nobody currently holding public office as a Democrat or Republican, right? Or nobody registered to vote as either?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I think assassination when you're not at war with someone is kind of tacky. (Castro)

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I hadn't given it that much thought. And I don't have any particular individuals in mind.

It would mainly be for my own entertainment value, getting to watch peoples heads explode...

I'm gonna need more clarification. Let's set Kaffis' question aside for a moment.

Do you mean ineligible to run for the office of presidency, or ineligible to take part in the election at all? (Meaning, **** can't vote, either).

Now, with that in mind, let's get back to Kaffis' question.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Your ideas intrigue me, but to be honest, my original idea was just to not let any republican or democrat currently in office run again, but that seems rather short sighted...

Lets establish the boundary at any Republican or Democrat who has received campain donations of any kind, has registered to run for office at any level, or has publically stated an intent to do so...

No intentions of restricting who can actually vote, because watching their heads explode when they go to the polls would be part of the fun...

The abolition of partisan politics. I would go for this. I'd actually even be happy with hiding party affiliation on ballots. (Kaffis's idea, i believe.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That would hardly abolish partisan politics. You'd see 2 new parties under 2 new names with a bunch of new candidates within several years.

In the meantime, you'd see the lunatic fringe on each side try to sneak in a few candidates.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."