The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:58 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:16 am 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Khross wrote:
I'm surprised no one else read the FEC ruling last week ...

Oh, for ****'s sake... Could you just state what you're talking about?

AO 2011-15? That's an interesting ruling perhaps worthy of its own thread, but I don't see how it's more than tangentially related to the topic at hand.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:29 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Not as tangential as you might think, Stathol. For the most part, Americans and our government have no idea what constitutes treason. We have an extremely narrow and prohibitive definition that doesn't actually provide us with much benefit. So, if giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a treason, and the FEC just provided a mechanism for "the enemy" to bleed our electoral system ...

Well, there are more questions to ask about their ruling than some dude we ass-ploded with a drone strike.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
I must admit I'm torn. It's terrifying to "assassinate" American citizens, but at the same time, leaders of enemy organizations are legitimate targets.

He was actively engaged in war against the US - and as such is a target. I view this as similar to an attack on a confederate soldier. The North never considered them a separate country, so they were Americans.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:59 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
He wasn't firing on us so he was not actively engaged. He was riding in a car and our drone fired on him and killed him.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:13 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
If an American sniper did this, would the posters of the Glade feel any different? What if we put a radioactive isotope in him? Does the way we killed him affect how people here view this?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
"Actively engaged" is a terrible standard. By that logic, you can't shoot a barricaded hostage taker because he's not "actively engaged." Sure he's violating the rights of his hostages, but that's not really any different as Al-Awlaki has also violated the rights of many people, and neither of them get a trial.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:22 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Taking hostages is an active act Xeq.

People who have committed crimes are arrested and tried. People who are actively engaged in the commission of violence are attempted to be arrested.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:23 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
...

The definition of "active engagement" includes hostage and hold-out situations in most cases, simply because you had to take a) an action and b) engage yourself against either the law or its agents ...

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Rynar wrote:
Wait, wait, wait... You've felt yourself inclined to defend the Westboro Baptist Church before?


I don't agree with a lot of what they say but they have the same rights I enjoy. Yeah this guy is the same way I understand that at least academically.

I think the difference between spewing hateful garbage and sending guys to blow themselves up on airplanes is worth noting though.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Last edited by Rorinthas on Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I must admit I'm torn. It's terrifying to "assassinate" American citizens, but at the same time, leaders of enemy organizations are legitimate targets.

He was actively engaged in war against the US - and as such is a target. I view this as similar to an attack on a confederate soldier. The North never considered them a separate country, so they were Americans.

If he's actively engaged in a war against the US -- surely, our Congress has declared war on him? Can you refer us to that vote?

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
If he's actively engaged in a war against the US -- surely, our Congress has declared war on him? Can you refer us to that vote?


We didn't declare war on Iraq, Vietnam, or North Korea and China either.....I guess we're guilty of the genocide of millions then because of this technicality.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
The legalities aside, it's hard for me to gin up much concern that this guy was killed when he was busy targeting people for assassination on top of all the other **** he is alleged to have done:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/13/washin ... index.html

Quote:
Seattle, Washington (CNN) -- A Seattle cartoonist who drew a cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed has been warned by the FBI about death threats made against her by a radical cleric with ties to al Qaeda, an FBI agent said Tuesday.

"She should be taken as a prime target of assassination," terror suspect Anwar al-Awlaki purportedly wrote about cartoonist Molly Norris in an English-language magazine called Inspire that claimed to be a publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

"This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans" who are "going out of their way to offend Muslims worldwide," the article signed by al-Awlaki continued. Al-Awlaki is himself being sought in Yemen for his alleged role as a planner of the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound passenger plane on Christmas Day last year.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:43 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I wonder if people would feel different if Fruit of Kaboom had actually done something more than set his pants on fire.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Elmarnieh wrote:
He wasn't firing on us so he was not actively engaged. He was riding in a car and our drone fired on him and killed him.


I see, then you are opposed to any aerial / artillery bombardment, then, unless it's on anti-aircraft or enemy artillery in active use, etc. Also, opposed to the nukes we dropped on Japan, and would have been opposed to us dropping a bomb on Hitler's head.

Or is it somehow a different standard in this regard because of his citizenship?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
...when in actual service in time of War or public danger...

Due process seems to have exceptions.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:25 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
The Constitution wrote:
SECTION 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Constitution wrote:
AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Commas are apparently difficult ...

The two commas in bold surround a complete phrase appended to the end of a series. This exists because "the militia" is part of the series but not part "land or naval forces" which references the constitutionally proscribed U.S. Army and Navy. As such, that wonderful phrase "... when in actual service in time of war or public danger" only applies to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and "the militia".

There's not really any limitations on due process here, especially since ... convicting someone of treason and thereby punishing them for it requires a god damned trial. The Constitution is pretty clear there ...

You either need an open confession or a trial in absentia with two witnesses and an overt action ...

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Khross wrote:
Commas are apparently difficult ...

Well, duh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
FarSky wrote:
Khross wrote:
Commas are apparently difficult ...

Well, duh.

Double duh

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:51 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Look, it doesn't matter what he's accused of, or even how obvious it is that he is guilty. None of us are shedding a tear for Al-Awlaki. Good riddance to him and his ilk. That's not the point. The simple issue is whether or not the government should be allowed to execute its own citizens without any regard for due process at all. His case is not somehow an "obvious exception." Any exception at all opens the door to allow the government to do the same to anyone else they find inconvenient.

_________________
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

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
What about non-citizens? Should we be allowed to assassinate them? IF so, under what conditions?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Talya wrote:
Any exception at all opens the door to allow the government to do the same to anyone else they find inconvenient.

Which is irrelevant if due process allows for exceptions...which apparently, it does.

That takes it out of the "it's illegal!" camp and places it in "it SHOULD be illegal!" camp, which, obviously, is a different camp than folks are wanting it in.

Not that I care, the guy is past caring about...and I don't see me caring about the next American terrorist, either.

I guess I could cry crocodile tears so I could fit in with everyone else whining, but I just don't have it in me.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Midgen wrote:
What about non-citizens? Should we be allowed to assassinate them? IF so, under what conditions?


Yes, we should be able to assassinate as many Canadians as we like. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
He wasn't firing on us so he was not actively engaged. He was riding in a car and our drone fired on him and killed him.


I see, then you are opposed to any aerial / artillery bombardment, then, unless it's on anti-aircraft or enemy artillery in active use, etc. Also, opposed to the nukes we dropped on Japan, and would have been opposed to us dropping a bomb on Hitler's head.

Or is it somehow a different standard in this regard because of his citizenship?



Different standard because of his citizenship I mean hell read the Constitution.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Elmarnieh wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
He wasn't firing on us so he was not actively engaged. He was riding in a car and our drone fired on him and killed him.


I see, then you are opposed to any aerial / artillery bombardment, then, unless it's on anti-aircraft or enemy artillery in active use, etc. Also, opposed to the nukes we dropped on Japan, and would have been opposed to us dropping a bomb on Hitler's head.

Or is it somehow a different standard in this regard because of his citizenship?



Different standard because of his citizenship I mean hell read the Constitution.


The 14th Amendment makes it clear that laws apply to anyone under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:16 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Yeah, this guy was a terrorist (allegedly), and part of me is glad he's dead. It saddens me, however, that so many are so willing to throw away the protections afforded us by our Constitution, and dishonor the blood of so many who died to give us those freedoms. It's apparent in the people placidly accepting everything from the whole TSA "enhanced" searches to assassinating US citizens, that they are perfectly willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety (to use Franklin's words).

Sadly, they've not taken these words to heart either:
Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me

Lex Luthor wrote:

The 14th Amendment makes it clear that laws apply to anyone under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The full text of the first section of the 14th makes clear the error of that partial quote:

US Constitution wrote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States...
2) No State (i.e. one of the 50) shall...
3) Under the jurisdiction of the State (one of the 50)...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 247 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group