The Glade 4.0

Yea no ****. I've understood Hopwin to be saying, "the government should be allowed to assassinate people because its nearly identical to a police officer shooting somebody under immediate threat of danger."

If that's not what he's been saying, we've officially wasted about 3 pages of thread.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I've been trying to make the argument that A) this power isn't any different from police powers and B) the situation should dictate the outcome. There are times it is inappropriate (target is in bed, at McDonald's, just ranting online) where no action should be taken, there are times when it is wholly justified (imminent threat to others such as holding a gun to someone elses head or with a bomb strapped to their chest) and times when it is not so cut and dry (stated course of action by target and behavior that leads one to believe they are about to follow through).

The original article made it sound like this is a new power, that the government was killing people in their sleep while they held their wives and that it is always wrong.

_________________

Except that it is.

It's assassinating people. It's designating you as a terrorist, and disappearing you.



No, it's not new. It's just being defended by Obama.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well, if you're targeting some Imam just because he's cheering for terrorists, that is pretty much a new power that is the same as killing people in their bed. If it were just a matter of killing Americans who come fire rifles for the Taliban in the heat of battle it wouldn't be an issue if for no other reason than that you probably wouldn't even know who they were until after you killed them.

I don't think that there have been a whole lot of Americans involved in the actual pulling of triggers or launching of missiles and such overseas, and so I have to imagine that any that have been targeted (other than that "American Taliban" guy they captured in the intial push into Afghanistan) have been so because of what they're saying, who they're associating with, or for actions that would constitute "conspiracy" or "attempt" back here. It wouldn't justify deadly force against a citizen here, so why would it there?

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

I think you have a higher chance of choking on hot dogs than being assassinated by the U.S. government on U.S. soil, DFK. It's not a big deal.

Just as point of order, it's more about blowing you up or shooting you rather openly, not "disappearing" you.. although it could of course lead to that.



The entire issue, Lex, is U.S. citizens being targetted when they are not on U.S. soil, and there should not be any chance of that except when they are actually engaged in using a weapon against someone, or when it happens as collateral damage to a legitimate target.

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

Yes, yes, you're an authoritarian who's cool with the government murdering people. We get it that that's what you've chosen as your internet persona. STFU about it already, troll.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Usage was in the general sense of if you're dead, you're gone.

I see how you might make a distinction, though disappearing people (and not killing them) is already allowed through extraordinary rendition. So yes, it's fully capable of happening and may have already occurred.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I would vote the same way too, if I cared about voting. It isn't "trolling".

DE, I may be way off base but I don't think anyone is concerned about killing US Citizens who are in another country in a combat zone.


As opposed to labelling you a criminal and arresting you, or assuming that your pellet gun is a true rifle and shooting you or assuming the reason your van is full of fertilizer and TNT is because you want to blow up a building instead of take care of your farm...

Yes the above are all strawmen but also very plausible in a state of heightened sensitivity and fear.

_________________

All you do it troll. That's your sheer purpose because you want to get rises out of people, because you think it's fun.



If you acknowledge that they're "strawmen" (rather, false analogies, really) why state them? To further not prove your point? I don't understand.

Arresting people isn't assassinating them.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Hence the exception.



The difference between those assumptions and the "you're a terrorist assumption" is that you're presenting an immediate threat by poiting a pellet gun at someone, and if they assume it is a pellet gun, there's a real chance someone will immediately and directly die if that turns out to be wrong.. not to mention that a pellet gun can put someone's eye out.

If someone is parked under a bridge with just fertilizer, then no, it's not a safe assumption they're doing anything, but if they've been making threatening statements as in your previous examples, or have TNT along with it as in this example, than it's a safe assumption they aren't just taking care of their farm.

Yes, eventually assumptions get made. Assumptions, however, are not always bad, nor are all assumptions created equal.

I see how you might make a distinction, though disappearing people (and not killing them) is already allowed through extraordinary rendition. So yes, it's fully capable of happening and may have already occurred.


Extraordinary rendition does not apply to U.S. citizens, so while "disappearing" has occured, it still doesn't pertain to this issue unless it's started happening to U.S. citizens.. although it technically ouldn't be rendition even if it did; it'd be.. something else; I don't know if a term exists.

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

Much different.

A crimminal is accorded a specific set of protections according to our justice system. Such as facing his accusers, a speedy trial, representation, a trial by jury (not just a jury trial), presumption of innocence, barring evidence ilelgally obtained, and on and on and on, including a set system of penalties.

This is one person not providing evidence, just issuing a declaration, and having the person killed.

Extremely different as in in no way even comparable let alone the same.

_________________
"...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

A police officer can you shoot you on the spot if you have a weapon and rights be damned.

_________________

A police officer can do many things. Whether or not they should, or if said action is even legal, is an entirely different matter.

_________________

What a police officer "should" do, or anyone for that matter, is an extremely complicated question. You first need to construct a philosophical framework incorporating life's ultimate purpose.

Except there is an investigation into the police officer's actions to determine if they actually had legal authority and if not they are punished.

This would be tantamount to a police officer able to shoot anyone for any reason with no investigation.

_________________
"...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

No he can't. You have to actually be doing something illegal with the weapon that is an immediate danger to someone else.

Unless you just mean it's physically possible.. in which case, well, duh.

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

Actually in the article, the investigation has to come first. You need authorization.

_________________

What it would really be is like the police officer going to the mayor and saying "I think I need to shoot Big Al Canole because he's traffiking drugs" and the mayor saying "Go for it" and that being somehow legit.

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

No it would be an NSA Analyst going to his superior and saying, "Jimmy Wayne McAnally has been posting a lot of crap about blowing up the Federal Reserve in NY and according to our records he has been buying fertilizer, blasting caps and just rented a van." Then his superior barking it up the chain. Ultimately they are given authorization to kill him if needed but I'd imagine they would authorize it as a last resort.

_________________

It wouldn't be a last resort until he was actually there with the bomb ready to set it off, in which case the authorization would be pointless because he could be shot out of hand as an imminent threat.

He could probably be arrested at the point that he started assembling the stuff into a car bomb, but while the investigation might be monitored at higher levels, whoever had the lead ont he investigation could decide to arrest him at whatever point he thought he had probable cause. There'd be no need for authorization for that either.

The problem here is the executive branch giving itself authorization to kill people. Really, the courts shouldn't be authorizing citizens to be killed without trial either but it would at least be an attempt at due process.

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