~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'd say she has narcissistic personality disorder. If you read up on Ayn's life, she meets every single criteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/>> ^enoch:
ayn rand=sociopath



i can agree with that.
total lack of empathy,a sense of inflated importance.
many of the criteria on that list are also under sociopathy but your suggestion seems a bit more succinct.
@Fade
i dont understand what you think i am wrong on or where we may disagree.maybe you agree with her stance on palestine and if that is the case then i submit that coming to that conclusion ignores 100 yrs of occupation,deception,murder,assasination,oppression and a litany of human rights violations and war crimes perpetrated by the state of isreal.
my comment of ayn rand=sociopath is my way of stating publicly my feelings on this woman and that i regard anything she espouses in that context.
her understanding and philosophy is like that of a child and i view anything she opines about with that in mind.
it is also why i am at a loss why so many give her authority....about anything.

HERP DERP DERP. No shit.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
No nuke was detonated over germany. Time to read a book.




In reply to this comment by budzos:
I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

No nuke was detonated over germany. Time to read a book.




In reply to this comment by budzos:
I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

>> ^The_Ham:

I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.
First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.
Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)

Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes


Or... Or... I would have turned the sun into a continuous ray of joy that would shine down on everyone and stun them all into complacent happiness. And then I would call down my mighty unicorn stead and fly around throwing bagels of satisfaction to compliment the ray of joy.

Obviously that is silliness, but I feel the same way. When I read history books, I constantly find myself... well, simply ashamed of people not acting in the way I think they should have. I've heard that saying about "walking a mile in someone's shoes", but I think it is utter b.s. because the only thing that matters is what I think. I don't need to know what they were thinking at the time or the external forces involved, I want to judge based only on what I know right now and, damnit, no one is going to stop me. This is my right because no situation in the past is ever different from the situation that I am in right now. Other people don't seem to realize that and it is my burden to have to deal with those cretins. It is a solemn task to have to judge all of this past actions by everyone, but I feel it is my duty to do so because I am right.

I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

Someone should honor Cheney with a lifetime achievement award, to be presented at a ceremony of magistrates in The Netherlands....

When he shows up to claim his "prize," a war crimes tribunal can be held and the man can rot for the rest of his pitiful days in a dank dark dungeon in the fucking Hague.

>> ^marbles:

@cheerleaders for Western colonialism and imperialism
This is what you support:
http://videosift.com/video/Make-No-Mistake-NATO-committed-War-Cri
mes-in-Libya
Get ready for the occupation force in Libya, the advance on Syria, and maybe even a confrontation with Iran.
http://videosift.com/video/Military-Sources-Reveal-Ground-For
ce-Invasion-of-Libya
http://videosift.com/video/World-War-III-Defined-Wider-War-
Unfolding-in-Middle-East
This has been planned out for at least 10 years.
Gareth Porter: General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.


And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

@cheerleaders for Western colonialism and imperialism

This is what you support:

http://videosift.com/video/Make-No-Mistake-NATO-committed-War-Crimes-in-Libya

Get ready for the occupation force in Libya, the advance on Syria, and maybe even a confrontation with Iran.
http://videosift.com/video/Military-Sources-Reveal-Ground-Force-Invasion-of-Libya
http://videosift.com/video/World-War-III-Defined-Wider-War-Unfolding-in-Middle-East

This has been planned out for at least 10 years.
Gareth Porter: General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

I find it wildly ironic that so many Americans claim to want transparency but hate Assange for showcasing the corruption in our government and the war crimes perpetrated in our name on a world stage.



Besides, its not like he only targeted America

@blankfist I have to say, this is just getting sad. A City Council deciding on a building fire code regulation? Aren't there real injustices still happening in the world?

IMO, the people objecting raised mostly reasonable questions about it. The video doesn't show the answer to the reasonable questions, just to the boneheaded ones (e.g. you mean you're going ahead even though we whined at you in person?). If people don't like what the council does, they have plenty of recourse to take.

The council are all elected officials, and the people objecting are unable to make their case to the people of the city about why this should move their vote in the next election. They can file suit against the law if they think it violates some sort of Constitutional statute. Or worst comes to worst, sue the city if something does indeed go wrong and they incur damages because of the lockbox.

As to the conversation @GeeSussFreeK and @Skeeve are having about "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea", while I agree that statement is true, it also is almost a non sequitur. Gallileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church for saying things that later turned out to be true. George Bush wasn't tried for war crimes, even though he's directly confessed to ordering crimes against humanity (waterboarding).

If you want to see your meritorious ideas gain the force of law, you need to win popular support for those meritorious ideas. Saying "free speech is in the Constitution" isn't at all a guarantee you're going to be legally allowed to speak your mind. Free speech (or any other right you think you're entitled to), will only persist as long as a significant portion of the population feel strongly that you should have it.

So back to the actual lockbox case. Suppose the government accepted all liability for damages that may result from lockbox abuse. Does that set your minds at ease? If not, what "right" is it you think is being violated?

and no offense


Lets not pretend you weren't well aware of the offense in your post.

but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought


I'm talking about psychology, and the reasons people do things. That's very different than justification. And where did I say the war should have happened? Do you think it should have happened? Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand: American political support for "hitting back" was a prime reason the war happened. D

because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right


So, in summary, you're dismissing me (and anyone who doesn't fit in with your narrow world view) as some kind of sheep. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone hand wave away an argument this way on the Internet, I'd have many dollars.

But yeah - I'm sure you meant "no offense". You won't catch me saying "no offense" in this post - I think your world view is the result of living in an Internet echo chamber, and only reading the sites and absorbing the opinions of people who agree with you. Yes, I read mainstream news (here in Canada I don't see a lot of Fox or CNN, but I like the BBC/CBC). I also read a lot on the web. Lots of left leaning stuff, but also conservative commentators like Instapundit who, while I don't usually agree with, sometimes has insights and news that shake my preconceptions. That's important.

etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind


Yeah - you don't understand the very rich and powerful. To the extent that they want money, they want money to "win" - to make the deal or be part of a big transaction or be right, or leverage that money to the next win. But their prime motivator is glory, and validation (especially public, but also from friends and other people in power). People who aren't rich don't get this because there's a bunch of stuff they want and can't buy. They can't imagine what it would be like to have "enough" money and power. Nothing George Bush wants (and doesn't already have) can be had for money, and nobody who's opinion he cares about cares how much money he has. Glory, legacy, victory - that's what motivates a guy with all the power in the world.

The other thing you don't understand is that these guys (and most people in general) don't do things they think are wrong. George Bush, however stupid you think he is, doesn't think "oooh, if we invade we'll get all this money". The advisers who know they'll make a profit, they make a difference, sure. Of course money is a factor. The group think carries a strong confirmation bias for the course that will make money. But, in the end, people in that room are building on an honest base of "we'll kill some terrorists" and "they hit us first".

There's many corners of Internet group think where "the most cynical guy must be right". This is a normal stage in intellectual development, as you move into questioning your parents' and teachers' worldview. It's healthy to an extent, but too many people now get stuck there forever - the availability of like minds on the Internet amplifies this effect. You have to understand, though, that this kind of worldview isn't reality and doesn't help you understand the world. Just as not everything is as it seems, not everything is not as it seems.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe that the "people at the top" are hyper competent string pullers - but looking back at history, it's scarcely right. The sad, scary reality is that they're people a lot like us. And until you understand that, you'll never understand world politics or history.

opec suddenly deciding to only sell oil for actual gold isn't a conspiracy... its a possibility

the NATO response and the reasons behind it is where the "conspiracy" lay...



and no offense, but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought

how people in the US think that they are somehow above International Law, and that emotion is a good motivation to act that way is beyond me... its moronic really, and that their government's main motivation being money or strategic positioning is somehow like "Alien Anal Probes" in terms of believability is even beyond that

if you aren't aware that the US (let alone most[if not all] Western nations) couldn't operate "AT ALL" based on its actual liquidity, but only on its ability to acquire credit... and how this system benefits them, yet hinders developing nations... I don't think any reason will reach you

somehow the corporations (military contractors) are money motivated... but their lobbies, or promise of "consulting jobs" after terms of service, etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind... nope, motivations based on money/power stop at the corporate level, and don't seep into world politics at all



and "secret motivation" is hilarious, because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right? because if you didn't... stories like this wouldn't be so rare that you'd actually refer to it as a "secret"



foreigners don't dislike American's because of their freedoms, they dislike them because with they waste them and accept the first and most convenient drivel fed to them... seriously