And, setting aside the "obvious arguement" that there are "invasive" religions, cults, armies, colours and creeds, does that justify the extermination of ANY that cannot defend themselves? Your justification for mass extermination on the grounds that it is; "not a particularly nasty way to do it," is quite disturbing as, you may recall, the mass killing of "invasive" species has already been attempted. It was called the Holocaust.

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



sorry i live in a "single payer system"

i know people who work in multiple departments/sectors of healthcare...everything from doctors, to home care, to IT

and i can say with full knowledge and satisfaction, that your statement that a single payer system drives up costs/inefficiencies is either ill informed, or completely full of bs...

the notion of competition as being the great equalizer is moronic, in a system where insurance companies spend 100s of millions of dollars lobbying to get the game rules changed in their favor... insurance companies main goal is to make profit... they do that by minimizing cost/quality of service while maximizing return... if you can't see how that contradicts the purpose of health care, you are either naive or morally bankrupt

the arguement that businesses are held to be more financially responsible than government is also a lie... a business only has the financial obligation to report accurate numbers while being fiscally sound... the government has that exact same obligation, but further more has to show VALUE for what it is doing

your argument about Coke mystically assumes Coke is the only drink, thus they could set the price at whatever they want... I assume you are making the arguement that Coke is healthcare? but a company who's goal is to sell coke to make profit... that's an insurance company.... a company who has to be accountable to the people giving it money while making sure that the MOST people have cheap and easy access to coke... that'd be the government

you can either argue that government operates the same as business (as you are trying to do with your horrible coke analogy), or you can argue that they operate differently (as most people who back the business produces better financial results than government argue)... but you don't get to argue both in the space of 2 paragraphs

you, sir or madam, have taken a big old swig of the kool-aid

>> ^kymbos:

How has Gillard taken Australia 'so far backwards'?


Economically? Damaging our standing as a world class location for mining operations.

Financially? Sinking Australia into debt that the Libs spend 3 long terms digging us out of.

Morally? Sinking so low as to tarnish the reputation of femininity by spouting sexism whenever her per action or performance are called into question. Allowing her party to be ridiculously swayed by the pleas of the Greens who are - imo - just plain bad for the country. Consistantly not only breaking election promises, but doing just the opposite in many cases (OK, this is not that uncommon but to call others out as liars while possessing the trait yourself is pathetic).

Honestly, it's an arguement I can't be bothered putting a lot more effort than this into - but if you can't see what a step backwards the ALP and Gillard have been from the previous government, I worry even more for the future of this country.

Peter Hitchens makes a good point about Brand not being able to deal in anything other than generalities though... good will, benevolence, etc are attitudes not plans/strategies... and aren't easily tied to a dollar figure... which is what the CRUX of the debate is about... some people place more value on $, some on compassion


Peter Hitchens tries to feign compassion by saying if drug addiction affects one family of course they care... well, compassion isn't compassion if you limit it only to yourself or those that directly affect you... REAL compassion isn't delimited by whether or not you know the person in question or not... REAL compassion is self-less

when the jingle in your pockets affects your "compassionate" view... you don't have a very compassionate view in the first place ( i guarantee some blockhead will try to take this to an extreme, such as "then why don't you give up all your money to help those less fortunate than you" instead of realizing that's not then end of the spectrum where my arguement comes from... it actually comes from reality where people don't wanna have to give up luxury [as opposed to necessity] to help someone that they can just as easily ignore or vilify)

and while the comment earlier about incarceration in the US is "somewhat" on the mark, lets not forget that the US prison system exists as it is primarily because its a private, for profit, industry... which shapes drug policy (gotta have your customer base - i mean inmates)

criminalization has always had an impotent effect on controlling drugs... from prohibition to THE WAR ON DRUGS (and the resulting chaos one finds in Mexico because of it)

there are PLENTY of countries that currently use legalization/rehabilitation as a much better deterrent/control; but we don't want to talk about those... because someone is making money of keeping them illegal, and where'd the poor politicians get their kickbacks from then?

strawman arguement... check

everyone's belief's are equally good fallacy... check

atheist generalization... check


irony of how much atheism actually interferes with a religious person's life as opposed to converse... STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN

>> ^packo:

>> ^Sagemind:
So is that a reaction from dropping the trash in? Or is it a reaction from breaking a hole into the cooled crust which creates a spout, letting the hotter lava escape from the heat pressured mass?

don't use science to take away a hippy's arguement man
that just ain't cool


It is if you throw the Hippy in to test the theory. o.0

>> ^Sagemind:

So is that a reaction from dropping the trash in? Or is it a reaction from breaking a hole into the cooled crust which creates a spout, letting the hotter lava escape from the heat pressured mass?


don't use science to take away a hippy's arguement man
that just ain't cool

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

Wait, I am confused... Obama is black, and usually presumed guilty before innocent as a black man first. We agree on that 100% I assume...but the proper way to word your argument would have been, "when a black man is shot and killed by a Hispanic, you are here insisting the Hispanic guy is innocent until proven guilty."

If we say Zimmerman is for the most part white, then Obama is white too, and that's just retarded... We know society goes by racial clumping and that shit is not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard "White Hispanic" in my life--when the Media wants to stir up shit for dollar's sake.

If it had been Zimmerman shot by a KKK member, who thinks the fucking paper would label it a white-on-white crime? Who on the sift would label it as such?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media% 20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.
Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.
That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%
20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.


And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.

Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.

That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift

I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.

But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".

What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...

Innocent until proven guilty.

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.

Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%20Bias

The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

arguement, flag on boat taken from 1 bridge to another 6 miles away... on a curved earth the flag at that distance should have dropped 16ft, but a telescope placed 18 inches above the water at the first bridge didn't need correction to still see the flag

followed immediately by, astronauts in space seeing the Earth from orbit, taking pictures of a spherical planet... yet this isn't disproving a flat earth, it's proving because gravity affects light thus that is what you are seeing, the curvature of the light

sounds like when something fits your theory, its used
and when it doesn't, its not used
hmmmmmmmmmmm

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

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.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

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... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

>> ^packo:

>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)


You misunderstand.

It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.

The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.

You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example

the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life

the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE

the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate

as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant

holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)