Well, my response was not meant to be taken entirely seriously.

That said, most of the people @blankfist is talking about (his "democratic friends") probably have reasons not a million miles away from that.

As to whether secession is an inherent right, I don't know; it's a complicated question.

Legally, not really. Obviously, anything in international law is kinda murky with different jurisdictions etc, but there doesn't seem to be much support for the concept as a blanket rule. In individual cases, where there is a significant cultural difference, it can happen and with the backing of the parent country and the international community.

What is certain is that there is no legal framework that would allow secession in any form from the USA.

Morally and ethically? Jesus, that's a minefield. In theory, I could get behind the idea that if you have a well defined geographical region with a majority population that wants independence, you should be allowed to do that.

In practice, it's kind of a nightmare and often leads to all kinds of suffering and misery (I don't really need to list examples, do I?).

So yeah, as in so many things in life, the answer is "it depends".

There is no statute of limitations in the offense of the First degree (premeditated) murder by Federal agents of Randy Weaver's wife and son in 1992. Justice has not been served yet.
I sent the following message to Idaho Governor Butch Otter via both is Facebook page and via a direct link to his state website. I'd like to challenge all of you to do the same. Just copy & paste everything below the line. His contact information is at the bottom.
---------------------------------------------------
Remembering the Real Story of Ruby Ridge Idaho - August 21 1992
From >> [url redacted]
Uncovering government corruption at Ruby Ridge
According to FBI Grand Jury Testimony, US Marshals were involved in the cover up, the media, and the story from the Weaver's perspective...

Today, you are considered an "extremist" by the ADL and SPLC if you think the actions taken here by the Federal Government were out of hand. For the first time in US history, the FBI was given permission from cabinet members of the George HW Bush administration to change their Rules of Engagement to, "can and should shoot to kill" effectively rendering the US Constitution useless. A young boy was shot in the back and killed by US Marshals, and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi later shot and killed Vicky Weaver while she was unarmed and holding her 10 month old baby in her arms. This incident serves as an educational tool to all Americans on just how useless our coveted Constitution is to the Federal Government when you cross them. I do not endorse violence towards the Federal Government. This is simply the closest I could come to the real truth without media/Government disinformation.

You have to ask yourself, even in this age of information, why is it so hard to find the truth about Ruby Ridge?

See the following links for more information:
[url redacted]

The Preliminary Hearings of Weaver and Harris -
[url redacted]

New York Times Propaganda -
[url redacted]

DOJ Whitewashing and Final Report on FBI wrongdoing -[url redacted]

Idaho vs Randy Weaver
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. IDAHO
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.IDAHO
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2001 5, 2001 No. 99-71081. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI June 5, 2001 No. 98 30163. SILVER SAGE PARTNERS LTD
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2000 No. 96-50297. IDAHO v.
HORIUCHI June 14, 2000
No. 98-70772. VAN GERWEN v. GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY ERISA
[url redacted]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER
[url redacted]

SPLC and Spokesman Review Propaganda 20 years later
[url redacted]

I have a friend who was a Deputy United States Marshall at that time. He wasn't involved with Ruby Ridge, but he knew 2 agents who were. He told me:

"I knew two of the guys in the woods that weaver's son engaged. It was a mess from the start. If the dog would not have smelled the surveillance team nothing would have happened that day. It all ended badly. Stupid ATF case was bad from the start. Weaver would have been acquitted if he would have just gone back to court. Travesty of bad decisions all around."

The fact remains that it wasn't Randy Weaver's fault he didn't make it to the court appearance. It was all due to an intended snafu on the part of the Feds. They set him up to murder him and his family with extreme prejudice!

At the Nuremberg trials: Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders".

In my opinion, the officers involved should be charged with first degree murder, and those who assisted the operation should be charged and tried as accessories to first degree murder. Until this happens, we will never again be "One nation under God." This travesty screams for justice!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video and this blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law

If we are ever going to get anyone to open the case again and get these murderers charged and tried for their crimes against Americans, we need to raise public awareness of the facts involved. The best way to do it is to get as many people as possible to share the link below or copy & paste it and post it in as many places as possible. I would also suggest you copy and paste the link and send it to every state legislator and the current governor of Idaho.

[url redacted]

To send Idaho Governor Butch Otter a link to this story, click on the link below:
[url redacted]

Governor Otter's Facebook "Page"
[url redacted]

@artician In my view and this maybe too simple, but I think that Israel and the United States should not just obey international law, but obey their own populations who want a 2 state solution. There is no reason for this to be continuing on except that Israel wants the better land and the US wants a good middle east ally and base of operations.

Go back to the 1973 borders, accept the 2 state solution and we'll be done with it. Israel doesn't accept that because they say Jordan is the only palestinian state they'll allow to exist. The world has voted several times, their own populations have expressed their wishes. The only way they can continue is with apathy and a giant propaganda campaign.

The U.N. accused Israel of killing children as they slept, when a U.N. run school sheltering 3000 refugees was shelled 3 times.

"This is surely an affront to all of us. A source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgraced."

The school had been announced to the Israeli army 17 times.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israel forces"

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes, international law does protect the right of people the resist their occupiers. However, this is a bit more than a "ghetto uprising" because a political group (Hamas) has formed and claimed to have some control over a territory and the people of that territory. Actually let me back up, even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter for the point I want to make.

Armed combatants in a violent conflict, whether international or non-international, whether they are party to the conventions or not, are bound by international humanitarian law to uphold the Geneva conventions. “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.” This places a requirement on armed actors to take reasonable steps to separate their military activities from the civilian population.

However, if people knowingly and willingly stay in place in order to serve as a human shield to military activities, then they can no longer be considered "hors de combat" (outside of combat) and become legitimate targets. The problem here is that Hamas will always say they are innocent people being killed, that Hamas does not launch attacks from residential areas, and that no one is being forced to stay to act as a human shield. Israel will always say that rockets were launched from there and they had no choice but to attack in order to "degrade" military capabilities.

BUT, humanitarian law aside (sorry, it's one of my things) I think it is disgusting doublespeak that Israelis can actually convince themselves that Hamas is killing Palestinians by making Israel fire weapons into densely populated areas. That is disturbing and distressing rationalization that they explain away by saying that there are thousands of rockets being fired on their cities, never once acknowledging that not a single one of those rockets has landed and hurt someone.

I think it's noble to do whatever little you can to oppose the brutal half-century long occupation, humiliation, starvation and assassination of your people, yes.

Israel is an illegal occupying power in international law, that's a fact. It constantly violates practically every obligation that occupation incurs in international law; it engages in collective punishment, it regularly seizes and destroys private property, it laughingly fails to provide for the safety and welfare of the population under its control, it settles occupied territory with its civilians, it forcibly relocates Palestinian civilians, it routinely ignores the UN's attempts to restrain these and other illegal behaviours, these are facts.

Israel is engaged in terrorism in Gaza and elsewhere, and has been for decades - fact.

You actively admit supporting terrorist organisations? Why stop at Hamas then, you can’t have double standards now can you. Here I’ll help you:

"There are no terrorist targets in Iraq. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Al-Qaida rocket fire/suicide bombings isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble."

Do you think it’s noble to fire rockets out of hospitals hiding behind defenceless civilians?

The whole world expect Russia,Turkey and China sees Hamas as a terrorist organisation, maybe you should consider moving from the UK gorilla warfare man.

There are no terrorist targets in Gaza. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Palestinian rocket fire isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble.

But they're not at war. America is absolutely 100% not at war with the nations of Pakistan or Yemen or wherever else they're currently using drones.

They are prosecuting assassinations of private individuals within those states. It is quite literally state sponsored terrorism.

The simple fact is that it is an illegal action under international law. Just because a foreign country doesn't want to hand over one of it's citizens that the USA believes is or has been engaged in harmful acts against your country does not mean you can simply throw your toys out of the pram.

If one of your neighbours assaults you and then runs inside their house, you can't just kick down their door for revenge.

To repeat @SDGundamX's excellent summation of the point:

if Americans are in support of remote assassinations that are carried out by executive decision without scrutiny from courts or any sort of due process, how can they possibly decry the use of such strikes by foreign powers against American citizens?

Just because you don't get what you want (the arrest/extradition of terrorists) does not mean you can just do whatever you want.

Oh, and @SDGundamX, my point was not so much that Britain would have used drones against Ireland, it's that they wouldn't have.

As much as I hated Thatcher, she wasn't stupid, and the political fallout over a British armed strike into sovereign Irish territory would have been immense, especially in the USA.

But because it's in one of them foreign places with poor brown people that don't speak english.... well, they get blown up all the time, right? What's a few more air to ground missiles, eh?

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

Meet my demands or I'll die seems pretty stupid from the outside if their demands were say Let me Go. Their demands aren't that though, they're demanding basic human rights, to be treated like international law and the treaties we've signed require. There's a reason why Gitmo is located on Cuba, and it's not for the beaches. It's because if they were on American soil it would be easier to do something about this.

"I believe wiretaps are an important tool for law enforcement/counter terrorism..."

This is not Counter Terrorism, this is simply terrorism. Do I have to remind you of how COINTELPRO was used over 4 administrations to intimidate and assassinate those who fought for social justice?

"Contrary to media hysteria, Obama can't listen in on your phone calls or read your sexts without a court order."

A court order doesn't stop them, they don't listen to the courts. They use them to cover their ass but if they think my friends are organizing to protest they can read all about it in our emails and take steps to have the FBI Focus a crackdown on us. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

Now on to your direct questions.
"Do you all think that surveillance should be a legal tool in criminal investigations?"

Yes, but the government has never been interested in counter terrorism being called or assessed as a criminal act. When we started the War in Afghanistan it was to get Osama Bin Laden and we ordered them to give him up. They asked rightly for the evidence against him. We decided that it didn't matter, let's fucking kill as many people as possible and destabilize the region to get this guy, risking the deaths of up to 4 million people and increasing the threat of terror. The worst part is WE KNEW we were increasing the threat of terror, we did it anyway.

This is just one example there are countless others, even a worse one by Obama himself, it's a travesty. So no this isn't about Criminal Investigation, we have NEVER been interested in that.

"If yes, what changes do we make to current policy without rendering surveillance toothless?"

We address legitimate grievances with the nations and peoples we are wronging, and fall in line with international law. We increase terrorism on ourselves by our actions.

I've got tons more but this is getting long. The point is I'm not going to give this government anything. I'm not willing to, they've proven that they cannot have any sort of power whatsoever.

You specifically need to read up on some things because apparently you woke up today and believed you were dealing with rational people who are just trying to protect us. You're not, these guys don't work for us, they hate us.