@Drachen_Jager thanks for the expertise you've brought to this discussion. Somehow chemical weapons have been outlawed by international law, why haven't landmines been as well? It should be a war-crime.

"Its parliament's task to adjust the laws so that they comply with international law and accords"

Good luck with that in the US

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Yogi:
I love Joss Whedon. Everything he's done I worship at the guys feet. Stay outa politics Whedon so I don't have to hate you.

Sorry, Repubs made it personal so you have to fight back.
This "wah! they're equally bad" nonsense is just that.

I'm sorry but what the fuck are you talking about? How did repubs call out Joss Whedon? I'm saying he should leave it be, I don't want him in politics because I'm a fan of his. I don't like hearing people who don't know shit about fuck telling me what I should do.
I voted for Obama once, he sounded like a good choice, also it was a historical event I wanted to be a part of. I knew he wouldn't do much, I didn't know he would go around assassinating children and trying his best to make sure Pakistan breaks up and hands out it's nukes like candy. Or that there would be NO CHANGE in how Israel does business, Gaza is still the worlds largest prison, Israel is completely immune to international law.
Sorry Mother Fucker, I voted for him once he ain't getting my vote again. And I want Whedon to shut up about this because I like him, and I can't stand to see the man who made Firefly support a War Criminal.


WTF? Did Obama visit Yogi and do a Sandusky on him or something? Talk about taking it personal.

I agree both parties are shitty, but it's demonstrable that one is worse than the other. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of drone strikes and dead civillians. But you honestly think the other guy is any better? Or hey, you want to go back to Bush the lesser and not only have a bunch of dead civillians, but have a bunch of dead Americans too because of wars of deception? Romney's beating the war drums for Iran. Yeah...SO MUCH BETTER!! lets have MORE dead people wooo!! I'm sorry, but cherry picking drone strikes is pretty bad tunnel vision, when in reality, it's actually drastically reduced the death toll because they are strikes instead of another occupation where even more people would be killed.

I'm sorry, but we are never going to live in a world where our politicians are squeaky clean. Even in a utopia, our politicians are going to have to, by necessity, do shitty things. In the real world, people have to get their hands dirty.

It's great that you're idealistic, really, I applaud it. But here in the real world, we really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Take your pick or stfu.

Edit: sorry, I always mix up Kofi and Yogi for some reason.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Yogi:
I love Joss Whedon. Everything he's done I worship at the guys feet. Stay outa politics Whedon so I don't have to hate you.

Sorry, Repubs made it personal so you have to fight back.
This "wah! they're equally bad" nonsense is just that.


I'm sorry but what the fuck are you talking about? How did repubs call out Joss Whedon? I'm saying he should leave it be, I don't want him in politics because I'm a fan of his. I don't like hearing people who don't know shit about fuck telling me what I should do.

I voted for Obama once, he sounded like a good choice, also it was a historical event I wanted to be a part of. I knew he wouldn't do much, I didn't know he would go around assassinating children and trying his best to make sure Pakistan breaks up and hands out it's nukes like candy. Or that there would be NO CHANGE in how Israel does business, Gaza is still the worlds largest prison, Israel is completely immune to international law.

Sorry Mother Fucker, I voted for him once he ain't getting my vote again. And I want Whedon to shut up about this because I like him, and I can't stand to see the man who made Firefly support a War Criminal.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

This means in practice that USA is allowed "legally" to kill this guy, no question asked. It's just atrocity that US thinks they can use their internal laws all over the globe, like it's de facto international law..

The day Assange is extradited/killed i'll turn to enemy of the state. It ends any support of a nation that thinks it can do whatever it wants and starts my active resistance to bring down that government.. And i'm western white middle class pacifist but there's only so much crap i will take.

Fact: The US (government?) is above International Law. And they don't care.

Former ambassador Craig Murray commented on the threat of a raid at the embassy:

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Talk about wreckless, how about state-sanctioned murder by helicopter of journalists? Isn't Wikileaks doing a service to humanity by getting this information out? Doesn't this trump "putting our operatives in danger"? >> ^Hybrid:

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.
>> ^dag:
You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.

>> ^dag:

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:

Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Take out the bronze age nonsense of; "god's on our side," "god gave us this land," "I'm not afraid because god will protect me," or "It's in the bible," and all that remains is an indefensible, morally unjustifiable, land grab. International law has decreed it illegal, but what is being done to redress the situation? I find it surprising that the Jews - having suffered millenia of persecution and oppression - cannot identify with the same persecution and oppression being suffered by the Palestinians. All I see for the future is escalation, and who knows what that will lead to.

That approximation of civilian casualties alone is reason enough to question the intent of this video: objective journalism or propaganda?

Add the "almost supernatural effectiveness" or the grossly misleading "inherent right to self-defence under international law" and I'm inclined to say that this is a disgusting propaganda piece.

When he emphasized the "humane" behaviour of operators (let the children leave before pulling the trigger) and the insinuation that victims of drone attacks are actually thankful for it, well that's just icing on the cake.


What he fails to mention:

-- low rate of civilian casualties: every male of fighting age in the target area is now considered a militant, so everything you hit is a target, unless there is concrete intelligence to prove otherwise, posthumously.

-- pinpoint accuracy: UAVs hit their targets, but the targets themselves are defined as such by piss-poor intelligence or no intelligence at all.

-- guilt by proximity: if you are near a suspect or, generally speaking, in a strike-zone, your mere presence makes you a suspect yourself, as defined by the Obama administration. Now try to square this definition with previous accusations that terrorists embed themselves into the civilian population.

-- double-tap: again, your mere presence at the site of a strike, even if your intent is to provide medical assistance, turns you into a target (eg Collateral Murder). And better stay away from funerals as well, or else they send you a present.

-- US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were intentionally killed by drone strikes, without trial.

-- collateral damage: when you kill a person's family, you provide that person with a non-ideological reason to fight the US, a personal vendetta. Recent drone attacks in Yemen increased the numbers of AQAP members by killing civilians left, right and center.

-- covert killings, proxy warfare: the use of UAVs, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, reminds us of the good old days. Death from above or how I learned to love the drone.

I completely disagree with his definition of what terrorists are. Look at what Israel are doing to the Palestinians:

They've built enormous fences around hundreds of thousands of them, often separating them or isolating the people there from other villages. Arrests, delays and degradation at these checkpoints is commonplace, and this is often just so they can go to work, or visit friends. During special events such as Jewish holidays, the West Bank can be under military closure for more than a week.
http://mideastposts.com/2011/05/02/humiliation-and-degradation-easter-at-qalandiya/

The Israeli's then illegally settle or continue to expand on what is often privately owned Palestinian land.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land.html?hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Then they burn their olive trees, desecrate their mosque's, beat their children and kill adult civilians.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/204101.html

What can the Palestinians do to fight back? Well pretty much nothing due to the fact Israel receives billions of dollars in military supplies and funding each year from the US Government. The UN criticizes Israel's actions and International law states that expansion of many of the settlements is illegal, however the Palestinians are literally powerless.

Many Palestinians over the years, including women, have decided to blow themselves up in public, often killing many people, children included - these people therefore are labelled terrorists. So I have to ask, which of the actions I've described that the Israeli's/US are involved in against the Palestinians would be considered as moving them more towards a type 1 civilization?

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.