He's quite music oriented like you. I've told him where to go when he visits here next time

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
You'd be quite correct then, I don't mind at all. I didn't think a whole lot of the video, but the song makes up for it.

I actually thought I'd visited edm's pqueue, but when I checked there are all these cool vids that I have never seen : I've voted up some of his sifted ones, so I must've checked out his queue instead of his pqueue, or just got confused.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Seeing as your highest voted vid is Jose Gonzalez, I thought it likely that you wouldn't mind helping this through :

http://videosift.com/video/Black-Refuge-Junip-1

You'd be quite correct then, I don't mind at all. I didn't think a whole lot of the video, but the song makes up for it.

I actually thought I'd visited edm's pqueue, but when I checked there are all these cool vids that I have never seen I've voted up some of his sifted ones, so I must've checked out his queue instead of his pqueue, or just got confused.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Seeing as your highest voted vid is Jose Gonzalez, I thought it likely that you wouldn't mind helping this through :

http://videosift.com/video/Black-Refuge-Junip-1

Seeing as your highest voted vid is Jose Gonzalez, I thought it likely that you wouldn't mind helping this through

http://videosift.com/video/Black-Refuge-Junip-1

@NetRunner

"In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court."

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court. As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

As far as what is defined as a battlefield, clearly the government grossly abuses the term. See for instance: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf If the family does sue, I'm sure as you implied that the government will claim al-Awlaki was killed on the field of battle, but I think they'd have a tough time convincing a judge of this--last I checked we weren't at war with Yemen. Unless the government could show that he was in car equipped with a bomb headed towards an embassy or something like that. However that would, of course, force the government to actually disclose the details of the killing and the factual reasons for it.

>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not incidentally, that is also the AUMF for the war in Afghanistan as well.

>> ^SDGundamX:

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court.

In the Jose Pedilla case, they arrested him when he came onto American soil, and then held him without trial on the basis that he was a prisoner of war, and not a criminal.

In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court.

That does not mean that the government has to try all enemy combatants before killing them.

It means that people who get taken prisoner under some sort of wartime doctrine have the right to a day in court to challenge their status as being a participant in war.

>> ^SDGundamX:
He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

What's the definition of "battlefield" and "during combat"? Are soldiers in war never legally allowed to attack first? And what's the battlefield mean when we're talking about a non-state entity engaging in guerrilla warfare from strongholds located in many countries?

Again, I say all this not because I think it's right, but because it's where we're at now.

Obama didn't create this legal precedent. Obama isn't violating the law by using this to go after terrorists. I wish Obama was fighting it rather than using it, but wishing doesn't make it so any more than wishing it was illegal makes it illegal.

Obama deserves some shit for this, but I think Tapper's got exactly the right tack on the type of shit he deserves -- make the administration come out and explain a) what exactly they claim they have the right to do, b) explain why they think they have the right to do it, and c) explain whether their answers to a and b jives with their own view of American legal traditions.

The people who want to make this into "Obama committed a crime" aren't helping fix this, they're just helping Republicans win the next election.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.

@NetRunner
@bcglorf

I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.

As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.

EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."

Nope, not a dupe. The other one is the aired spot, one minute long (and low quality to boot). This one has the whole song and additional footage. For me this is more a music video for José González than a commercial.

>> ^oritteropo:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Superballs-Sony-Bravia
Not that I can call it.

"This is our child Jose Louise, he's a pretty normal child"

that statement contradicts itself.

@chilaxe

"atrocious racial discrimination"

You mean little Johnny will have to go to Davis instead of Berkeley. Or Notre Dame instead of UCLA. Or (gasp!) De Anza instead of San Jose State. Oh the horrors!!!! Yeah, its worse than the Japanese Internment. Is that all? I bet latinos and blacks in Cali wish they could suffer the atrocities you say Asians have instead of the ones they are saddled with.

"Holy crap that was awesome!! Jose did you see that.....hey where did Jose go?"

Important precision here: these are NOT state police, but employees of a private security company ("Protectas", see the back of their shirts). This pan-European corporation has come under scrutiny several times for the misdeeds of some of its poorly trained and volatile thugs agents. Not surprisingly, it's also been known to treat its employees with utter contempt (impossibly long hours without breaks, humiliating tactics, etc.).


edit: I've just found out that this happened in my home country (CH). The title is all the more insulting considering how police officers here can hardly defend themselves without being dragged to court and defamed in the media (see my comment to this video for just one recent example).

More info on the video incident here (article en français)

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.