Took me just under a half hour. I drew a diagram instead of using a chart. Was much more clerical work than riddle solving.

My result is below (select with your mouse to reveal the spoiler):
[spoiler]The German owns the fish.[/spoiler]

Good stuff, dft. Keep the riddles coming.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I wouldn't have let him give me an account code or 10%. Because I guarantee those people were paying 150+ per account minimum. Back then it'd take you a month to hit max level and another month or two to get it geared. So you're looking at 50-60 box price + 10-15 per month x 3. So 80-105 just in pure cost for the account and add in time on top of that...people are going to want to be able to buy another account..so double it.
And I have no sympathy for someone who deals in areas where someone can flip a switch and you have no recourse in a court of law to even hope to defend yourself. TOS on electronic goods you don't control...you're just asking to get taken advantage of...even if he were the ones buying and selling accounts and controlled every aspect of it.
Hell with how ebay is now, you can have a legitimate product and still end up owing people money and being out your items....and you are SOL unless it's a big money item where the police might look into it.
I really hate gold and account sellers, they do more harm to games than you could even begin to guess at. Them "working around" the game system means that the flaws that keep people from actually playing and learning never get fixed because people skip around them with money....it's a cycle that never gets broken as long as account sales and gold sales are taking place. The games will never expand past it, because no one will admit to buying these things openly with fear of their account and stuff being taken away....so they look like happy customers.

Prices might be a bit high there, they don't buy these things from the biggest most costly store in america. You can buy digital copies of games, or you can even just ask a guy from <choose your loophole country> to buy you a bunch. If you want thousands, then you set up a nice little business deal with him. I only bought BF3 when i could find it electronically for 16 pounds; and thank god i did because it's another crappy EA money spinner that's only worth 15 pounds, any more would have been a ripoff.
Have you haven't considered the deals blizzard have done at least since lich king where you could sign up two new accounts, link them, and power level each other to max level in a matter of a few days. We got about 4 characters each to max level within a week and that was me and a friend doing it, mere amateurs.
Gear's a sticking point, but if someone wants GOOD gear, they'll pay good money because there's nothing for it but to sit through several resets to get all the gear you want.
In summary, i really don't have the patience to look up the prices. But the box prices can be smaller by quite a bit and you wouldn't even need to pay a month of subscription unless they wanted gear (and as i say, you'd charge loads more). I think for a virtually naked level 85 of any class, i'd be pleased to get 50 quid.
Once you start to charge any more, people are way more likely to say "... jeez dude i could do this for myself in a week" and fair point i say. But then again, i'm not a bastard - this could all be true and people might charge double that.
Edit:
I have taken into account exchange rate, don't worry. It adds up to cheaper i think.


He said in the video it was the first year of WoW...considering the pricing of blizz games holding value for multiple years..I doubt it was much lower than 50 bucks for the game. And the monthly only goes down if you pay in year lumps, so I think you'd charge for that if you had extra time on the account.

So, deals since Lich King don't matter...and first expansion to the game didn't come out until 2007. WoW was released in 2004. So end of first year would have made it 2005/2006. It was also slower to level pre-BC because there were less levels and the game was competing against EQ so it was a little rougher than it is now. And they are entirely different games, WoW when it was first released versus WoW now.

And only a year or two prior to WoW being released people were paying 5-10 grand for Everquest accounts. So 2-3 grand for a WoW account in it's first year is not absurd in the slightest considering it was half of the EQ prices in a new game that people were signing up to quite frequently. Was a guy in EQ who used to keep a group of 5 accounts subscribed so he could power level one single account to 50. Minimum he got for an account for the longest time was 1 grand, and he could do it in a couple weeks to a month with those 5 accounts buffing and what not to make sure to maximum XP by only grouping the minimum amount of people it needed to make a kill and use the rest to heal outside of group or pull outside of group. 1 grand account got you a minimal amount of money and any equipment he needed to level it, nothing fancy. The high level equipped guys went for 5 grand and up depending on the class, clerics/enchanters/warriors went for a lot. Druids went for the least because there was too many of them in the game, and the rest were somewhere in the middle. Bards were probably the most expensive due to the leveling penalties.

As for the week stuff.....you couldn't do that in WoW pre BC and doubtful you could have did it in BC before they added bonuses to referrals and re-signups...well not without a lot of extra accounts maximizing time. Which would just make pumping out accounts even more expensive since you've have to count all the other subscription prices into your pricing.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

I read your stuff Yogi!

FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.

In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!

They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!

In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.

Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em

But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!

Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.

@jbaber

"Truth for authority, not authority for truth."


The facts are that religious institutions, specifically the many denominations of Christianity in the United States, supported the status quo in regard to slavery, women's rights, birth control, evolution, and tried to censor free speech.

See the following, Slavery - 1 Timothy 6:1 as used by southern ministers promoting slavery, the Comstock Laws( and Anthony Comstock on wiki) and their abuse in regard to 1)atheism (which was labeled obscene) 2) birth control 3) free speech.

While I think the abolitionist movement specifically owes more to Enlightenment philosophy - not atheism or Christianity, I believe it is justified to point on the specific failings of religious institutions.

Were some Christians abolitionists? Of course. John Brown was as were many of the delegates to the 1840 convention (many were Quakers) which also denied women delegates the right to vote.

But other important leaders such as William Garrison and Henry Stanton were anti-clerical.

In closing, religious institutions, as a whole, were not and have not been the catalyst of change, but of upholding the status quo.

@blankfist

Research that purporting that teaching is a difficult job based on 6 criteria. I suggest the whole document but here's the jest of it.
______________________________________________
---------->Societal Attitude:
The participants in this study believed that the attitude of society toward the teaching profession was unfair and detrimental to their overall functioning. They did not believe that they were valued, despite their advanced levels of education. In a recent nationwide survey of over 11,000 teachers and teacher candidates, Henke, Chen, Geis, and Knepper (2000) found that only 14.6% of the teachers surveyed were satisfied with the esteem in which society held the teaching profession.

--->Denise, a high school English teacher addressed the issue of respect:

"There is a lack of respect for teachers. It's not just the money, but also the attitude I get from administrators and politicians that teachers are trying to get away with something. We have taken these cushy jobs where all we have to do is stand up in front of a bunch of kids and BS for a few hours, and only work ten months of the year, at that teachers have it easy! Every time we ask for something (like, in my county, that the county pay our contribution to the state retirement system, for example), they make us out to look like whiners - give 'em an inch; they'll take a mile. The truth is, though, that teachers care so deeply and work SO much beyond our "contract hours." I can't tell you how many come in for weeks during the summer, as I do, and take on clubs after school (for which we are not compensated), and work during vacations. This lack of respect for teachers gets me down."
______________________________________________
---------->Financial Issues:
On top of the perception that they are not being valued by society, teachers are notoriously underpaid in our country. Four years after their graduation, Henke et al. (2000) surveyed a large sample of college graduates between 1992-1993. They found that the teachers were tied with clerical staff and service workers for the lowest salaries. A recent report from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2000) found the following to be the case for the 2000-2001 school year:

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.
The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.
The majority of the participants in this study related that they were simply not paid enough to live comfortably. They drove old cars and lived in inexpensive apartments. Others struggled to save enough money to buy a home.

--->Calvin, a high school science teacher, talked about his pay:

"I love teaching, but I don't know if I love it enough to deprive my family and myself of necessities. I have a baby and another on the way. I can't see how I can ever save enough to make a down payment on a house, even with a second job in the summer."
______________________________________________
---------->Time Scarcity:
Many new teachers were physically and emotionally fatigued to the point of exhaustion. They reported that they worked long days at school, and then took home lesson plans to create, papers to grade, and parents to call. They also worked nights and weekends on school-related work.

--->Jessica, a high school math teacher:

"I work 70 hours a week, and after 3 years it's not getting any better. When Friday night rolls around, all I want to do is fall asleep at 8 p.m.! Obviously that doesn't lead to a very exciting social life, or much of a "life" at all, if I can hardly stay awake long enough to go out to dinner with my friends and family. Even at holidays there are always papers to grade."

--->Fred, a high school English teacher also had difficulty with the amount of time required to do his job, pointing to the effect the time constraints had on family relationships:

The time commitment is the worst. During my first two years of teaching I worked 70-80 hour weeks, including time worked during the school day, in the evenings and over the weekend. Time commitment varies with the subject taught and with experience, but this aspect of the job nearly ran me out of teaching on several occasions and I witnessed one great new teacher leave teaching for this very reason. "It's my job or my marriage," she explained. "I never see my husband, and we're living under the same roof."

______________________________________________
---------->Workload:
The data reveal that it is nearly impossible for a conscientious teacher to complete all that is expected of them in one school day. At the high school level, teachers were teaching five or more classes in a traditional school, and three in a block schedule school. For each class this meant that the teacher's task was to design a complete lesson lasting at least one hour. This lesson had to follow the state curriculum, be engaging and interesting to students, and include various components as required by the school district, such as a warm-up, class activities, and homework. The teachers wanted to use outside resources such as the Internet to connect the material to real world applications. Additionally, they reported that there were often several special needs students in the class, and each of them needed some special accommodation. They found that planning was not a trivial task; it took several hours to design one effective instructional plan.

According to the teachers in this study, class sizes were another difficult feature of the teacher's day. In public high schools, most class sizes ranged from 25 to 35 students for a total of 125-175 students in a traditional school, and 75-105 in a four period block school. Henke et al. (2000) reported that the average number of students taught by secondary teachers each day is 115.8.

--->Abby, a high school history teacher explained the effect of large class sizes:

"Imagine any other professional trying to deal with the needs of this many "customers" at one time. If a physician were seeing patients, and grouped this many together, it is readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to expect her or him to address the needs of each person. The same is true for teachers.
Each student is an individual, with needs and issues that must be addressed. In a class period, the teachers expressed frustration because they could not address the needs of 25 or more students. "

--->Gina, a former high school science teacher described the variety in her workload as well as in her students' abilities:

"What I least expected was the amount of paperwork I had to do. Grading papers, progress reports, parent conferences, English-as-a-Second Language, exceptional students, ADD paperwork, and even work for absent students seem to take more time than "teaching."

To compound the issue, teachers also related many learning issues, where students had questions or misunderstandings that could easily have been cleared up with a few minutes of one-on-one time. They also reported discipline issues that got more serious when they were not addressed. Some students were bored. Some lacked basic skills and could not perform without help. In general, the teachers expressed being frustrated because they are educated professionals who could address these issues, if there were time to get to everyone. There was simply not enough time to address the variety of issues that simultaneously too place. Farkas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of new teachers report that the change most likely to improve teaching is reducing class size.

--->Eva, a high school English teacher summed up her frustration with large class sizes.

"This was not a matter of poor time management; it was a matter of too many students with too many needs and one harried teacher trying to be superhuman. There were times that I had a great lesson plan, only to have it totally derailed because of one or two students who needed individual attention and could not get it."

The total number of students that this professional was expected to evaluate, plan, and care for each day was as many as 150.
______________________________________________
---------->Working Conditions:
School administrators varied in their support of young teachers, and many teachers reported that this support was inadequate. The new teachers felt that they were evaluated and judged, but they would have preferred real feedback and suggestions for improvement of their teaching. They felt that they were often not supported in discipline issues or in conflicts with parents.

--->Carol, a former high school math teacher:

"I was very frustrated with the lack of support from my principal/administration in that after three observations I never got any feedback either in written or verbal form. I never really knew how I was doing. I felt I was doing a good job, but did not think the administration cared one way or the other."

--->Fran, a high school mathematics teacher expressed a need for more funds:

"Teachers should be given all the supplies that they need - $25 is not enough! At all other jobs that I have worked at, whatever you need to do your job is provided."
______________________________________________
---------->Relationships with Students and Parents:
A common problem reported by beginning teachers was student apathy. Many of the novice teachers reported that students had no interest in learning. In addition to attendance problems, a number of students often came to class without pencil, paper, and textbook. It was difficult to force or entice them to participate in classwork, and virtually impossible to get them to do homework.

--->Owen, a former high school mathematics teacher, was frustrated by his students' apathy:

"The vast majority of my students had no interest in learning math and I quickly tired of trying to force them (or entice them). They refused to bring paper or pencil to class, refused to do homework or classwork, and frequently came to class late or not at all. Most of them, to my great surprise, were not at all belligerent or confrontational about their refusal to do anything in class; they just had no intention of working at anything."

--->Mattie, a former high school history teacher, could not deal with the frustration:

"I just became very frustrated teaching to a class of 20 students and about 5 were interested or at least concerned with their grades. I decided not to return, because I was so exhausted and depressed at the end of the year. I just couldn't see "wasting" my time in a classroom where the kids don't care about themselves or what you're trying to accomplish."

--->Eugene, a former high school math teacher, also reported problems with apathy:

"I was frustrated with the apathy of the students. Many days I felt as though I was standing up there talking to myself. It was the longest year of my life. I was an emotional wreck because I felt as if the kids/parents didn't care enough to try or participate."

>> ^Stormsinger:
Voodoo, Islam, Christianity, Judaism...just more of the same shit, different day. All great ways to provide the cleric class with a comfy living.


But you must note that some are crazier versions than others. For example, AIDS is worse than Herpes. Both are STDs but I am less concerned of one versus the other. Or take guns... varying levels of guns... Yes, those are loose comparisons, but the point still remains. Everything is based on levels.

In fact, there are quite insane atheists who believe in their opinions so much that it creates irrational hatred.

Voodoo, Islam, Christianity, Judaism...just more of the same shit, different day. All great ways to provide the cleric class with a comfy living.

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted. How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly? Surely if this was a "capture or kill" order, then they must've offered a chance for him to surrender, right?

Their first story was that a gun battle occurred, then later it was revealed he was unarmed. Also they claimed he used his wife as a shield, then later it came out that he didn't. So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

Too circumstantial for you? Okay. How about Obama's track record? In 2009 military commanders told Obama's Administration they were able to located and capture one of the most wanted leaders of Al Qaeda, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Instead of capturing, Obama's Administration said they wanted him dead. And the SEALS bombed him from the sky. No arrest attempt.

And the drone aerial attacks have increased over Pakistan under Obama, according to Long War Journal, a website dedicated to tracking the attacks. They estimate that the drones over Pakistan have killed almost 1500 people. Not capture, killed. Innocent people live there in tribes. Murdered as a casualty. But look at you and people like Yogi, the brave people who're out of range of danger that just don't give a fuck about those who are targeted and murdered - unless of course it furthers your political agenda, right? Yep.

Most damning is the time when Obama's Administration authorized the assassination of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. He wasn't even Osama. He was some radical cleric they gave "explicit" authorization to murder without due process. That's your guy, Obama, side-stepping the rights of people like a pro authoritarian fascist.

Osama's murder without trial looks like more bloodthirsty progressivism to me. Hiding behind civil righteousness. By contrast the Bush Administration "captured" (not killed) thousands of suspected terrorists. And we all hated him.

Thanks for the promote, kind sir.
In reply to this comment by longde:
A very compelling figure.

She certainly brought the book to that cleric!

*promote

A very compelling figure.

She certainly brought the book to that cleric!

*promote

....and what's THIS?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351385/Controversial-Muslim-cleric-caught-smuggled-U-S-Mexico-border.html">Controversial Muslim cleric caught being smuggled into U.S. over Mexico border

Since when did FOX start keeping partisan news clerics on staff? His mouth is moving, but no one is home. Here is another unintentionally self defeating argument from this moron's wiki page.

"Belief only makes sense if it is based on truth." -Father Morris, Fox News Head Cleric

Really? Faith requires evidence now? I could not have asked for a better Saturnelia gift. Thanks Father M!

Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.
Nor did I draw that conclusion from that argument. My point was that religion has been on a constant retreat in the battle against science and reason over truth claims about the world. Every battle has been fought with the intention of winning ground, and every battle has been lost by religion. "God" has been relegated back to more and more diffuse gaps in our knowledge. Later in my post I argue that the same is true for the moral wisdom contained in religion, it ought to be subject to the same beating as religions claims about the natural world has been, because I cant see religion excel in any area of moral wisdom.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical

Oh not this shit again. Nowhere in my post did I say so, and you know it. If you are referring to the comment about the Catholic child-rape, you fail to see my point completely. YOU claimed, and keep claiming, that religion is, or can be, a useful guide to leading a moral life, finding happiness and so on. Well, if what you say is true, institutions like the Catholic church ought to be beacons of light for the rest of us. Countries ruled by the likes of Taliban and the top clerics in Iran ought to be countries with the best possible human rights records, because after all, the laws they govern by are taken directly from the sources of wisdom themselves, our cherished holy books. Show me a society that has positively benefitted from adopting a more, not less, religious stance, and your claim might have some merit.

My point about bringing up the disgusting actions of the current leadership of the catholic church, is that obviously, religion hasn't helped at all. Perhaps it didn't make things worse either in this case, but we have to remember that its not ME who claims the catholic church is to be seen as a source of profound wisdom and morality, nor do I think adhering to catholic doctrine will help you make better moral decisions. it is the church itself who make these claims, and you, by saying things like "religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives"

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors.

Wrong again. I didn't dismiss it because it was written by our ancestors, I dismissed it because it quite obviously doesn't live up to the reputation you are trying to give it. But if it was truly, say, inspired by an eternal , real god, it really ought to live up to at least some degree. So when it doesn't... Why? Because it was manmade. made by people with flaws like you and me, and even worse, it was made thousands of years ago, by people who knew so little about the world they lived in. In a time where the world map was probably the size of maybe Israel and Egypt combined. And considering the circumstances they lived in, I dont blame them for being less then perfect, and much of what they wrote is certainly interesting, and stories like Genesis are fascinating insights into their minds and how they thought about the world. But as far as shedding light on the actual origin of our universe, it is as useless as Deuteronomy is in moral guidance.

And no, you shouldn't dismiss the constitution because it was written in the past, you should judge it like anything else on its actual contents and its track record.

>> ^alizarin:

Regarding assassination:
( ) President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.
I agree with John Stewart's main point at the end - Obama is leaving this stuff too open to abuse and needs to close possible loopholes right away.
You can make the case that Al-Qaida is a legit military target and as such it's not really an assassination, just warfare. But where do you formalize what groups are "terrorists" and which individuals get lumped in, and how do you decide if a situation is dire enough to assassinate a militant American citizen vs capture and put him on trial? I don't think Obama is likely to let anything nasty happen but that's way too big of a danger to leave out there.
This story got big when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said this in congressional testimony:
“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”
Again, not crazy reasoning...if an American is hiding in Yemen and plotting to blow up a plane maybe we can blow him up first, but way to wide open to avoid abuse. I'm a big Obama fan but I'm pissed that he's running this free and loose with this stuff. Hopefully it's on his to-do list and nothing nasty will become of it before he's done.


Not crazy reasoning? What is this? Israel? That's pretty fucking crazy reasoning. Apologist jingoism is unbecoming. What happened to due process? All because the Criminal suddenly became an enemy of the state?

I point you to a Movie, The Unthinkable. It's just a movie, of course, but it's the thought that it invokes. Just how far are you prepared to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

It's like legal precedence. You allow one case to become a trend setter and many more judgments will follow that case. It's not a slippery slope argument, its a matter of legal precedence. If the US starts assassinating *citizens*, even if they are *terrorists* where does that leave the rest of the citizens? It's a terrible and disgusting thing to think about.

I don't think that there's been a legally declared War since WWII.