Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
So much for due process...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


hugepedro


Oct 3, 2011, 3:30 PM
Post #26 of 53 (1857 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [cracklover] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think the difference is he is a leader in an organization that has declared war on the U.S., has attacked the U.S., and continues to try to attack the U.S., including attempts apparently led/organized/encouraged in some way by him.

The other example groups you gave are not at war with the U.S.

I think if one is going to fight or lead on the other side in a war then one can expect to get aquainted with the business end of a Hellfire missile


sungam


Oct 4, 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #27 of 53 (1831 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?
Uh, no. I was saying there was a huge difference between murder and selling ciggis, which Dan seemed to be claiming where the same.

Notice I never said "This guy is a criminal! He should be executed!". This is mostly because I think the death penalty is fucking disgusting. Wheat NA said and I quoted was that he was part of a group that declared war on the US, so if the US military kills him in the combat zone, well, that's how war goes. When you declare war, you kinda gotta expect that kind of thing.

It's not a war between countries, it's not against people of a certain religion, citezenship, or tribe. It's a country vs a group of people that came together of their own free will to form a team to attack the country they hate. Their citezinship etc. does not dictate wether or not they are an enemy, only their membership of the group does.


^More incoherant shitty writing, I'd fix it but I gotta get to class.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 4:48 AM
Post #28 of 53 (1823 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?
Uh, no. I was saying there was a huge difference between murder and selling ciggis, which Dan seemed to be claiming where the same.

Notice I never said "This guy is a criminal! He should be executed!". This is mostly because I think the death penalty is fucking disgusting. Wheat NA said and I quoted was that he was part of a group that declared war on the US, so if the US military kills him in the combat zone, well, that's how war goes. When you declare war, you kinda gotta expect that kind of thing.

It's not a war between countries, it's not against people of a certain religion, citezenship, or tribe. It's a country vs a group of people that came together of their own free will to form a team to attack the country they hate. Their citezinship etc. does not dictate wether or not they are an enemy, only their membership of the group does.


^More incoherant shitty writing, I'd fix it but I gotta get to class.

War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action"). Wars on drugs, poverty, and, yes, drunk driving are declared so that rights of the people may be revoked in the name of war / emergency.


csproul


Oct 4, 2011, 7:05 AM
Post #29 of 53 (1814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1765

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 7:29 AM
Post #30 of 53 (1810 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [csproul] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 8:11 AM
Post #31 of 53 (1800 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?


sungam


Oct 4, 2011, 8:20 AM
Post #32 of 53 (1796 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Wars on drugs, poverty, and, yes, drunk driving are declared so that rights of the people may be revoked in the name of war / emergency.
Yesh, the government using the term to "allow" revoking rights is whack.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 8:23 AM
Post #33 of 53 (1794 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?


camhead


Oct 4, 2011, 9:28 AM
Post #34 of 53 (1784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Uhhh... fuck yes?

this debate has gotten really stupid.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 9:52 AM
Post #35 of 53 (1778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #36 of 53 (1772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [camhead] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Uhhh... fuck yes?

this debate has gotten really stupid.

Of course it has, you-know-who is involved.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 10:28 AM
Post #37 of 53 (1765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #38 of 53 (1764 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.

According to you they are not soldiers. I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but your definition doesn't really fit the real world these days.

Using police/prosecutorial methods should be the first choice, of course. But when that is not possible or pragmatic, then what do you propose we should do? Let him keep organizing attacks against us? That's irresponsible.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #39 of 53 (1744 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
csproul wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
...War is between nation states or a civil war within a nation state (see also "police action") ...
This is clearly not true in this day and age. Terrorist groups exist precisely because they can wage war and maintain the anonymity that prevents retaliation against a nation state.
Terrorist groups exist. Period. They have existed and will continue to exist. See 1920 Wall Street as a good historical example.

Do nation states seek to support disruptive elements in opposition countries - sure they do. Do some of those people kill innocent people to create a since of fear in the population - sure they do.

There was a very simple 'out' for the US g'ment to take, but it would involve acknowledging that the drones are a US policy. Simply, we were trying to kil the non US citizens in the car and we regret we killed one of our own. Sorry. We know we aren't sorry, but we could at least act like it.

Why would there be any need to take such out? And the policy of killing terrorists is well established, whether by drones or whatever, Obama has clearly stated he gonna getcha, and he is. There's no question about that policy.

Hypothetical:

Charles Whitman, 1966, killing citizens from the University of Texas tower. The cops couldn't apprehend him alive, he wouldn't be taken alive anyway. What should they have done, let him remain there killing people?

There was an immediate threat to other people and lethal force is appropriate.

But, back, would you support a predator drone to take out a tower shooter?

Immediate threat. So a military commander (or terrorist leader) actively planning attacks doesn't present an immediate threat? When does the next attack he is organizing become immediate enough, and how do you know when that will happen? And if you know that date do you then have legitimate justification to take him out, or are you only justified in taking out the ‘soldiers’ executing the attack, the leader is immune? Or shouldn't you rather take him out during his planning phase? Come on, it's a ridiculous argument. You think we wouldn't/shouldn't have taken out Rommel in WW2 in his command post if we could have?

Drone/tower shooter. You use the most pragmatic method to take out the threat – meaning whatever means you have to ‘reach’ him with acceptable collateral damage. With Whitman, officers were able to reach the observation deck and shoot him. A sniper in a helicopter would be another likely option. There are more pragmatic means to take out a tower shooter than using a guided missile fired from a drone, and acceptable collateral damage in such a case would mostly likely be zero or close to zero. An enemy commander on foreign soil presents a different situation in terms of means and acceptable collateral damage.

You are always justified in taking out soldiers and their leaders (but historically we have not gone in for out and out assassination). But terrorists, for the most part, are not soldiers. Without the backing of a state, they are criminals. Pure and simple criminals. In general, using military for police activities is a bad idea, both constitutionally and in terms of effectiveness of the military.

According to you they are not soldiers. I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but your definition doesn't really fit the real world these days.

Using police/prosecutorial methods should be the first choice, of course. But when that is not possible or pragmatic, then what do you propose we should do? Let him keep organizing attacks against us? That's irresponsible.

It doesn't matter if I self label myself as a soldier for christ, a soldier for allah, or simply a soljah, without the backing of a state I'm nothing but a thug. Sometimes states back thugs, but that is different.

I never suggested that we simply turn a blind eye, I'm only pointing out that the niceties of law are always worth respecting. In this case because our drones are operating extra legally in a mostly lawless area, we end up tripping on our constitution.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 12:25 PM
Post #40 of 53 (1741 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.


pinktricam


Oct 4, 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #41 of 53 (1731 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Just in time for Halloween, for those looking to get their martyr on, the Anwar al-Awlaki drone missille attack gag!



Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 2:45 PM
Post #42 of 53 (1705 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.

The tower shooter was an immediate risk. Someone conspiring to commit a crime is still just conspiring. Please don't confuse concern over the details of the how with disagreeing with the results. And, yes, we did trip over the constitution, we killed an american citizen with no due process.


ubu


Oct 4, 2011, 4:42 PM
Post #43 of 53 (1693 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [pinktricam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
Just in time for Halloween, for those looking to get their martyr on, the Anwar al-Awlaki drone missille attack gag!


Want.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 5:55 PM
Post #44 of 53 (1683 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
No we are not tripping on our Constitution, unless you think it is unconstitutional to kill someone that is killing us, which it clearly is not (as the tower shooter example illustrates). We kill American citizens that are killing us all the time, and there is no Constitutional issue in doing so.

The tower shooter was an immediate risk. Someone conspiring to commit a crime is still just conspiring. Please don't confuse concern over the details of the how with disagreeing with the results. And, yes, we did trip over the constitution, we killed an american citizen with no due process.

Seems to me you’re making up Constitutional standards that simply do not exist.

The government has the power, and the obligation, to provide for the common defense. There is no Constitutional constraint on defense actions based on immediacy of threat, not that I’m aware of. Perhaps you can show me where this exists. Immediacy is merely a planning detail.

There is also no Constitutional constraint against using military power against non-state actors. Nor is there a due process requirement for taking military action against non-state actors.

Even if there were this imaginary standard of immediacy, your argument still makes no sense, because…..

If the tower shooter puts down his rifle and starts eating a sandwich are we no longer allowed to take him out? What if he sits there "conspiring" for days on end, not shooting anyone? Do we have to wait until he picks up his rifle again? How long should we let that go on? 1 month? 2 months? Obviously, no. He has killed, and has the ability to kill again. You don’t wait until he’s killing again. You take him out when it is pragmatically possible, when you can get a good shot.

Al-Awlaki has already orchestrated attacks against us. He was eating his sandwich and planning his next shot. We get intel on where he will be, and it’s a very narrow window of opportunity. There is no pragmatic way to muster resources to his expected location and apprehend him. There is no way to know if we will have this opportunity again before he launches another attack. We take the shot. If we didn’t, the government would not be fulfilling its Constitutional defense obligation.

The argument is easily made that he was an immediate threat, based on both his past actions and current activity. He was hanging out with bomb-makers for fuck’s sake.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 4, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #45 of 53 (1668 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

First to the constitutionality. Let's start with the fifth.

In reply to:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

Clearly this wasn't someone in service of the land or naval forces or Miilitia.
So what is public danger? More on this in a a bit, but we are lead back first to the fifth ammendment and the title of this thread
In reply to:
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Clearly we have a deprivation of life without due process, but do we have a "public danger"?

... but first we need to trip into the fourth ammendment

In reply to:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

So, where does "unreasonable" search and siezures (see Miranda et. al.) hit between the forth and fifth?

(and can you smell wikipedia coming?)

So the closest case here is Tenesee vs. Garner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Tennessee_v._Garner

So here is the quote
In reply to:
The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

So, an unarmed man, driving in a foreign country does not, in my opinion, rate to the standard held by the Supreme Court.

So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

It doesn't matter if one is conspiring with bombers, hookers, drug dealers, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists - the constitution still matters.


hugepedro


Oct 4, 2011, 9:05 PM
Post #46 of 53 (1659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

Rrrriiiight. So he puts down the gun, and we can't apprehend him, so we have to wait for him to pick up the gun again and start shooting and killing more people before we may do anything? Do you seriously not see the absolute absurdity of your position? Obviously, if he has set the gun down, but has not surrendered and we can't apprehend him, and there are potential victims in range, he is still a grave public danger.

I'm well aware of every word you quoted from the Constitution. None of that matters, because, like the tower sniper, you don't get to kill people and then maintain your position as a threat to public safety, and be protected via due process while maintaining that position of threat. If he wanted due process protection he could have surrendered, thereby relinquishing his position as a threat to our citizens. But he chose to continue actively waging war against us.

Al-Awlaki wasn't a public danger? He launched attacks against us. He was planning more attacks. It may be your opinion that he wasn't a threat, but given what we know about al Qaida, that would not seem to be a very well-informed opinion. Is there only a threat if a gun is pointed at someone? Do you not consider intent and means to carry out an attack as a threat? You don't consider waging war against us as a threat?

But none of the above matters anyway. He wasn't under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. He was a non-state actor in a foreign land waging war against us. So, like I already said, there is zero due-process constraint on military action.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 6, 2011, 12:51 PM
Post #47 of 53 (1579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
So, back to your example - no, once the shooter puts down the gun (assuming it is not within immediate grasp) then the person can not be deprived of their constitutional liberties. It doesn't matter if they have killed one, ten, or ten thousand. Once the gun is down, they are unarmed and therefore the constitution must be respected.

Rrrriiiight. So he puts down the gun, and we can't apprehend him, so we have to wait for him to pick up the gun again and start shooting and killing more people before we may do anything? Do you seriously not see the absolute absurdity of your position? Obviously, if he has set the gun down, but has not surrendered and we can't apprehend him, and there are potential victims in range, he is still a grave public danger.

I'm well aware of every word you quoted from the Constitution. None of that matters, because, like the tower sniper, you don't get to kill people and then maintain your position as a threat to public safety, and be protected via due process while maintaining that position of threat. If he wanted due process protection he could have surrendered, thereby relinquishing his position as a threat to our citizens. But he chose to continue actively waging war against us.

Al-Awlaki wasn't a public danger? He launched attacks against us. He was planning more attacks. It may be your opinion that he wasn't a threat, but given what we know about al Qaida, that would not seem to be a very well-informed opinion. Is there only a threat if a gun is pointed at someone? Do you not consider intent and means to carry out an attack as a threat? You don't consider waging war against us as a threat?

But none of the above matters anyway. He wasn't under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. He was a non-state actor in a foreign land waging war against us. So, like I already said, there is zero due-process constraint on military action.

No we can apprehend any time, we can not just shoot without need.

And it gets better, we actually have death panels:
http://news.yahoo.com/...-list-041603267.html
In reply to:
Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.


Well if is just this once, then OK. It isn't like a panel planning to kill americans could ever be abused.


hugepedro


Oct 6, 2011, 1:32 PM
Post #48 of 53 (1571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.


damienclimber


Oct 6, 2011, 2:29 PM
Post #49 of 53 (1559 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [hugepedro] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!


hugepedro


Oct 6, 2011, 3:40 PM
Post #50 of 53 (1551 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [damienclimber] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

damienclimber wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Really? We can apprehend anyone any time?

Please explain then how to apprehend the tower shooter, when you can't approach him without exposing yourself within his range of fire.

And how would we have apprehended al-Awlaki?

Come on, you are not this stupid.



But you are!

Isn't your mom home yet?

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook