hblask 1 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I just love how everyone suddenly trusts government -- the government that hands out loans to cronies; that imprisoned totally innocent people in Guantanamo without a trial for over a year; that spies on people without a warrant; that tortures people in violation of international law. Yeah, these are the people I want to have arbitrary power of life and death over me.Trust us. There are no cases in history of government abusing power. Never. It can't happen. Besides, it was just some brown-skinned guy, nobody we know. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 So, let's say we got a radical leftist for president, let's call him, oh, President Sosama. And got an equally leftist Speaker of the House, say, Speaker Salosi. And an equally leftist Senate Majority Leader, say, Senator Leed.And then say that those people all got a look at the terrorist list created by the equally leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, whose list includes patriot groups, libertarian groups, gun rights groups, and Christian groups.Say that by some strange coincidence we got a crazy bunch of leftists like that in charge of the government, while groups like SPLC were labeling innocent people as terrorists.If some crazy scenario like that occurred, would you still support the right of the govt to assassinate any US citizen it decides is a terrorist? Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I just love how everyone suddenly trusts government -- the government that hands out loans to cronies; that imprisoned totally innocent people in Guantanamo without a trial for over a year; that spies on people without a warrant; that tortures people in violation of international law. Yeah, these are the people I want to have arbitrary power of life and death over me.Trust us. There are no cases in history of government abusing power. Never. It can't happen. Besides, it was just some brown-skinned guy, nobody we know.Some brown skinned guy? BWAHAAALike we woulda gave him and osama a pass if he was white. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I just love how everyone suddenly trusts governmentI trust our military intelligence experts and strategists, not our politicians.So, let's say we got a radical leftist for president, let's call him, oh, President Sosama. And got an equally leftist Speaker of the House, say, Speaker Salosi. And an equally leftist Senate Majority Leader, say, Senator Leed.And then say that those people all got a look at the terrorist list created by the equally leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, whose list includes patriot groups, libertarian groups, gun rights groups, and Christian groups.Say that by some strange coincidence we got a crazy bunch of leftists like that in charge of the government, while groups like SPLC were labeling innocent people as terrorists.If some crazy scenario like that occurred, would you still support the right of the govt to assassinate any US citizen it decides is a terrorist?Your tin foil hat is showing. Awlaki was a radical terrorist organizer hiding in a foreign country that was not (and is not) one of our close allies. Definitely this means the Southern Poverty Law Center is gonna start assassinating Tea Partiers. Things like that happen in reality, ever. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Your tin foil hat is showing.Really? So Guantanamo doesn't exist? Our country never put the Japanese in prison camps? What about the McCarthy hearings? Did those happen?Learn history or be doomed to repeat it. At least in those previous ones nobody died at the hands of an egomaniac politician. That's changed now. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If some crazy scenario like that occurred, would you still support the right of the govt to assassinate any US citizen it decides is a terrorist?Just to point something out here, but you're taking the role of naysayer- regarding a targeted assassination- against a flaming leftist douchebag and a Canadian.If people like that are on board with it, I think it's safe to say its a reasonable position.I don't trust the government, but I understand that there are some roles they must do that I, personally, cannot. Assassinating terrorists on foreign soil is one of those jobs. I don't give a shit what race they are. If some white guy from Wisconsin travels over to Crapistan and plots against American citizens, drone away. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Just to point something out here, but you're taking the role of naysayer- regarding a targeted assassination- against a flaming leftist douchebag and a Canadian.If people like that are on board with it, I think it's safe to say its a reasonable position.I don't trust the government, but I understand that there are some roles they must do that I, personally, cannot. Assassinating terrorists on foreign soil is one of those jobs. I don't give a shit what race they are. If some white guy from Wisconsin travels over to Crapistan and plots against American citizens, drone away.I'm not saying the guy is innocent or that he didn't deserve to die, just that the way it was done is a terrible step. There are ways to do it that make it not terrible. The most obvious way: take about 30 (or 50 or 100, however many you can spare) tanks and move in on his position. If they fire back, then you take him out. How is that different, you may ask? That same difference between the cops suspecting you of a crime and shooting you through your window as you watch TV without ever attempting to capture you, and the cops coming to your door and shooting you when you pull a gun on them. Yes, that's a huge difference, morally and legally, and in this case, constitutionally. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Really? So Guantanamo doesn't exist? Our country never put the Japanese in prison camps? What about the McCarthy hearings? Did those happen?Learn history or be doomed to repeat it. At least in those previous ones nobody died at the hands of an egomaniac politician. That's changed now.I added an edit. I mean, good lord our government has done some horrible things. No sarcasm. You mentioned just a few. But interring Japanese in WWII is not the same as exterminating them. And as you say, nobody was ever put to death during the McCarthy hearings. That hasn't changed, actually. This isn't a wild goose chase. This was a specific attack against one specific, extremely dangerous person who was actively working to murder as many Americans as possible. These are the guys that behead people, who laugh at the whole concept of "rules of engagement" or "international law," and most importantly are the guys who send brainwashed, drugged-up teenagers on suicide missions to murder you and your whole family - if you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and consider the murders of innocent civilians to be joyous victories. This man presented a real and immediate threat to our nation's security. Now he doesn't. Did you read the article Bob linked? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I'm not saying the guy is innocent or that he didn't deserve to die, just that the way it was done is a terrible step. There are ways to do it that make it not terrible. The most obvious way: take about 30 (or 50 or 100, however many you can spare) tanks and move in on his position. If they fire back, then you take him out. How is that different, you may ask? That same difference between the cops suspecting you of a crime and shooting you through your window as you watch TV without ever attempting to capture you, and the cops coming to your door and shooting you when you pull a gun on them. Yes, that's a huge difference, morally and legally, and in this case, constitutionally.He was in Yemen. So you're saying it would have been better to send an expeditionary force to invade Yemen, attempt to surrorund his compound and hope he says uncle all the while probably hundreds of other people including US military and innocents would be killed than it is to send in a drone and put a Hellfire through his windshield. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I'm not saying the guy is innocent or that he didn't deserve to die, just that the way it was done is a terrible step. There are ways to do it that make it not terrible. The most obvious way: take about 30 (or 50 or 100, however many you can spare) tanks and move in on his position. If they fire back, then you take him out. How is that different, you may ask? That same difference between the cops suspecting you of a crime and shooting you through your window as you watch TV without ever attempting to capture you, and the cops coming to your door and shooting you when you pull a gun on them. Yes, that's a huge difference, morally and legally, and in this case, constitutionally.You're suggesting we should have invaded Yemen with 50 or 100 tanks? That's ludicrous. First of all, Awlaki would see them coming from about 50 miles away and would move to a different hiding spot. I'm no military strategist but even I know that the worst way to capture a high-profile enemy in deep hiding is to make an enormous amount of noise and send an enormous and unmissable amount of huge guns right toward his location. Second, you're risking the lives of hundreds of American military personnel, while a drone attack risks the lives of zero. A drone attack or an Osama-style covert mission were probably the only realistically successful options, and the drone attack was, for numerous reasons I'm sure, chosen.EDIT: Bob beat me to most of that. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You know, good points. I'm not sure the correct answer, I just think it's an incredibly dangerous abuse of power -- the power to assassinate US citizens without a trial. Anyone who thinks our government can be trusted with that kind of power is naive. How much history of abuse do you need to convince you otherwise? From here it is a very short trip to assassinating US citizens on US soil for daring to challenge government. How often has this administration thrown around the word "terrorist" for people who oppose their grand schemes? So what's to stop them now?If this plus the Bush-Cheney-we-are-above-the-law doctrine doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You know, good points. I'm not sure the correct answer, I just think it's an incredibly dangerous abuse of power -- the power to assassinate US citizens without a trial. Anyone who thinks our government can be trusted with that kind of power is naive. How much history of abuse do you need to convince you otherwise? From here it is a very short trip to assassinating US citizens on US soil for daring to challenge government. How often has this administration thrown around the word "terrorist" for people who oppose their grand schemes? So what's to stop them now?If this plus the Bush-Cheney-we-are-above-the-law doctrine doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention.It is scary. It's scary as hell. Unfortunately, it's just one of those things that we have to allow. There's always going to be the possibility that some authority is going to be abused. Matter of fact, we can generally assume that any authority bestowed on the government will most certainly be abused at one point or another. It boils down to where one draws the line, as far as how much we're willing to trust them with.I do not trust empowering the government with Patriot Act powers. That is an entire, all-encompassing doctrine that effectively undermines some of our most fundamental rights to privacy, of Americans, on American soil. Unfortunately, I must bring myself to trust government to target terrorists on foreign soil. There will be times when they screw it up, there will be bizarre, isolated circumstances that jump out of the bushes to test the boundaries of ideology (The John Walker Lindh case) but at the end of the day, it's a job that must be done and it's not something we can outsource to Taiwan.I'd say the chance that your rights are trampled by some mouth-breathing, Community College certificate holding beat cop is a eleventy-gajillion-bazillion times higher than the rights of Americans being credibly harmed in a targeted terrorism assassination. If you want to focus on "rights", the front line of that battle is a domestic law enforcement culture that is completely out of control. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 What made this guy an American?He was born here then moved to sand land correct?See Henry, this is where your libertarian views of immigration laws being so important is biting you in the rear. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 After thinking and talking about this some more, I think I'm much less definite on this issue than I have been portraying, and even than I thought I was.I don't have an answer for this case.I think the key point is that we should strive to be a nation of rule of law, not a nation of rulers. The end cannot justify the means, otherwise cops can kick down our doors because on the 100th door they can stop a crime.Having said that, what kind of rules do we want when the person we are pursuing has no moral qualms about killing thousands of innocent people in a single act?So I guess, in the end, I can't object too strongly to this particular case, I just want people to be alarmed and aware about what we've unleashed. Mark my words: within 20 years, this power will be used against a US citizen on US soil. And it will be someone so objectionable nobody will care. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Mark my words: within 20 years, this power will be used against a US citizen on US soil. And it will be someone so objectionable nobody will care.Really, this already happens. Police shoot people on the spot when they perceive imminent danger. Sure its sometimes a gray area what constitutes imminent danger, and its very unclear when we are dealing with a terrorist posing a danger to citizens from far away.On the other hand, surely if this guy was in the US there would have been some "attempt" to apprehend him. As others have said, the options when he is in Yemen are limited. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Really, this already happens. Police shoot people on the spot when they perceive imminent danger. Sure its sometimes a gray area what constitutes imminent danger, and its very unclear when we are dealing with a terrorist posing a danger to citizens from far away.On the other hand, surely if this guy was in the US there would have been some "attempt" to apprehend him. As others have said, the options when he is in Yemen are limited.Hippies don't count.Back when I broke the laws often by doing drugs and stealing etc I noticed that we were practically a police state.The funny thing is that when I began obeying the law and cut my long hair, the police suddenly smiled and treated me with respect.Its weird how the police changed so much. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Stockholm Syndrome. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Stockholm Syndrome.That crafty LLY probably brought it back from CERN and DIDN'T DECLARE IT to customs.What's that 800-tip-off-bad-guys number? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 This is completely inane but I still find it pretty funny, because it's well done. The account has 11 other videos but the other ones are all songs, even the Obama one he turned into a song, which makes it a lot less funny/enjoyable to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 This is completely inane but I still find it pretty funny, because it's well done. The account has 11 other videos but the other ones are all songs, even the Obama one he turned into a song, which makes it a lot less funny/enjoyable to me. Pretty good Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Herman Cain wins the Florida Straw Poll.I've been saying I like him best in all the 15 minutes worth of debates I've watched. Cain leading in latest poll. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Cain leading in latest poll.The interesting thing is that as Perry has collapsed none of the support went to Romney.I think once people look closer at Cain he'll be found pretty wanting. He really is pretty clueless on both Foreign Affairs and Economics and doesn't really have any sort of campaign structure in place to run a national campaign. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The interesting thing is that as Perry has collapsed none of the support went to Romney.I think that's somewhat understandable. Those who were for Perry were essentially in the "anyone but Romney" crowd. When Perry turned out to be an obvious bust, they had to find someone else. It wasn't Bachmann (too crazy), Santorum (too goofy/crazy) or Huntsman (too well qualified, intelligent, and well-spoken to be a Republican candidate). So, they went with the guy who sold Pizza and said "9-9-9" a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Huntsman (too well qualified, intelligent, and well-spoken to be a Republican candidate).You had to put that in there, didn't you?So what's the real problem with Huntsman? I don't know anything about him.Edit: Oh wait, he's the Mormon, right? Ok, I don't know anything else about him. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 You had to put that in there, didn't you?So what's the real problem with Huntsman? I don't know anything about him.Edit: Oh wait, he's the Mormon, right? Ok, I don't know anything else about him.He believes in science and speaks Chinese so no way the Republicans can nominate him. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now