National "Do Not Kill Registry" Launched In Response To Drone Kill List 484
First time accepted submitter crtitheories writes "In response to the national kill list revealed by the New York Times a few weeks ago, an online "Do Not Kill" Registry has been launched where users can sign up to avoid being mistakenly added. From the Do Not Kill website: 'Through an active collaboration between the Do not Kill Registry, the brave pilots and operators of the U.S. drone program, and the American public, we believe that we can find the political and moral solutions needed to both protect the security of the United States while also satisfying the concerns of the broader global community'. "
Ooops? (Score:5, Interesting)
After a quick WHOIS search, and a bit of googling, I found that this is registered to an individual who worked in 2009 as a San Francisco Art Institute teaching assistant.
It's a joke site.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
White lists are black lists.
Murder is heroic.
Lies are truth.
Welcome to the USA, sir.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing foreigners? Okay. Killing Americans? A violation of the president's oath to uphold Constituional Law: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A kill list may exist, but a kill list that includes Americans citizens is tyrannical.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, sure - in a European democracy that would not be good... they usually aren't supposed to have such powers. In the US, the President is also the head of the military (but in turn not connected to the legislature like a typical Prime Minister) - so naturally he would have final say over anyone the military is trying to kill, and in general this list should be restricted to people outside of the US courts' various jurisdictions (i.e. Yemen).
In the US, I'd be a lot more concerned if the President were not the one with final say over what the military is up to.
Re:Sure.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wha? I added myself to that list and it cut my sales calls down considerably. Now I only get obviously fraudulent calls from spoofed caller ids, and far fewer of them.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Please give me specific examples of where he has failed to follow the rules as set out in the Constitution.
Has he taken your guns?
Has he quartered any troops in your house or on your land?
Has he taken any more powers "reserved for the states" than his predecessors? If yes, I want specifics, including how the courts have ruled on the matter(s).
Has he prohibited assembly, or speech? Has he endorsed a state-sponsored religion?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
He probably confused Anwar Al-Awlaki with a minor.
No, I am pretty sure GP was referring to Al-Awlaki's son. here [cnn.com]. I guess he was killed by accident. Then again, since the deliberations are secret, maybe he was killed on purpose.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
What is war, if not killing human beings without charge or trial? What defines the borders of a war zone? During WWII, Japan floated balloons full of bombs over to the American Pacific coast, with the obvious intent of "killing human beings without charge or trial", even though no one would have considered California to be an active war zone. That is, unless you define war zone as "a place where our enemies live", in which case the targeted killings by the US lose all meaning.
Personally, I prefer targeted killings to the alternatives. If there is person Y in country X planning to kill citizens of country Z, there are only so many ways to handle it.
Country Z can try to defend its borders and keep the killers out, but that's simply not practical. Homeland security is just theater. Terrorists can always, if nothing else, slip into the country as a tourist, acquire a weapon, and kill some people. Look at the guy who shot up the summer camp in Norway, or the stabbings of school children in China a while back. Both of those were native attackers, but they could just as easily have been outsiders.
Country Z can demand that country X's government intervene, but most terrorists are based in lawless countries.
Country Z can go to war, as the US did in Afghanistan, but I think we all agree that that leads to far more death and destruction.
Country Z can sit back and let its people die, but those people will respond by voting out the current government. Complain all you want, no people on Earth will respond to repeated terrorist attacks by turning the other cheek.
Or finally, Country Z can try to kill person Y, and only person Y. To me, that seems like the least bad of a bunch of bad options.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Militarization of the police is a big thing going on, and to me it's a really disturbing trend. Where you'd send a cop or two twenty years ago to safely arrest someone on the street, they now send in assault team dressed in black to bust the door down, with guns drawn, who shoot the dogs and anything or anyone else that looks remotely threatening. The worst part of it is I don't think we've even begin to see the beginning of it.
Government agencies not typically associated with the policing of -anything- are developing paramilitary squads. Example: recently the IRS put together a SWAT style team team. The DoE (education, not energy), Customs, the Department of Agriculture and EPA also have their own dedicated jackbooted goon squads, whereas in the past they'd bring in the FBI SWAT team if it were thought to be really necessary. Hell, the California Dept of Food & Agriculture sends in their own police squad to arrest...hippies dealing in raw foods. So, why the redundancy; are existing teams so occupied that it's necessary? Or is it because they're trying to get under the DHS umbrella, and have money bleeding out of their asses?
Some features of one of my jobs place me adjacent to local police, SWAT teams in particular. These teams draw in a lot of veterans retiring from the military, and many of the younger guys are newly-former special operators. They're naturals at every demand the job can throw at them, they've been there and done that, know how to operate as a team, and once they go though the police schools they naturally gravitate there. To say they're not becoming 'military' is wishful thinking. I don't have the data to back it up, but I'm sure it's a national trend.