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'. "
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, Americans are stupid all year long.
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:What? (Score:5, Funny)
And if you manage to find out that you happen to be placed on this 'Do Kill' list [say, by a drone strike that misses you], and believe you are being mistakenly targeted, there is a defined process that you can go through.
Present yourself, in person, with complete documentation as to who you are, including birth certificates, passports, lists of friends, workplaces, acquaintances, all computers you own or have used recently, residences and anything else you consider relevant, to the nearest American Embassy. You must completely enter the embassy and request to speak to the security officer, who will look over your information and quickly render his/her judgement on your case.
And if you are not satisfied with their judgement, your family and/or acquaintances outside of the Embassy can file a formal protest with their government, requesting that you be returned from wherever you are taken to.
Re: (Score:3)
Long form?
Sure. . . (Score:2)
Sounds legit. . .
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:Ooops? (Score:4, Funny)
No, really? It's just an art student's project? You don't say.jpg
Re:Ooops? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Now you tell me, I already enrolled Schrödinger's cat... not because I care about this overused meme, but because I've got money on the outcome.
Re:Ooops? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Now you tell me, I already enrolled Schrödinger's cat... not because I care about this overused meme, but because I've got money on the outcome.
No, you fool! Betting changes the outcome!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does that make it a "joke" site instead of site trying to bring attention to the matter?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Put out by
This guy [ianalanpaul.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>this is registered to an individual who worked in 2009 as a San Francisco Art Institute teaching assistant.
So?
Art teachers or students don't have a right to make a political statement? How Hitlerian of you. Next I suppose you'll want this site thrown on a book-burning pile because it's "degenerate" art.
Re:Ooops? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Guess where those guys got your number from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a joke? (Score:2)
It is almost ridiculous enough to be funny, but it also sounds just plausible enough to be real.
remember the 3 sarah conners? (Score:2)
Not sure that this will work very well. If you accidentially end up on a kill list of an automated hunter-killer, any redress list probably won't appear in the phone book listing... ;^)
We need another site (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We need another site (Score:4, Funny)
You should use this drone [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have a "Please Kill" list as well. I have a neighbor with a dog that barks all night that's just itching for a drone attack.
As long as you are aware that there is often collateral damage in a drone attack, normally the neighbors of the target.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We need another site (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the old joke about the old Italian man. He wrote to his son in prison saying that he wouldn't be able to plant the tomatoes this year because he couldn't dig up the plot and that he wished his son were there to help. The son wrote back that he shouldn't dig there anyway because that's where the bodies were buried. After the agents swarmed in and dug up the garden, his son wrote another letter saying, "Sorry for the agents, but it was the best I could do."
Site Blocked at Work (Score:3, Funny)
genius (Score:5, Funny)
it's a scam by the CIA, trying to tempt terrorists to fill in their name and whereabouts thinking they'll be safer.
also beware of the "do not steal my identity list", send name, address, SSN, mother's maiden name, bank details to apply
False Positive them to oblivion. (Score:3)
What we SHOULD be doing is working to get everyone and their dog onto the "kill" list, to the point that one of three things happens:
1. A few perfectly innocent people get targeted and all hell breaks loose, or
2. The people relying on that list are forced to abandon it as completely polluted, or
3. It remains officially in existence, but nobody actually uses it. They rely upon a separate list which may or may not be a subset of the polluted list.
Option 1 will force changes and most likely would result in a rather thorough rolling of heads at the top. That's why it is unlikely to happen.
Option 2 would be little more than inconvenient, but the replacement list had better be relatively vetted and secure or it too will get polluted.
Option 3 will reduce the list to being merely an embarrassment to those in power. All but a few paranoid types (justified or not) will forget about it.
It's like putting "kilo nuclear uranium jihad" in your signature file to crap up the ECHELON system.
robots.txt (Score:3)
User-agent: Predator
Disallow: mother
Disallow: father
Disallow: wife
Disallow: son
Disallow: daughter
# Disallow: mother-in-law
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Funny)
Eastasia has always not been a nation-state
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is at war with sanity, and has been for quite some time. And sanity is loosing.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Informative)
North Korea and South Korea are still at war with each other since South Korea wasn't a signatory to the armistice.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Informative)
No. did you actually read the link you provided? That is a cease-fire. It is not a peace treaty. It does not end the war. (It is true that South Korea never signed the cease fire.)
here's a longer explanation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/05/are_we_at_war_with_north_korea.html [slate.com]
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's taken me a long time to come to the realization that the only war that can be justified is if you are fighting on your own land directly against invaders to repel them. The reason is the same as in your personal life. You can use force to defend yourself. But you have to be careful in that you only use force against those attacking you. If someone attacks you and the runs into a crowd you aren't justified in firing into the crowd hoping to hit that person. But that is what war is once you go into another country. You are punishing and killing innocent people in the hopes you might hit a few of the guilty. There is no moral argument for this.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to read the Laws of Armed Conflict. It can be summed up as "Use the minimum force necessary to kill only those that you intend."
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The question isn't "can war exist without nation-states"; the question is whether hostilities between non-nation-states should be called war or not. The answer doesn't change the fact that group
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an European, let me say that the president of a democracy should not have a list of people he wants dead. Arrested, maybe, although such a list should better be established by Justice, but not dead.
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:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>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.
What you SHOULD be concerned about is the President already ordered the execution of 3 U.S. citizens, including an underage minor. I didn't realize the death penalty could be applied without a right to trial (or against juveniles... I thought they were exempt). We live in dangerous days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki [outsidethebeltway.com]
Anwar al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetical:
US citizen A joins enemy army.
US citizen A takes action against US while in enemy army.
Is Citizen A guilty of treason?
Yes, he's guilty of treason. Given sufficient evidence for action against the US, Citizen A may even be convicted of treason without a trial.
Traitors are killed. Treason is the only law in the US Constitution that defines its punishment. Technically, they should be hanged, but somehow I don't think it really makes a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't give a crap if it was Warren Harding creating the kill order, US presidents do not have the right to order murders. End of story.
Actually, yes, they do. And it's probably not at all the end of the story. Several recent US presidents have ordered such murders, and they've all gotten away with it. Obama is even using it successfully as campaign material. Even the professional comedians have picked up on this, characterizing Obama's campaign approach as "I killed Osama bin Laden", and little else. There isn't the slightest chance that Obama will be charged with any crime for this action. So it's clear that US presidents do have t
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am also concerned that there are three US citizens that most likely are dangerous enough to warrant such an order.
I am much less concerned by who makes this decision at the moment. Right now, for the first time in my life, the sitting President of the United States, an elected official, is personally reviewing the data on terrorists and personally deciding whether or not to attempt to take these people out. He's not handing the job to an analyst or to an assistant-to-an-undersecretary or some other unknown, non-elected bureaucrat. He is personally taking the responsibility and accepting the ramifications of these decisions.
These individuals are members of an organization that has successfully attacked us in the past and that has pledged to attack us in the future. There is no practical way to bring them to legal justice, as they operate as a de facto government in territory that they control. In that sense they nearly are members of a nation-state and the rules of war can be found to apply to them as lieutenants in that de facto government's military structure.
I think that the situation is a terrible, horrible one. But, I also have less qualms about how this is being run than I do about the entire detention/torture system that was in place before it.
Re: (Score:3)
These individuals are members of an organization that has successfully attacked us in the past and that has pledged to attack us in the future. There is no practical way to bring them to legal justice, as they operate as a de facto government in territory that they control. In that sense they nearly are members of a nation-state and the rules of war can be found to apply to them as lieutenants in that de facto government's military structure.
Uh-oh, I think you just proved the validity of jihad. Better keep one eye pointed up, imam...
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep telling people these "dumb" politicians are the alpha sociopaths, but people keep choosing to believe they are so much smarter.
Hey, they know how to install a Linix distro and write program in C++! Let's see some idiot politician do that, huh? Amirite? Yeah! Stupid politicians! Bunch of old dudes who can barely work a phone! Ha!
Meanwhile, the politicians are laughing their asses off at the "useful idiots", raking in the power and the money, and partying it up like there's no tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
Bureaucracies are similar all over, be they government or corporations. A CTO can be someone that takes credit for you doing your job, even if they have absolutely no idea what your job is, how you accomplish it, or how to replicate it in others.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. This video [youtube.com] shows some clips of Bush's speeches back when he was running for governor. He comes across as intelligent and articulate. Now, the video's voice over concludes that Bush has some sort of early onset dementia. But I think the far more likely answer is that he concluded, correctly, that most Americans would rather vote for "someone they can have a beer with" than someone who sounds smarter than they are.
You don't get to be president, or attain any other position of power, by being a moron.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>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.
What you SHOULD be concerned about is the President already ordered the execution of 3 U.S. citizens, including an underage minor. I didn't realize the death penalty could be applied without a right to trial (or against juveniles... I thought they were exempt). We live in dangerous days.
The fact that you are more concerned that your President is killing US citizens without charge or trial outside of a warzone than that your President is killing human beings without charge or trial outside of a warzone is at the heart of what is wrong with your country.
You have started down the path where arbitrary murder by the state is sometimes acceptable. You can still turn back, but you need to turn back right now, in relation to all human beings.
It will be interesting to see how the US reacts when, with its power in decline, China or India or Russia start killing civilians in other countries because they are on some "kill list" or other.
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: (Score:3)
What is war, if not killing human beings without charge or trial?
Assassination is not a just or legitimate part of war. In war, a person must be engaged in combat in order to be considered a legitimate target. Any person who is a danger when not engaged in combat is either a criminal—and should be treated as such: attempt to capture for trial—or an important military or political figure—and should be treated as such: attempt to capture for the duration of hostilities. This is an important moral and practical boundary, and it was devised to help to preve
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you are more concerned that your President is killing US citizens without charge or trial outside of a warzone than that your President is killing human beings without charge or trial outside of a warzone is at the heart of what is wrong with your country.
Semantics? That is "the heart of what is wrong with your country"? "Wrong with your country" is what... pretentious motherfuckers who post online?
There are many problems in the world and many problems in our country. The only problem identified by your post is you.
American exceptionalism is the problem I am referring to. More traditionally known as 'hubris'. There are some good plays about it, you should check them out. The Greeks had the concept nailed down about 2500 years ago.
Your government and many of your citizens operate on the basis that there are "Americans" and "others". You regard yourselves as special, privileged, the chosen people. You have failed to register that this is obviously not true, nor have you registered that your supposedly permanent hegemony of only a few years ago is already gone.
Once you decide that some are "more equal than others", you lose the ability to impartially assess any situation. The concepts essential to a just, democratic world become unworkable, because they rely on the opposite view, that no-one person or group should be more privileged than any other.
The GP's comment exemplifies the (majority) American mindset - murdering people is only problematic if it offends your constitution. Well, guess what? Fuck your constitution. It's problematic because it's fundamentally wrong, not because it offends some American document which you guys tend to ignore most of the time anyway.
Hence you cannot understand (a) your immense economic problems (b) your immense geopolitical problems or (c) your immense problems with groups of angry foreign men wanting to hurt you. None of it makes sense to you because you cannot see that you are not special, and therefore that there will be no automatic Hollywood ending to these dramas.
Bill Clinton made a speech towards the end of his presidency where he argued strongly that the US should strengthen international institutions and human rights standards as much as possible. His reasoning was that America's time in the sun wouldn't last forever, and that when some other power - China, for instance - was dominant, America would be grateful for strong and liberal democratic international governance. Sadly Bush II and Obama haven't heeded that warning, and have contributed to a world of unilateral murder and mayhem as a result. The precedent of the powerful being entitled to murder the weak instead of pursuing them according to law will have terrible consequences for all of us, I fear.
Re: (Score:3)
He probably confused Anwar Al-Awlaki with a minor.
What I find hilarious is that people like CPU6502 have no problem with villagers in a random village being shot, because the Taliban showed their faces. They don't have a problem with people rotting in Gitmo, or being sent to various secret CIA prisons or even foreign governments for "interrogation". But god forbid that under Obama's watch, someone holding an American passport gets killed in a drone strike, and then all hell breaks lose.
You know people, you
Re: (Score:3)
But then again, SWAT teams exist for a reason. And they frequently shoot first as well.
I'm fairly sure this is incorrect. SWAT teams are not military, they're police. While they look military, and are pretty well-armed (but again, not like a military fire team; they don't have any squad machine guns, for instance, and perhaps a submachine gun), their tactics are quite different; their goal is usually to bust into a place and secure it, and disarm anyone there. That doesn't mean "shooting first", unless s
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely - SWAT teams are police called into action when it is unlikely that the suspect is going to surrender peacefully. They are fully equipped and prepared to shoot to kill. IE there is some information that so-and-so did something bad, and is waving a gun around, possibly with a hostage. What does the police do? Call in the SWAT team, who can and have killed people without a trial. Generally it was because they were being shot at.
How different is this really from what we're doing to people like al-Awl
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a world of difference between shooting at a suspect because he's armed and has already taken shots at you, and shooting a suspect while he's walking to the store or whatever just because you think he's not going to surrender peacefully.
In theory, the police (except when breaking policy somehow) NEVER kill anyone without a trial; when a death happens, it's because the officer was exercising self-defense because a suspect was attacking them, and that self-defense unfortunately resulted in the suspect's death. When someone shoots at you, you're allowed to shoot back to neutralize the threat; otherwise, you can't.
A drone attacking some guy as he's driving down the street, blissfully unaware that anyone is out to get him at the moment, isn't remotely the same.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
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:5, Informative)
Have a look [wikipedia.org]... continue reading until you reach Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one put a gun to their heads and forced them into a building with an al-Qaeda leader.
I'm amazed at how cheaply some of you value human life, and assume the Moon to justify your beliefs.
"Dad, are you an Al Quaida leader?"
"What?!? Who've you been talking to?"
I seldom knew what my dad was doing most of the time when I was his age. He could have been robbing banks for all I knew. The Mafia make a point of keeping family separate from "business." Teenage civillians snuffed as collateral damage, and you just blow it off as simply another raghead who should have known better.
No wonder they hate you.
Re: (Score:3)
President is also considered to be the supreme commander of armed forces in many European countries, as well - France is a good example.
Re: (Score:3)
As an European, let me say that the president of a democracy should not have a list of people he wants dead.
That would depend on the circumstances. During WW2, leaders of democratic Western countries did not have any qualms about targeting high-ranged Reich functionaries. Sure, those that survived the end of the war were given some pretense of due process, but before that, do you think, say, Churchill wouldn't have ordered a bombing of the exact place he'd have known Himmler or Goring to reside in at that particular moment?
Re: (Score:3)
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, Insightful)
Killing foreigners? Okay.
This bit is absolutely right; but it doesn't agree with the bit of the constitution you claimed to quote. I think you must have done a misquote. The constitution actually reads:
"No person who is for sure 100% known to have American citizenship shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (or being mistaken for a foreigner); nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (except for foreign property)."
It's shocking the way that people make these kinds of basic mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
at least one person "100% known to have American citizenship" has been intentionally targeted and killed by a drone. it took them a month to figure out that they "could" kill him, and then apparently 1.5 years to seal the deal. and then they killed his son, also an american citizen.
also, your formulation is funny. how can the american gov't not be 100% sure whether someone is american or not? it's fairly simple. or are you saying that if i close my eyes and fire into a crowd, that this somehow mitigates my
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Funny)
if i close my eyes and fire into a crowd, that this somehow mitigates my legal responsibility since i didn't really know whether i was shooting anyone?
Obligatory Simpsons:
Nelson: Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Informative)
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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Actually, note that it says "person" not citizen. This was intentional (you can see to how many times they note "citizen" in the constitution), and so it applies to all people, including foreigners.
Re: (Score:3)
And a kill list that includes everyone else is not? The difference here is really that it's not unconstitutional to have a kill list with 5 billion people on it as long as they're not american, the tyrannical or amoral or just plain-ridiculous-as-expected-from-politics are determined by entirely different criteria than a text that pretends to be a law of nature in some book that is selectively ignored for most of the time.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood this concept, that moral rights only apply to American citizens. May be I am not smart enough to grasp the idea.
It seems to be Ok to kill any non-american without due process or self-defense. Even to kill anyone including (or around) his family/kids. It seems also fine to detain and torture foreigners for an undetermined amount of time as long it is done outside USA soil.
Can someone explain it to me? Does it mean, for example, that I can own a slave, as long is not American?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And if it weren't for the fact that the GoP wants this power for their next candidate elected to the Presidency, there might even be an impeachment.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing foreigners? Okay. Killing Americans? A violation of the president's oath to uphold Constituional Law
I hope this is a joke. In case it's not, I assume you agree that by parity of reasoning, other countries have the right to launch missiles into US territory to kill US citizens if they decide they are beyond the reach of those countries' domestic legal systems?
Re: (Score:3)
You're right that Obama should be impeached for killing 2 American citizens without making the slightest attempt at due process. Anwar al-Awlaki was arguably a Bad Person, but his son Abdulrahman was also targeted and killed 2 weeks later for what I can only assume was the sole crime of being the son of Anwar.
Dick Cheney should also have been impeached and tried for war crimes: The United States declared that ordering waterboarding was a crime against humanity back in 1945-6, and Dick Cheney proudly proclai
Re: (Score:3)
The source of that entire argument is Eric Holder, who serves at the pleasure of the man we're accusing. It would be sort of like asking Tom Hagan if Michael Corleone had killed anybody.
Here's the counterargument: ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;"
"No person shall
Re: (Score:3)
r major presidential candidate in the last 30 years has cared for the rule of law.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Obama hasn't been impeached yet is the most damning indictment of our political system I could imagine. He has utterly failed in his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Pass the tea, please.
Seriously, people said this through 12 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Reagan. The side not in power always whines that the President is not upholding the constitution while doing everything in Congress possible to prevent work from getting done. The reality is that most of the HSA, TSA and health care actions taken by this administration (by it's own choice) have origins in either the Bush administration or conservative thinkers. Suddenly it's against the Constitution because it's a Democrat wanting to do it.
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So. Let me get this straight.
If someone rapes your daughter you would respond with "Yeah, so what?" because of the citizens united case?
Since we have had the citizens united case you just intend to say fuck it too everything?
So before that case you were all up in arms over the power grabs by decades of bad congresses but now that this case has been decided badly "Fuck it"?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't let corporations play in politics.
I understand where your coming from wrt the indutrial-military complex, but had we done what you suggest from the begining the Magna Carta would never have been written, let alone agreed to by the monarchy. It was wealthy merchants who forced the king to devolve some power to the people by refusing to fund his costly wars. To a lesser and more subtle extent, most of todays multi-nationals are also using their influence on politics to keep nations at peace in order to protect their own interests.
The reaso
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:4, Informative)
Due process for civilians while we're not in a declared war does in fact mean in a court of law. Only members of the military and "enemy combatants" are subject to military jurisdiction outside of military facility or area declared to be under martial law.
Re: (Score:3)
what your references are saying is that he thinks its disappointing that while most Americans will mix during work and work related functions at the weekends America is still segregated along racial lines pretty much the same as in the 1950's.
The 2nd amendment attacks you refer to are that maybe it isn't a great idea for people to be carrying guns routinely. Not banning guns but discouraging people from having them.
I can understand your feelings in a country where you have to look out for you and yours with
Re: (Score:3)
Officially there was a ban on political assassinations by the US starting with Ford but it was ended by Clinton.
Assassination was one of those things that "We just did not do anymore." and that we were morally past it, but realities changed and now it is necessary again.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that these are not all soldiers in a foreign military belonging to a hostile state. In some cases they are even our own Citizens. These people are by and large accused criminals, violent ones maybe but criminals not uniform soldiers.
We passed laws decades against our intelligence services assassinating people.
We are supposed to have rights, in the case of citizens at least, to face our accuser, have the decision on our guilt be made by a jury of our peers if we desire, have the burden of proof be p
Re: (Score:3)
We passed laws decades against our intelligence services assassinating people.
You passed some little laws? Awwww. That's so cute! You're so cute when you vote! Who's a wonderful little citizen? You! Yes you are! You've got the moral right to self-government and everything! You've got representation in the House! And you're learning civics! You're so smart!
But don't bother Daddy right now, okay? He's gotta go to his office and kill some foreign citizens on foreign soil without a declaration of war. It's grown-up business. You wouldn't understand. Oh, and tell Mommy to order up some mo
Re:Yeah, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The commander in chief of the most powerful army, navy, and air force in the world has a list of people he wants dead? STOP THE PRESSES! Targeting specific people is not news... it's war. People die when they're killed. Derp.
Pres. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 banning political assassination
Pres Carter: EO 12036 banning US involvement in assassinations
Pres. Regan: EO 12333 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
Pres. Obama: DoD Directive 2310. Incorporates prohibitions against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Bans Water boarding.
Drone assassinations are apparently OK. In fact a "kill list" is perfectly acceptable during an election year...
...for the first sitting president to be a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Something's really fucked up here.
Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Don't put me on any List" list.
That list couldn't exist, obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
Will the real Douglas R. Hofstadter please stand up?
Re: (Score:3)
"Don't kill me bro"
Don't Drone me Bro.