The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Jan]

Now that our trip to Idealistic La-La land is over,

Enough! I'm not going to say this again. ALL of us are going to refrain from any hint of insult, personal comments or ridicule and ONLY discuss facts, issues and viewpoints or I'll temporarily close this thread until the topic has gone away.

Am I perfectly, crystal clear?

Jan
Moderator

[Jonas]

Here's a link to an article on the assassination of American citizens. I think it makes some pretty straightforward points.

[Doom Shepherd]

When you quit the country, join up with the enemy military, and start advocating and engaging in attacks against your "own" country, you forfeit your citizenship rights.

Awlaki, in legendary Texas terms, "needs killing."

[Jonas]

When you quit the country, join up with the enemy military, and start advocating and engaging in attacks against your "own" country, you forfeit your citizenship rights.

Says who? And with what right?

Awlaki, in legendary Texas terms, "needs killing."

And who determines who gets to live and who gets to die? You? The President? The government? And once they have that power, how can they be prevented from using it to kill anyone they want to? Do you trust your government - any government - to use such powers in a just way?

(I wonder, in watching Babylon 5, do you support Sheridan or Clark? Sheridan fights to protect the constitution, but you don't seem to have a problem with the constitution being ignored and governments making their own rules. So is Sheridan wrong?)

[Doom Shepherd]

Says who? And with what right?

Everybody, ever. In every civilization since the dawn of history.

And who determines who gets to live and who gets to die? You? The President? The government? And once they have that power, how can they be prevented from using it to kill anyone they want to? Do you trust your government - any government - to use such powers in a just way?

I only have that right if you come into my territory and try to take my stuff, or if you're suicidal enough to threaten me. The government actually does, and always has had, that power. They just generally choose not to exercise it, which is why that executive order is recent, as well as why it's been modified.

And no, I don't trust anyone to use it always wisely, all the time. That's why I also believe in maintaining a considerable capacity for individual and collective defense that is not controlled by the same people.

(There are people who believe in putting all capacity for employing force into the hands of the government. I refer to these people as "suicidal fools.")

(I wonder, in watching Babylon 5, do you support Sheridan or Clark? Sheridan fights to protect the constitution, but you don't seem to have a problem with the constitution being ignored and governments making their own rules. So is Sheridan wrong?)

The Constitution is nonrelevant to external conflicts, and EXTREMELY non-relevant to those who have renounced their citizenship.

Incidentally, Sheridan also had no problem inserting strike/extraction teams into the territory of "allied" governments, like the Drazi. (Or, for that matter, extrajudicial killing of an opponent - just ask Kosh Vader) You're not going to win this argument with the "appeal to fiction."

Meanwhile... these are terrible people, celebrating a death. Which was carried out extrajudiciously. By an invader from the US.

http://youtu.be/q7OQwGr-5wI

[Jan]

The Constitution is nonrelevant to external conflicts, and EXTREMELY non-relevant to those who have renounced their citizenship.

Renouncing citizenship is a process that a person must undertake; not something that happens when a citizen behaves badly.

To renounce U.S. citizenship, you must go in person to a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the U.S. and sign before a consular officer an oath or affirmation that you intend to renounce your citizenship.

Jan

[Jonas]

Everybody, ever. In every civilization since the dawn of history.

Except that "everybody" seems not to include lots of people, who completely disagree with that position.

[babylonlurker]

Everybody, ever. In every civilization since the dawn of history.

Now, that is a sweeping generalization, if ever I saw one. How can you be so absolutely sure, DS ?

[Doom Shepherd]

Now, that is a sweeping generalization, if ever I saw one. How can you be so absolutely sure, DS ?

By that I do not mean every individual. Just every society. Or at least, all the surviving ones, since the contrary viewpoint is not conducive to cultural longevity.

[Doom Shepherd]

Renouncing citizenship is a process that a person must undertake; not something that happens when a citizen behaves badly.

Jan

Officially, yes.

Much in the same way that to officially declare open hostilities, there are resolutions to be passed and documents to be voted upon...

...but unofficially, a punch in the face (or bombing Pearl Harbor) is equally effective.

[Jonas]

Officially, yes.

Much in the same way that to officially declare open hostilities, there are resolutions to be passed and documents to be voted upon...

...but unofficially, a punch in the face (or bombing Pearl Harbor) is equally effective.

So anyone who is considered an enemy of the state can simply be disenfranchised, and the state is not bound by any laws. Because the laws are just what happens officially...

[David Panzer]

The same time that a government is promoting the official line, there's black ops going on behind the scenes.

[Jonas]

The same time that a government is promoting the official line, there's black ops going on behind the scenes.

Only so long as governments are not held to their own laws. And if they are not, then their lawlessness increases.

[Marsden]

Only so long as governments are not held to their own laws. And if they are not, then their lawlessness increases.

But who enforces a law if not some form of governing body or government, as it were.

[Doom Shepherd]

So anyone who is considered an enemy of the state can simply be disenfranchised, and the state is not bound by any laws. Because the laws are just what happens officially...

Actually, officially, if you become a clear threat to others, the government and its agents are permitted to kill you, whether you are a terrorist plotter living in another country or a drug-crazed maniac running down the street with a machete. This is why police have guns.

(I suppose someone could try to argue that OBL wasn't a threat to anyone, at that moment, but given the evidence of his ongoing plotting that is coming out now, I'd be morally obligated to made several derogatory remarks about their mental faculties, and Jan would close the thread.)

In fact, in 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police reccommended that suspected suicide bombers be shot in the head.

http://www.policeone.com/news/117762-IACP-suggests-head-shots-to-stop-suicide-bombers/

It would also be good to read this:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf

And in any case, it's better and ultimately less destructive to target a terrorist than to target the entire nation that the terrorist is in, which is the other alternative. So... shoot Bin Laden, or go to war with nuclear-armed Pakistan? How many people do you want to die for your ideals? My number's lower.