Obama authorizes killing of usa citizens without due process

[bradly1101]

In Snowden's interview he spoke of the rise of the 'Security State', where security is the utmost concern. The problem is that decisions based on fear are often ill advised when looked at with logic instead of terror.

We lend terrorists weight to their followers, notoriety and martyrdom by reacting to them. Reaction begets reaction and escalation. When will it end, and how?

I say we should just batten-down the hatches (which we've already mostly done with cockpit doors, getting scanned and felt-up at the airport...) and let them be seen for who they are. They lose favor on their own. We shouldn't take that away.

 

[davmat787]

Logically it must be different or there would be nothing for the directive to clarify.

Maybe clarification wasn't the goal, but ambiguity was? I don't think the federal government wants us to have clear, understandable, and unconflicting laws anymore.

 

[TerryMathews]

Maybe clarification wasn't the goal, but ambiguity was? I don't think the federal government wants us to have clear, understandable, and unconflicting laws anymore.

I know that and you know that. Trying to Eskimo pie to see it too.

 

[fskimospy]

I know that and you know that. Trying to Eskimo pie to see it too.

'Something must be new and nefarious, although I can't identify it' is not a good argument.

 

[TerryMathews]

'Something must be new and nefarious, although I can't identify it' is not a good argument.

Logically, why else would it need clarification?

 

[Jhhnn]

Logically, why else would it need clarification?

An absence of evidence is not evidence. Just because you cannot find another logical explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.

You're exhibiting motivated reasoning, quite common on the Right. It's all about what you want to believe.

 

[fskimospy]

Logically, why else would it need clarification?

For any one of a hundred reasons. As you mentioned, to remove ambiguity, to update it in regards to changing technology, etc.

If you think something is dramatically different here than what existed before, quote the relevant passage. If you can't do that but are believing it anyway, you are, as jhnnn said, engaging in motivated reasoning.

 

[Fern]

Maybe clarification wasn't the goal, but ambiguity was? I don't think the federal government wants us to have clear, understandable, and unconflicting laws anymore.

That's exactly how the IRS has been proceeding over the past few years in writing their regulations. They have refused to draft clear guidelines explaining it away by saying "we'll know it when we see it" when it comes to some prohibited transaction.

Fern

 

[michal1980]

For any one of a hundred reasons. As you mentioned, to remove ambiguity, to update it in regards to changing technology, etc.

If you think something is dramatically different here than what existed before, quote the relevant passage. If you can't do that but are believing it anyway, you are, as jhnnn said, engaging in motivated reasoning.

Your the ones making the claim that its the same.

Come on and show your proof.

 

[brycejones]

OP doesn't think the government should have contingency plans in case the stuff really hit the fan.

If stuff hit the fan OP would complain government didn't have contingency plan.

Basically OP is a whiner.

 

[Vic]

OP doesn't think the government should have contingency plans in case the stuff really hit the fan.

If stuff hit the fan OP would complain government didn't have contingency plan.

Basically OP is a whiner.

Nah.. he's just a partisan shit head.