Zebo
Elite Member
You're wasting your time -Classy is like that black cop from Boyz n the Hood, does not believe in Constitution.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Obama invokes state secrets privelage in assassination case
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You're wasting your time -Classy is like that black cop from Boyz n the Hood, does not believe in Constitution.
Well if he is conspiring to kill other US citizens, that is a crime. I assume you have a link to the indictment? All of this evidence, we have obviously charged him with a crime right?
Oh wait, no? So you are really agreeing that the President of the United States should have the legal authority to assassinate a US citizen that HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME?!?! No court review, no oversight, natta, zilch. You do realize that a president you do not agree with will eventually have the power to completely remove YOUR constitutional rights by KILLING YOU without a trial, no jury and not even charging you with a fucking crime.
Just to be clear, do you think the President should have the power to suspend any and all constitutional rights for any US citizen, or any group of US citizens, at his whim? Is it just the fifth amendment you think he should be able to suspend or do you think he should be able to suspend the 1st through 4th too? How about the 14th?
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
I believe I already said it. Wait and try and capture him, bring him to the US for trial (it would help if the gov actually charged him with a crime as well, before of all of this). It's called following the law. We should always be following the law. You want some "terrorist exemption" clause in the constitution, where as soon as anyone is ACCUSED of terrorism (let alone proven legally), they forfeit all rights and anything can be done to them. Really? Is that what the US is about?
You said it yourself. He is a SUSPECTED terrorist. Just like a suspected murderer has to be arrested, and tried in court before punishment, this guy does to. He is still a US citizen, and there is no "terrorist exemption" clause that I know of.
I said earlier, if he is so guilty (and he may well be), where are the charges? Government hand waving and ordering his execution with even making a case is a good thing?
The US has a long history of kidnapping and bringing to the US suspected terrorists, and trying them in federal court. This doesn't work all of a sudden? It's too hard? We just start blowing away people we don't like know, regardless of citizenship?
Let me repeat this slowly. The.....guy....is....in....hiding...in....an....Al Quaida......camp. Did you get that? If he is in hiding with terrorists how can he talk to anyone to clear his name? What do you want them to do, get 2 styrofoam cups connected with some string and say hey give us a call when you can. Give me a break. They are taking the proper steps here. Surrender and you won't be killed.
SP33Demon
Lifer
This guy should turn himself in or he deserves to be shot on sight. Also, Bush did the same thing with detained terrorists so invoking "state secrets" is nothing new since 2000 and 9/11. Where the fck have you been OP? Habeas Corpus for terrorists (even suspected) died with Guantanamo...
BoberFett
Lifer
Yep, this happens every time. High ranking Dems and Reps love the back and forth of government, because the other party will be able to do things that they would not have been able to do. Then the next time they assume power, which is probably the very next election cycle (or maybe two at the most) they get to use all those power which the previous "corrupt" politicians put in place. Of course then the "good" party does a bunch of things which the "evil" previous party wouldn't be able to get away with, but the "evil" party doesn't care because they'll get to use them when it's their turn again.
The whole damn thing would be funny if it wasn't so sad, because the rank-and-file Reps and Dems still believe that they themselves are the chosen ones, the only party with the answers to solve all of life's ills.
BoberFett
Lifer
ROFLMAO!
He has apparently been typing all night. His next post may well be his magnum opus.
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
Let me repeat this slowly because you don't get it.
1. Fifth Amendment
Answer yes or no to these questions:
1. Do you dispute he is a US citizen?
2. Do you dispute the 5th amendment?
If you answer no, how on earth can you then ignore these very things?
If you answer yes, provide some proof of your position. "He's hiding" doesn't mean jack, and you know it. Have you heard this really old concept in the US legal system of "presumed innocent"? It applies here, he is a US citizen. e doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is on the state to prove guilt.
Again, he is a US citizen. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean you can take his rights away. These are simple law concepts. Do you somehow disagree, or are you just hearing "terrorism", and once again thinking somehow that you and the gov can ignore the law?
By your logic, any criminal hiding in the US should be executed if they don't surrender to the authorities? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
95% of attacks on the left are based on lies and/or ignorance, and I can't remember the other 5%.
Progressives are generally opposed to this, Obama loyalists disagreeing. Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
bamacre
Lifer
I'm not sure I understand the hating on craig regarding this issue. I'm not a bit surprised to see him oppose Obama here. Same with Greenwald. Progressives aren't fond of Obama's continuance of Bush's policies regarding our social liberties. This is an issue that puts progressives and libertarians in the same boat, in opposition to mainstream Democrats and Republicans.
Corn
Diamond Member
If only there was someone adept at creating a bot that would document misdeeds as they pertain to a President and/or his Administration regarding so-called acts of treason, crimes against humanity, and desecration of the constitution, and present itself to the forum it in a macro every time the President was mentioned.
If only.........
If only.........
Last edited:
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
What, what?
Are you contending that only progressives and libertarians like our laws upheld?
That the rank and file of both main parties are fine with illegal actions such as this?
Really? I would say most main-stream people are against this, only the ignorant and far-right neocons support it. I've seen several mainstream true republican conservatives saying this is overboard, even for them.
JD50
Lifer
Craig's words are meaningless when he still votes for Obama.
tinker2141
Previously Banned Chickenshit Jackass
Oh well this guy deserveres it.
I appreciate Bamacre's post here - whoever he's talking about is on my not read list I guess - but I think Garfield's right that it's not fair to call the supporters of this policy 'mainstream Republicans and Democrats'. While he might be right that it makes allies of the strange bedfellows of progressives and libertarians, the other side is more complicated.
IMO: For Democrats, I don't normally use the word 'mainstream'. The leaders tend to be broken into 'progressives' and 'corporatists' for my interest (there are some other groupings, like 'social conservatives' and such). As I said in my previous post, it seems likely to me the standout group of Democrats who will support this will be the 'Obama loyalists', those who reflexively defend his position, and those who have a more pro-military, pro-'security' view, supporting nearly any program increasing those things.
For Republicans, I suspect there are a couple main groups too; they have a corresponding group (that's larger again IMO) on the 'support anything in the name of the military and national security' group, and they have (yet again IMO) a group who are basically ignorant on the issues who care little for any 'rights' issues and it's as simple as 'this helps get bad guys, so good'. On the other side are those Republicans who are more interested in 'rights' and the precedent and such.
One wildcard for the Republicans is their counterpart to Obama loyalists - those who will oppose this just because it's an Obama position, not for policy reasons.
Having said that, it's not 100% on these groups - as if every informed person concerned with rights is against it, and every 'pro-military' person is for it.
There are always arguments by some who disagree, they are generalizations.
I think it's good to remember that our legal 'protections' are *artificial constructions* that can be violated at any time, and there are 'practical' issues in opposition to them.
You need look no further to the (Republican) arguments that bringing alleged terrorists to trial in the US is 'dangerous' as a reason not to do so to recognize how rights can be tossed aside for even delusional reasons, much less the real ones when faced with a situation like this American citizen who might be *clearly* aligned as an enemy of US forces.
But the burglar caught the most red handed crawling out the window with a woman's jewelry is given a trial - that's the sort of 'artificial' rights we have decided to have.
The real issue here isn't about the groupings we're discussing, it's the basic lack of appreciation of the 'rights' issues of a lot of citizens. We need more civics education.
And that even goes for both sides. We should appreciate Obama's position well, too, right or wrong, and we have plenty of reactionary anti-military people too.
It's the ignorance that poses a big threat to our rights - people who can be easily manipulated to support violations and bad policy.
The more ignorance, the more license leaders have to get away with anything.
werepossum
Elite Member
These are all people who are not within US jurisdiction, nor within the jurisdiction of countries who will extradite them for trial. You think we should capture this guy - how many US soldiers and Marines should die in this attempt before it is too costly? How many innocent Yemenis should be allowed to be killed in the attempt to capture him? I agree that he should not be killed without due process IF he is in our custody, but until then he is an enemy combatant, no different from those Americans who traveled to Germany to fight for the Nazi cause, entitled to no more protection than any other al Queda operative or leader.
I think Congress should make a clear declaration of war - not some pussy authorization of force - against the terrorist groups and where applicable their enabling governments, then these people listed as among recognized enemy combatants. But until then I support the President completely in using his discretion to protect the country from its sworn enemies, even if they happen to hold US citizenship. If anything the bar for killing foreigners in their own country should be higher than that for killing rogue Americans in those countries.
As far as comparisons with domestic criminals, the man strolling through the mall shooting people will be gunned down, not apprehended, simply because the cost of tackling him and the damage he'll do if not immediately stopped are great enough to overrule his rights as an American. These are people who plot and execute murder on the wholesale level.
Last edited:
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
I think Bamacre's assessment is actually the correct one. Progressives (i.e. the left wing of the democratic party) and libertarians are on one side of this issue. The other side consists of republicans, plus democrats who are pandering for votes in the fearmongering post-9/11 political climate of the U.S. I wouldn't necessarily call that group "corporatists." I think, rather, that this is a group of democrats who, like republicans, are more interested in staying in power than anything else. The way it works is that republicans demogogue the issue of terrorism and try to label every democrat as a weak accomodationist (or worse, traitor) who will not keep us safe. Some dems stand on principles while others pussy out and do what they think is necessary to be re-elected. The latter category is where Obama is right now. He started out on a different path, but after the underwear bomber and the proposed civilian trials for 9/11 terrorists were turned into political fiascos, he has run into Bush territory.
This demogogery actually works well with the electorate. Contrary to Garfield's comments, the electorate in this country will generally trade freedom for security. We have demonstrated this time and time again. The idea of civilian trials with full Constitutional rights were very unpopular. Mirandizing the underwear bomber was similarly unpopular. Moving Guantanamo inmates stateside was unpopular. The Patriot Act was very popular when enacted, and was still majority popular even when renewed years later. Anyone who thinks the majority in this country generally favors freedom over security is thinking wishfully. So far as most people are concerned, it's always someone else's freedom at stake, not theres.
- wolf
This demogogery actually works well with the electorate. Contrary to Garfield's comments, the electorate in this country will generally trade freedom for security. We have demonstrated this time and time again. The idea of civilian trials with full Constitutional rights were very unpopular. Mirandizing the underwear bomber was similarly unpopular. Moving Guantanamo inmates stateside was unpopular. The Patriot Act was very popular when enacted, and was still majority popular even when renewed years later. Anyone who thinks the majority in this country generally favors freedom over security is thinking wishfully. So far as most people are concerned, it's always someone else's freedom at stake, not theres.
- wolf
Nor did I. I began with that prefatory comment about how I generally divide the party, and followed it with the explanation for this particular issue, which you did not include.
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
Point taken. But bear in mind my post wasn't really intended as a thorough critique or discussion of yours. I am simply stating my own view on the subject.
- wolf
I understand, but you did make a clear reference to one thing in my post that IMO was a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
And to backtrack a little on the correction, when we're speaking of leaders, while I identify them as the progressives and corporatists, I do think that the corporatists are generally the group you are talking about. They're not corporatists because of this issue, which is not an economic issue, but it's largely the same people.
Progressives are going to tend to be concerned with the civil rights issue, while the corporatists are more concerned with doing what is safe politically on this issue.
They can't pass the legislation they're actually concerned about on wealth issues if they aren't in office, and other issues tend to just be used for getting elected.
The rights of some enemy of American with Al Queda is the least of the concerns of such politicians generally, other than its effect on their votes IMO.
I think we agree these are not the best guardians of liberty.
I think I might call them 'mob enablers' - leaders who do not lead the mob, but ride the mob and/or use/stimulate/create the mob sentiments.
But before we get too smug criticizing them, there are real issues with the hard choices politicians face when the mob can throw them out and vote in someone far worse. It's too easy to just criticize.
Even if Obama is as craven as you say, does that make it a good idea for him to lose and get George Bush III? We tried that. It didn't go so well for civil rights, either. See my point again, that ignorance is a problem.
Last edited:
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
I don't disagree with any of your assessments. I do, however, think that the broader political culture in this country is a more interesting issue than the composition of the two political parties. Everything about our politics is first about our culture.
Which is why I would emphaize my second point over my first. There is no question that republicans fearmonger on the terrorism issue, and there is no question that it works politically. Quite simply, they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. The question of most pertinent interest IMO is: why does it work? You won't find the answer without broadening your inquiry beyond the politicians themselves.
- wolf
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Lol. Hell...back in the day...we used to get at least a couple highly impassioned rants a week...and usually several. Now we never hear from him...I guess everything is just peachy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
