Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Starts New Drone War In Congress
SonicSpike (242293) writes with news that the ACLU and Rand Paul both think every Senator should read David Barron's legal memos justifying the use of drones against an American citizen before he is confirmed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. From the article: "Paul, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky, has informed Reid he will object to David Barron's nomination to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals unless the Justice Department makes public the memos he authored justifying the killing of an American citizen in Yemen. The American Civil Liberties Union supports Paul's objection, giving some Democratic lawmakers extra incentive to support a delay to Barron's nomination, which could come to the floor in the next two weeks. Barron, formerly a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, penned at least one secret legal memo approving the Sept. 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric whom intelligence officials accused of planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
(n/t)
The way drones are currently employed in extrajudicial killing (a.k.a. murder), typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US, is just as illegal when it targets US citizen as it is when it targets anybody else.
Not to mention the vast majority of drone victims who are not even suspected of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
It's not the "war on terrorism" anymore.
Instead, it is the "race against terrorism"
(to be the first to use drones against an American citizen.)
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
It's so nice to see a Republican actually care about someone who does not reside in a uterus, provided they have a valid US passport.
And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?
If Rand Paul wanted a higher office, he would play the game like all the other members of congress. Enough people don't even pay attention to what their congressmen do that your best bet to move up is to play the game and be valuable to your party, so that they financially back you and prop you up.
The reason the main parties are so similar is because that's what people want. Both sides are targeting the mainstream so they meet at a sort of equilibrium point that closely represents the strongest tactical position.
It's not in itself a problem. Ideally this would mean that both parties have chosen a centrist position largely representative of the majority. What is a problem is that this doesn't happen because this isn't the strongest position. Money is way too much of a factor, so that means the best position is somewhere between what the people want, and what generates the most revenue.
They're not legally people, like slaves in America prior to the emancipation proclamation. Democrats love to kill people (especially black people), so they put up a legal fiction that humans 1 second from crawling out of a womb are not people. Not outside yet? You're a tissue growth and we can use poisons, knives and vacuum cleaners to kill you. And if you survive the attempt and are born? We can still kill you because we're democrats and we like killing things.
We don't have a choice, there are only two viable parties and they both support unrestrained capitalism. (The key word here is unrestrained.)
And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?
Define a person. I don't know how to do that. I think a lot of people don't know how to do that, other than just to say, "I know a person when I see them". But a uterus does belong to a person, so I figure they have the rights to decide what happens inside of that uterus.
So yea, that might be wrong. History might judge that opinion harshly. But I think the thing that most people can agree on is that fewer abortions is better than more. But as people point out all the time about other issues here, making something illegal doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, that it doesn't have it's time or place.
So, shrug.
And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?
I'm not the GP, but I think you start out wrong by saying "people". To justify classification as people, I would think a certain amount of self-awareness is needed.
If someone cuts off a tip of his finger, you wouldn't call it "people", would you? How about a biopsy? Is that a person too? How about the sperm you lose pretty much every day?
What's so special about the zygote that it becomes a person? To me this seems to require magical thinking.
Wait a minute... did a senator just object to a judicial nomination for an actually valid reason?
It's so nice to see a Republican actually care about someone who does not reside in a uterus, provided they have a valid US passport.
While I object to your attempt to make some sort of distinction between republicans and democrats (because that was your goal) I still need to point out that Rand Paul is about the most un-republican out there. Granted, he could be lying, he is a politician after all.
It would be an interesting exercise to imagine what would happen if the Russians, Iranians or North Koreans started to perform 'extra-judicial' killings within the borders of the US. Would the American President, Congress or Public accept this?
Remember drones are pretty cheap technology, almost any country can afford those.
I'm sorry but the Supreme Court should rule there is no such thing as a secret law or secret interpretation of a law.
While details of any particular case could be secret, of course, the law itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise should be considered treason against freedom itself.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Fun fact - there's only two "viable" parties because the voters believe that and go along with it.
You want things to change? Stop voting for the same BS while complaining that you "don't have a choice."
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
GP was talking about a person, and so am I. That's why we call them "unborn child", and "baby in the womb". Noone can discard a human life without being a murderer. Therefore to justify themselves - just like in any genocide, those in favour of killing unborn babies, have to label abortion as not killing, and the baby as not human.
What a stupid argument.
Let me ask you a question. Why are you not guilty of magical thinking when you put a living human adult in a different category to a zygote or a dishwasher? Why do you afford adult human cell collections moral rights that you don't afford zygotes or dishwashers. I'll tell you why: It's because your concience tells you that human life is special and must be preserved, and that murder is an outrageous crime, and yet you mock those who believe likewise for unborn children.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Word play. Redefining "person" to suit your own ends. All for a little convenience in your life. Toss the baby in the trash- who cares anyway.
Now, I will be the last person who believes that Rand Paul is doing something for any reason other than his own advancement and publicity, but... I've gotta say... This is actually a legitimate and valid reason for holding up a confirmation hearing. The guy being confirmed has some controversial viewpoints about American law? That's directly relevant to whether or not he should be on the bench. I assumed this was more stupid Republican hostage-taking, but it's actually relevant. Go stopped clocks!
It is the Senate's job to vet judicial nominees, not just rubber-stamp every appointment. In this case, the nominee himself authored some or all of the legal "justification" the President used to execute an American citizen without a trial. Paul is doing his job.
Maybe a two-cell zygote isn't a person (closer to your "fingertip" example, but what is the magical thinking that is required to claim a full term fetus is not a person but a one day born baby is?
Why would anyone think that? The magical thinking is that there is a given point that suddenly and magically makes someone a person.
My view is that unless a clump of cells can demonstrate consciousness and self-awareness, it is not a person. Whether it's a foetus or a corpse on life support.
Unless one has a religious belief in a supreme being who at some point injects a "soul", consciousness and self-awareness comes slowly. At one point it might be similar to an apple. I have no qualms about killing apples or apple trees. At one point it might be similar to a jelly fish. I don't have much problem with killing jellyfish either. What about when it's at a level of a cow, or a pig? We kill those.
How about a dog? That's when it becomes a difficult ethical choice for me. But then we're talking about a child that's quite a few months past birth.
Can you provide any evidence of this or do you just like spouting gossip?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Can you provide any evidence of this or do you just like spouting gossip?
Rand Paul ABDUCTED Female Student While In College, Tried To Force Her To 'Take Bong Hits,' GQ Article Alleges
Let me guess. You are the WT's personal lobbyists, who is running interference.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Like he said, you're just spouting gossip. That story from Huffington seems too absurd to be believed. The "Aqua Buddha"? Seriously?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
GP was talking about a person, and so am I.
We all are. The problem is defining what a "person" is.
I posit that a collection of cells that has no self-awareness or consciousness is not a person, and that you have to introduce magical thinking to justify a viewpoint that it is a person.
Let me ask you a question. Why are you not guilty of magical thinking when you put a living human adult in a different category to a zygote or a dishwasher? Why do you afford adult human cell collections moral rights that you don't afford zygotes or dishwashers. I'll tell you why: It's because your concience tells you that human life is special and must be preserved, and that murder is an outrageous crime, and yet you mock those who believe likewise for unborn children.
First you ask two questions, and then you answer them with irrational answers. What's the question I was supposed to answer?
For a murder to occur, there has to be someone murdered. Do you murder carrots? Who, exactly, do you murder when you turn off life support on a collection of unaware conscious-less cells?
There is nothing that tells me that "human life" (which is also not defined) is special. Sentient life, on the other hand, I can see a case for.
but not good in deterring Putin from taking Ukraine. Reading stuff at http://globalsecurity.org/ it suggests Estonia is vulnerable as well. Geez, this country's security strategy has got to be the worst of all times.
mfwright@batnet.com
These are missiles fired from aircraft.
Whether the pilot is in a cubicle in Arizona or in the cockpit of the aircraft is absolutely immaterial.
We kill terrorists. We cant (rationally ahem: 'war on drugs') declare war against something unless it is a civil body politic with a government.
No one, except true pacifists, is always against the US killing terrorists...so that means it's a question of *when* to use lethal force
In all military action there is a threat of collateral killing.
Nothing new to see here...except GOP trolls trying anything they can to make Obama look bad.
Test these criticisms for logical consistency...they fail...a missile is a missile whether a drone or piloted craft shot it.
Thank you Dave Raggett
The magical thinking is that there is a given point that suddenly and magically makes someone a person.
At one point it might be similar to an apple. I have no qualms about killing apples or apple trees.
So SO stupid.
Do you not see? In your world-view there isn't a difference between an apple, an apple tree, a zygote or an adult human. They are all just patterns of matter. But then you're trying to reach out and say there's something more to a born human than an unborn human - which is wholly arbitrary.
(Plainly this philosphy of yours is contradictory because you DO believe there is something inherantly valuable about a human life, because you have a notion of rights - but anyway).
You can't have it both ways. You want to say the adult's life is special (though they're just matter, so really not any more special than an apple), but the unborn child is not special because it's just matter.
Oh except that you say the adult is self aware.
What about when you've been anaethsetised? or drunk? or concussed? Do you have a right to life then? How about when you were 1-hour old - were you self aware then? You suppose so, but for myself I don't remember being aware of anything. What justification can you offer to give rights-to-life to any of these different examples person but deprive it from the unborn child?
What about a concious adult? You say they're self aware. How do you know? Maybe it's all an illusion - like the turing test. And anyway, who appointed you the one to define this arbitrary litmus test of whether a person has rights to life or not?
Perhaps the fairest way to resolve this would be to allow the baby to gain conciousness in the same way that an anaethsetised person would gain conciousness, then give them a chance to choose for themselves whether they would like to live or not. I certainly am glad I was given that chance, and I suspect you are glad that you were also.
Certainly no-one has the right to deprive a person of such a choice, in the present or in the future.
the story was from GQ. And paul has a long history of plagiarism.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Define sentient. Define special.
It's a red herring. Almost all baby terminations are done purely for convenience.
Just because something happens, doesn't mean it should be legal, especially when it's morrally repugnant.
The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I'm not an american, therefore I don't care about US politics. I'm not right wing - I'm a socialist. Republicanism has nothing to do with it.
I've often thought that a lot of the problem with "the government is killing American citizens" is actually a problem with citizenship, not with killing Americans. Generally these American citizens are the children of non-citizens who only spent a limited amount of time in the USA and much of their time they spent growing up was in a society radically different from the US.
Maybe the solution to "killing American citizens" is to not let these people become citizens in the first place? (The first thing that comes to mind is forcing them to choose a country at age 21 if they have dual citizenship, but I'm sure someone could poke holes in that idea.)
It's a bit of a mixed message when conservatives compare things they don't like (abortion, birth control, universal healthcare, gun control, etc. - all happened) to slavery, while at the same time fawning over Cliven Bundy.
And its NOT a mixed message when liberals compare things they don't like (guns, voting rights in the ballot box, Non-universal healthcare etc) to slavery or racism? Hate to break it to you, but most heroes on the left are just as bad (trayvon Martin) because reasonable people don't live exciting lives like those so-called heroes...and so we only hear about the biggest freaks who are held up on a pedestal as being a victim of the other political party.
Shrug, its all the way the political parties keep us peons in line and voting either R and D in the end, because they have their glorious leaders and their big scare tactics to keep us scared into voting for them. And when political parties are in control of the levers of power, they typically only look after elites and the super rich who can donate the big bucks to run political campaigns. Corporations are people, don't you know?
Oh except that you say the adult is self aware.
What about when you've been anaethsetised? or drunk? or concussed? Do you have a right to life then?
Self-aware and conscious, i.e. sentience.
If you are unconscious or asleep, you have already shown you are sentient, and if the condition is temporary, sure, you should be treated as an unconscious sentient creature.
How about when you were 1-hour old - were you self aware then? You suppose so
No, I don't. Stop assuming what my views are, cause this is the second time you got it dead wrong.
I happen to think that newborns are less sentient than the animals in the breakfast I just had and less deserving of protection from society. If a mother wants to protect her newborn (or her pet budgie), or her unborn (or her pet budgie's eggs), that should be up to her, not society.
The claim of personhood requires extraordinary evidence.
It's almost like he wants to get re-elected. Like maybe most people are against something so he decided to be against it too. What a concept.
You know what? They should start an actual drone war in congress. Fly some around and try to blow each other up. Last drone standing wins. That'd be more productive than the BS they do on a daily basis.
Oh shut up.....
Most of the anti-abortionists don't care about people in the uterus particularity, what they care about is people doing something pleasurable such as sex, else they'd be pushing birth control to make abortions unneeded instead of being just as uptight about birth control as abortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I happen to think that newborns are less sentient than the animals in the breakfast I just had and less deserving of protection from society.
I'm amazed by your willingness to take your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Most people try and having it both ways - and don't see themselves doing so.
I'm just thankful you don't set the rules. At least most people still understand that infanticide is evil, and that it's society's duty to protect children - though it seems you're too wrapped up in your theories to understand these simple things.
If you really live what you say you believe, then you're a monster!
Sure it's hard. Life IS hard. This isn't Disney.
But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
Ask that question - ask yourself that question; and you can see that the issue really isn't all complex.
he just drones on and on and on and on....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If people are decide to kill infants this is simply wrong
The circumstances of the child's concept really don't have anything to do with it.
Also there seem to be quite a hatred of right wing people among American Slashdotters. They may well be arseholes, but that doesn't relieve of your duty to protect vulnerable infants.
Extremely hard questions that don't have to be fully answered to realize that something without a functioning brain isn't sentient.
Sentient life has to have some ability to create thoughts. It has to be self-aware. A dog is more sentient than a fetus is in the first trimester. And we have no problem with killing dogs. We try to do it kindly when we do it. But we do it.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
If we found a way to make a computer self-aware -- truly pass the Turing test -- I'd have a problem with killing that computer.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Well it's more expedient not to concern one's self with these things either way. It's kind-of a downer on the whole thing. It's not as if the child can complain.
Why? Explain how such a computer is any more special that it's components. Other than that it would be an intrigueing device. But at the end of the day, why does it have any special significance?
And the best way to protect unwanted vulnerable infants is to stop them from ever coming into existence and studies show that educating people, especially young people is the most effective way to do this. Prohibition on the other hand has been shown to be a failure when ever tried and in the case of abortion just led to more suffering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
There not people. IT's a fetus. The fact that you don't use the correct term indicates your emotional based bias.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" Almost all baby terminations are done purely for convenience."
That false. You are a liar.
It isn't morally repugnant. People who shove their belief down other peoples throats are morally repugnant
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
it's not a child. If we could ask that question, then it wouldn't be a discussion.
It isn't complex at all. A woman should be able to have an abortion is she want s to and YOU should not be able to shove your belief down their throats. Simple.
You make shit up, apply your own belief, disregard the constitution. YOU are making it more complex by adding made up shit and nonsense.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I havn't been any more or less logical than arth1 has. He just has a world-view, a philosophy, the name of which is "Materialism" - you may heard the term. It's the view that all is matter and matter is all (pluse energy, space, time etc.)
A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour old infants.
The question then is do you have the thoughtfulness to challenge the received wisdom? And say to yourself - "if this is my philosophy and this is where it has lead me, could it be that my philosophy doesn't have all the answers". But it takes a degree of intellectual humility to challenge one's self this way.
Well techically, I introduced a second factor that had thus-far been ignored (what is equitable for the infant), and argued (rhetorically) out that this factor takes moral greater priority than the one offerd by GP.
On what basis do you make that distinction between baby and foetus?
"That's why we call them "unborn child", and "baby in the womb""
only people who want to lie and use emotional and incorrect terminology say that becasue they have no real argument so emotional bias is what they can use.
zygote is not a person.
You are being stupid. Logically, emotionally stupid.
YOU are redefining person. It's really basic science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm not american, so I don't know much about the constitution.
And I fully support all people's rights. But what do you do when rights come into conflict? People are required give up many rights to serve their duting protect infants every day. Why is it any different for those unborn?
My argument about asking the child is obviously figurative - though you don't seem to understand. My point is who gave people like us to decide these people's fates. I argue that noone has the right to take a life whoever they may be. Any attempt to justify doing so ignores the rights and interests of the infant.
Frankly, I don't understand how people can feel so sure that they are right when it comes to making life and death decisions concerning other people.
Quite so. It's sheer recklessness not to err on the side of caution here.
What science defines that an 1-year old is a person, but a zygote is not? Please. Link me a paper.
I'm a science enthusiast, but far too many science enthusiasts here try and make science speak on issues that it doesn't speak. Science is totally silent - it's work unrelated to these philosophical questions. The question of what make a person is purely philosophical. So if you try and make Science speak on questions of justice, personhood, ethics, it will respond with silence, silence, silence. The only way to respond to these questions is with a philosophical worldview, such as your philosophy of "Materialism", but don't conflate this philosophy together with scientific research - they are not the same thing.
Since the title of this article was so obviously a hook, I'll go ahead and bite.
"Begun, the drone wars have"
Sorry chump, there is nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the US Government or any agency of it to play God by taking someone's life without first putting any person anywhere on trial for a crime in front of a jury and once declared guilty, they can then be executed by whatever means allowed by the law. Anything less than that is unAmerican and basically the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for and a primary reason for what the American Revolution was fought for.
A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour old infants.
You confuse life with personhood and justification with permissibility.
You can have life without sentience. You have no problem with that, I presume?
As for justification - I don't have a justification to kill someone's pet bird either, so I don't. If they want to off their parrot, the wart on their bum, or a non-sentient baby, it's up to them to find justification for or against. It's no concern of society, whose role it is to act on behalf of those who count themselves members of the society, which a newborn baby doesn't.
I'm not preaching infanticide - I just don't think it's society's business, just like other abortions of non-sentient life.
And now I'm off to kill an apple.
And now he intentional changes the argument, because if you are losing, redefine the rules.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm pretty sure your mom regrets all those drugs she did while she was carrying you.
you laid out a standard here:
anything less than what you describe is "unAmerican"
so if we apply your standard consistently, no war or US military action has EVER been up to your standards!
am I wrong? then tell me what war/military action WAS up to your standards! if you give an example it will either be a "declared" war or not...either way, you have to explain why US governmnet killing in warfare is different for declared and non-declared 'war'
so let's hear it you know it all...let's apply your standard...it will fail b/c you are either a pacifist or it's a question of *when* to use lethal force...that's it
Thank you Dave Raggett
> Oh shut up.....
Truth hurts?
Not as much as the Stupid does.
Here are the numbers from the Guttmacher Institute study from 2004 (subjects were permitted to give multiple responses - at least 89% did) :
74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem[s]"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"
14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"
13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
12% said there were "physical problems with my health"
6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"
1% said they were "a victim of rape"
0.5% "became pregnant as a result of incest"
So the vast majority of respondents definitely gave answers that indicated convenience as a primary factor in their abortion decision (change in lifestyle, money). Health concerns don't show up until the very bottom of the list.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Did you bother reading that. It backs up GQ's story. Basically, all she said, after telling GQ one thing, is that it 'felt' like hazing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes. You're right. Should have thought about that first sentence a bit better.
Fun fact - there's only two "viable" parties because the voters believe that and go along with it.
Ds & Rs gerrymander the voting districts and they decide who gets to participate in the debates
There's only two viable parties because those parties have co-opted the elections process for their own ends.
Our political process has increasingly been fueled by massive infusions of cash.
There are ways to fix this, but none of them are likely to be initiated from inside the political machine.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person? They make medication that can help with that, you know. See a doctor. Please.
you're just another GOP-troll...your beliefs are nonsense and you need to change or stop posting on /....you ignored this, the most **crucial** part of my comment, because it proves your ideology is bullshit:
so, you say "WWII"...thats not a complete answer...you have to be *consistent*
what about non-state actors? like...idk...terrorists who do not claim any affiliation with a military of a nation-state?
do we just let them do whatever they want?
are you saying the US military cannot kill unless it is a person of a regular military of a nation-state the US Congress has officially declared war upon?
IF SO HOW THE FSCK DO WE BATTLE NON-STATE ACTORS LIKE TERRORISTS
You are afraid of this question...in your rules the US military could not take action against terrorists that could be lethal
Thank you Dave Raggett
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) on Tuesday rejected a White House offer to let senators read a federal court nominee's memo authorizing a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, calling anything short of a full public release "inadequate."
Paul is threatening to block the federal appeals court nomination of David Barron, who wrote a Justice Department memo justifying a drone strike against alleged al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki, until that memo is released. Last month the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to release the document.
"A federal court has ordered the public release of a redacted legal memo authored by Barron and I believe that anything short of that is inadequate," Paul said in a statement released Tuesday. "I will continue to oppose this nomination until the document is released."
Barron's nomination has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's not clear whether Paul will be able to stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from bringing Barron's nomination to a full Senate floor vote.
President Barack Obama's administration had offered earlier Tuesday to let senators read the memo before they vote on Barron's nomination. But that offer has mollified neither Paul nor the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants senators to be able to review any and all of the memos Barron may have written justifying the targeted killing program -- not just the memo the 2nd Circuit publicly ordered to be released. (Part of the 2nd Circuit's order was kept under seal, so it may have ordered the release of additional Barron memos.)
Barron served as the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010. The office's legal memos, underlying the targeted killing program, have been the subject of several contentious legal battles over whether they will be publicly released.
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Libertas in infinitum
Slow down - you're babbling again.
It is NOT what the people want. It is what will sell to the largest voting block
True, it panders to the only people who matter -- the people who vote.
Two separate issues all together; can we kill people inside the borders of another country we are not at war with and can the government kill US citizens. My stance on the second issue is that at some point, US citizen or not, your actions can and should be able to make you an enemy combatant in a war. I'm no expert, but I do believe in a traditional war that is the case and always has been. In this case, the war on terrorism, the issue is that we are not at war with a country but with a dispersed enemy that resides in counties like Yemen that either don't have the power to control terrorists or don't want to no matter how much money we through at them. So, we are left with having to fight terrorists the best we can remotely inside the borders of countries that don't want us there. But since this is not a traditional war, perhaps someone (judge perhaps) should provide over site for actions like these. I think that most people, regardless of the political party they are in, would do the same thing provided the same circumstances and same intel. No politician and no political party, wants another 9/11, especially if they are the ones responsible at that time. I find it very hard to believe that the decision to kill a US citizen within another country would have been made any different by any other politician had they actually been required to make that decision at that time with the intel provided knowing their ass was on the line for any terrorist act that kills Americans. I love how all of you people are suddenly experts on what is really going on in the world from the seat of your couches. The decision to kill Anwar was not a political decision; the decision to make a public spectical of the people who had to make that hard decision is completely political. Rand Paul will surely get droves of idiots all wound up over this.
it's not a child. If we could ask that question, then it wouldn't be a discussion.
A two-month baby couldn't answer that question either. Does that mean it would be fine to kill it should it become inconvenient? If not, then where is the line drawn, and why, morally, should it be drawn there? That's why the pro/anti-abortion sides will never be able to, because neither side will agree on where that line gets drawn.
It isn't complex at all. A woman should be able to have an abortion is she want s to and YOU should not be able to shove your belief down their throats. Simple.
Part of the law comes down to the notion that it protects the weak from the strong, or punishes the strong if they attack the weak. So perhaps it should not 'just' be the mother's choice whether she wants to harm another. I believe society in general has a stake in deciding whether mothers can kill their children. There's a lot more involved than just her personal choice or her body. Right now the laws are somewhat inconsistent. After all, if a fetus is not a living organism worthy of protection, then why should there be laws punishing a guy extra for hitting a pregnant woman? Why punish a mother for drinking and smoking during pregnancy? What would you be trying to protect that isn't worthy of the protection that eliminating abortion would provide?
Myself, I haven't actually decided, so I'm doing a bit of devil's advocating here. It's an issue entirely full of grey area. The only point where I'm clear is if a pregnancy resulted from a non-consensual act, otherwise I'm eternally unsure.
Did you know most fraternity hazing is consensual? And harmless? It's just a few bad actors who require you drink, say, gallons of water or something truly hazardous.
"Hazing," as a term is too generic and vague to be useful.
It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari