Ibrahim Muhammad Salih al-Banna allowed the boy to be in the same building knowing that he was a drone target and drones were in the area. He tried to use the boy as a human shield and failed.
Or justifiable homicide on the grounds of defense of a third person. Al-Awlaki was inciting/training people and creating plans to kill American citizens all over the world. By killing him lives were saved. Therefore defense of others.
How about statements by al-Aulaqi himself taking credit for the planning of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Read a little more and you will see exactly how much evidence there is against al-Aulaqi. The fact that he is always surrounded by soldiers in a lawless area should not mean he is safe.
It would be a secret law if it was passed into law while secret. It is far from that. Can't you tell the difference between a secret law and secret negotiations toward a public law?
It is a relative measurement from the 20th century average. Still, 0.02C is a small number. I wonder if that is within the margin of error of the readings?
I am not so sure you understand what "smash" means. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces in 2010 was 0.72C. The same data for this year is 0.74C. I would hardly call 0.02C as smashing.
So instead of dealing with the few delegates who will ask the question that needs clarification you propose to deal with the thousands of "experts". It is not feasible to do that for every draft. Maybe when the drafts get closer to a final product the sure open them up.
It needs to be written in clear terms that average citizens who want to study it can comprehend.
How many people do you think are under the impression that they have the knowledge and experience to study and comprehend a complex trade agreement. I bet that less than 10% of those who think they do actually do.
They aren't going to spend years writing drafts only to shred them and come up with an entirely new agreement - and then pass it - within a matter of months.
No, but the 20th draft may look very different than the first draft so debating the first draft would be irrelevant.
Secret laws are anti-ethical to democracy, and ruling by the consent of the governed.
Before the law would be voted on it would be published during first and second reading. The law would no longer be secret and your argument against "secret laws" therefore moot. It is not a "secret law" but a confidential negotiation toward a very public law. Every law is done this way. Do you really think that the public sees every draft of every law that goes into effect? The drafts are passed around behind closed doors until they get a draft that the supporters thing will pass and then they submit it. "Secret laws" and confidential negotiations are very different things.
. The final will not differ greatly from the drafts.
You know that how?
Your wait and see attitude is what enables the creep to go forward. It's time to be done with that. It just doesn't work.
Since there have been few leaks and no final documents you know very little about the agreement yet you want to stop it now. What is your decision based on?
Once it is official it still has to be voted on by the countries that might agree to it. The only think important to see is the final draft and not all the documents before it.
As these things are happening, they need to be stopped not after they are enacted.
So not knowing the contents of the document or what it's effect will be you are sure it is bad. That is not an informed decision. Wait till the documents are published, and they will be, then make a decision.
Do you prefer to prevent disease or cure it after it happens?
Do you prefer to pass judgement on an inaccurate, incomplete document or the final document.
Even with FTA Congress can still say no to the bill.
The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster.
It is funny that if FTA was so bad then why did congress vote for it?
The whole agreement is secret right now because it is not even close to a final draft. When it get closer to final draft there may be more official releases. When it gets to final draft it will definitely be released so it can be voted on by the member countries. Keeping drafts a secret is not a big deal and is necessary in every complex agreement. Do you really think it would be effective for every draft to be gone over and commented on by every "expert" in the world? The group would spend all it's time fixing misunderstanding and misrepresentations. Wait for the final draft then we can pick it apart.
Was that a mistake are creative editing? No country as "signed" considering the negotiations are not even complete yet. Calling it "signed on" was bad enough. Calling it "signed" is even worse.
Additionally, the current draft also includes language inferring that, upon the finishing of negotiations, the document will be kept classified for five full years.
It makes it sound like the annex will not be seen for 5 years after it is in effect. Here is the reason from the actual document;
This document must be protected from unauthorized disclosure, but may be mailed or transmitted over unclassified e-mail or fax, discussed over unsecured phone lines, and stored on unclassified computer systems. It must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container.
It refers to the current document as it is a draft. The final document will not have this clause as it will need to be debated before it can be passed by each country. WikiLeaks is again playing on the general lack of understanding of how complex treaties are and need to be negotiated.
This is yet another salacious post to garner attention. Here are a few things wrong with the post. 1. It is impossible to sign on to an agreement that is still in negotiation. 2. It is not a secret agreement as it's existence is posted in many places and some governments are asking for public consultation. The final text will be made available a debated when, and if, the countries involved vote on it. 3. No international treaty is ever made public till the the final draft. Negotiators need to be free to negotiate. 4. Many of these agreements never get to final draft as agreement sometimes is never reached, 4. The agreement will not come into effect unless ratified by the duly elected governments of the countries involved. Until then no one has "signed on".
Perhaps the reason behind this post is that WikiLeaks is not trending enough.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea how much time there will be.
Ibrahim Muhammad Salih al-Banna allowed the boy to be in the same building knowing that he was a drone target and drones were in the area. He tried to use the boy as a human shield and failed.
Or justifiable homicide on the grounds of defense of a third person. Al-Awlaki was inciting/training people and creating plans to kill American citizens all over the world. By killing him lives were saved. Therefore defense of others.
How about statements by al-Aulaqi himself taking credit for the planning of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Read a little more and you will see exactly how much evidence there is against al-Aulaqi. The fact that he is always surrounded by soldiers in a lawless area should not mean he is safe.
It would be a secret law if it was passed into law while secret. It is far from that. Can't you tell the difference between a secret law and secret negotiations toward a public law?
It is a relative measurement from the 20th century average. Still, 0.02C is a small number. I wonder if that is within the margin of error of the readings?
I am not so sure you understand what "smash" means. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces in 2010 was 0.72C. The same data for this year is 0.74C. I would hardly call 0.02C as smashing.
So instead of dealing with the few delegates who will ask the question that needs clarification you propose to deal with the thousands of "experts". It is not feasible to do that for every draft. Maybe when the drafts get closer to a final product the sure open them up.
It needs to be written in clear terms that average citizens who want to study it can comprehend.
How many people do you think are under the impression that they have the knowledge and experience to study and comprehend a complex trade agreement. I bet that less than 10% of those who think they do actually do.
It is arrogant to believe that those general principles do not hold true for all time.
It is also arrogant to believe you know what is in a document that you have not read and has not been finished yet.
They aren't going to spend years writing drafts only to shred them and come up with an entirely new agreement - and then pass it - within a matter of months.
No, but the 20th draft may look very different than the first draft so debating the first draft would be irrelevant.
Secret laws are anti-ethical to democracy, and ruling by the consent of the governed.
Before the law would be voted on it would be published during first and second reading. The law would no longer be secret and your argument against "secret laws" therefore moot. It is not a "secret law" but a confidential negotiation toward a very public law. Every law is done this way. Do you really think that the public sees every draft of every law that goes into effect? The drafts are passed around behind closed doors until they get a draft that the supporters thing will pass and then they submit it. "Secret laws" and confidential negotiations are very different things.
. The final will not differ greatly from the drafts.
You know that how?
Your wait and see attitude is what enables the creep to go forward. It's time to be done with that. It just doesn't work.
Since there have been few leaks and no final documents you know very little about the agreement yet you want to stop it now. What is your decision based on?
That is a lot of insight for someone who has never seen the text of a document that has not been completed yet. Your rant is complete conjecture.
If you mean the hype about "secret negotiating" then yes I have. Otherwise please enlighten me. I doubt you have anything to add to the conversation.
Once it is official it still has to be voted on by the countries that might agree to it. The only think important to see is the final draft and not all the documents before it.
As these things are happening, they need to be stopped not after they are enacted.
So not knowing the contents of the document or what it's effect will be you are sure it is bad. That is not an informed decision. Wait till the documents are published, and they will be, then make a decision.
Do you prefer to prevent disease or cure it after it happens?
Do you prefer to pass judgement on an inaccurate, incomplete document or the final document.
Even with FTA Congress can still say no to the bill.
The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster.
It is funny that if FTA was so bad then why did congress vote for it?
Until it is official any possible "signing on" is meaningless as it has no effect of current laws.
That would require all governments to "push it through" and I doubt very much it will happen.
It infers that the draft will be kept secret not the final document. There is a big difference.
But then the whole agreement is secret.
The whole agreement is secret right now because it is not even close to a final draft. When it get closer to final draft there may be more official releases. When it gets to final draft it will definitely be released so it can be voted on by the member countries. Keeping drafts a secret is not a big deal and is necessary in every complex agreement. Do you really think it would be effective for every draft to be gone over and commented on by every "expert" in the world? The group would spend all it's time fixing misunderstanding and misrepresentations. Wait for the final draft then we can pick it apart.
Was that a mistake are creative editing? No country as "signed" considering the negotiations are not even complete yet. Calling it "signed on" was bad enough. Calling it "signed" is even worse.
I love this quote from the article;
Additionally, the current draft also includes language inferring that, upon the finishing of negotiations, the document will be kept classified for five full years.
It makes it sound like the annex will not be seen for 5 years after it is in effect.
Here is the reason from the actual document;
This document must be protected from unauthorized disclosure, but may be mailed or transmitted over unclassified e-mail or fax, discussed over unsecured phone lines, and stored on unclassified computer systems. It must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container.
It refers to the current document as it is a draft. The final document will not have this clause as it will need to be debated before it can be passed by each country. WikiLeaks is again playing on the general lack of understanding of how complex treaties are and need to be negotiated.
This is yet another salacious post to garner attention. Here are a few things wrong with the post.
1. It is impossible to sign on to an agreement that is still in negotiation.
2. It is not a secret agreement as it's existence is posted in many places and some governments are asking for public consultation. The final text will be made available a debated when, and if, the countries involved vote on it.
3. No international treaty is ever made public till the the final draft. Negotiators need to be free to negotiate.
4. Many of these agreements never get to final draft as agreement sometimes is never reached,
4. The agreement will not come into effect unless ratified by the duly elected governments of the countries involved. Until then no one has "signed on".
Perhaps the reason behind this post is that WikiLeaks is not trending enough.
It is because Governments say it is and most people agree it is.
Because Bitcoins is not money.
Anything good can also be used for bad. If we don't do things because it could end up being use for bad then we don't do anything.