Depends on where you are. Flying though Amsterdam there was no opt-out; even for the preggers wife.
Even in the US you an face absurd pressure from the TSA to go through the machine. I have had to wait 15 min+ on an opt-out(causing a run through ORD barefooted to make the flight); insinuations/outright declarations that I must be a "funny man" to want another man touching his "junk" and I must be some sort of queer(the TSA screeners words, not mine; this was ATL); all the opt out point are right next to the input of the X-Ray bag scanner leading a TSA agent(I think at SFO) to tell me that i was exposed to far more radiation waiting here then going through the scanner.
(TL;DR) It's easy to say you opt-out, but it's not alwsy an option and there is still tremendous pressure for you to go though the security theater.
I sometimes wonder what real change could occur if people channeled all their energy into the real issues instead of getting lost in divisive political spin.
My bad, I did misread your prior statement. Nice to see the ad hominems though.
Page 6 drops the whole al-Qa'ida part and just says a U.S. citizen who is an operational leader. But guess we can chalk this up to a typo.
To split hairs, which I don't think was either of our original intent, it says a
senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force
This distinction is kind-of important as AQAP is not an organization designated by the AUMF(that was for 9/11 participants,) and the U.S. citizens we know were murdered, al-Aulaqi and son(so unless your going to argue that a 16 year old boy from Denver is a senior operational leader with AQ we already know that killings occur when even the low bar set by this whitepaper is not met), was part of a co-belligerent force, not AQ. Problem here is associated forces is pretty vague. A link to the circuit court decision about associated forces can be found here. The conclusion of the ruling talks about how determining who is and isn't a member when they are not actively armed is something that needs to be adjudicated on a case by case basis, something those who are assassinated will never get. This is where it comes down to your a member of AQ because we say you are.
I will point out that this document contains
As stated earlier, this paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful
so basically as long as you meet these requirements your all set to go killing(at least until a court says you can't at which point, much like the torture memos, this document will be used a legal shield.)
I can't believe I am responding to this but, yes, yes it does. There aren't more items in quote tags because I didn't really want to retype from image verbatim, but I gave page numbers for you if you choose to read it your self. here's the link
It doesn't seem like you are disputing the whole you a member of al-Qa'ida, because we say so. So i'll skip the down to the part i have in quote tags.
Here is where we get to the whole imminent threat part. The quote
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
is directly lifted from the document that you don't need clear evidence. 9/11 was used right after this statement as an example of why you can't wait for clear details, except there was evidence of a clear and imminent threat in this case as the 9-11 report details. I used the whole "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" document as an example since it is well known. You are correct that the document asserts that
certain members if al-Qa'ida (including any potential targets of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against he United States
what you miss is the rest of the rational in the same sentance
; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qu'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur
. Think about this argument, even if you accept that whole "they are always plotting against us" thing, the rest is there is always an imminent threat because there may be a secret threat that we don't know anything about. By this logic, any time a "sovereign citizen" leaves the country can they be assassinated since that group has a track record of plotting against the US and has engaged in terrorists acts? How about survivalists, another group with a track record of terrorist activities? KKK member leaves the country can we kill them, their certainly they are a terrorism organization who actively plots against the US? Let's set aside the US citizen thing, if someone post to a message board from outside the US how they would like to see the US government fall is the US justified in murdering them? After all, they are outside of the US, probably can't be captured, and to their extent possible would be plotting against the US.
At the top of page 10 we get there is not proper court to adjudicate this.
Finally, the Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations...Were a court to intervene here, it might be required to inappropriately issue an ex ante command.
Basiclly, there is not court with jurisdiction to adjudicate and if one were to intervene their ruling may not be proper.
And in section III on the same page
Section 1119, however, incorporates the federal murder and manslaughter statutes, and thus its prohibition extends only to "unlawful killing[s]"
Killing someone is only murder or manslaughter if it's unlawful
Section 1119 is best construed to incorporate the "public authority" justification
There is a "public authority" justification that can be used to exempt someone fro the letter of the law
As this paper explains below, a lethal operation of the kind discussed here would fall within the public authority exception
This paper is going to tell you that killing someone falls within this exception
Not really this is lifted from the document itself.
The first paragraph says the only burden to someone being a member of al-Qu'ida is a informed, high-level official of the U.S. government. It was only a decade ago that we had "informed" high-level officials claiming Iraq had a stockpile of WMDs and was producing more. So, if an entire weapons program could be missed/fabricated, what are the odds of the classsification being screwed up. Further, on page 10 we get that judicial over site is unconstitutional. So you can be placed on the kill list because a high-level offical says you are a member of a group and there is no appeal or review process permitted."
Paragraph 2 on page 7:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
Although it goes on to cite 9/11 as reason why immanence cannot be used, it does not address the whole issue of clear evidence. In the case of 9-11 there was clear evidence of "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." (Not that the US didn't already try to kill him after the USS Cole and Embassy bombings) Top of page 8 gets even more specific with, and i am paraphrasing, [because some leaders may always be plotting, and the US government may not be aware of all al-Qu'ida plots, and thus cannot be confident none are about to occur]. The logical inference here is that, without clear evidence, we can assume they are always scheming for an imminent plot so an imminent threat always exists.
The paragraph at the top of page 10 lays out that because the military may do the killing, in response to the hypothetical threat, judicial over site would be unconstitutional.
Later in page 10(under III) we get the rational that these killings would not be unlawful because this paper says they and not unlawful, and as we just discussed not subject to judicial review. And at the bottom of page 12 we get the suggestion that we should think of this like a speeding by a fire engine responding to an alarm.
No. Try reading the memo. From the very first page it mentions it is for high level ranking al-Qa'ida located outside of the US.
I think the ACLU summed up your statement nicely with:
[T]he white paper assumes a key conclusion: It takes as a given that the target of the strike will be a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force of al-Qa’ida,” and it reasons from that premise that judicial process is unnecessary. This is a little bit like assuming that the defendant is guilty and then asking whether it’s useful to have a trial.
So, basically all it takes is the government/president to say your al-Qa'ida and they are allowed to murder you far from any battle field and as the original NBC piece put it:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
They don't even need to have clear evidence you are a member of al-Qa'ida or planning anything.
Remember, as a result of signature strikes any male "of military age" is declared to be a combatant and can therefore be murdered regardless of what they are doing or where they are. And they don't even have to be of militay age as evdinced by the killing of three children who were gathering firewood last Decmber
Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have “accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians.
So yes, it is for high level ranking al-Qa'ida located outside of the US, but the government, who is then conducting the assassination, gets to decided who is al-Qa'ida. Nobody get to review the decision and no evidence ever has to be put forth before or after the killing.
I had the same problem as OP, and used to use far more expensive drafting pens. My brother gave me a few PaperMate InkJoy 500 RT 0.5 XF a few years ago and I have used nothing else since. A given pen last for months, never clogs on me, at.5 I can write as small as I want(typically 3 to 4 lines per college ruled line), and at under <$1 per pen I am not too worried about breaking or losing it.
I know this may sound a little overboard, but I really like these pens.
But Standard American Lager is a recognized type of Beer, like IPA or Pilsner Although not the only type of beer produced in the US (and one I prefer not to drink), it is the style most commonly associated with US beer. Do all American beers suck? Defintally not. Does the beer type closely associated with the US, bears the name America, and the top 3 brands, BudLite, Budwiser, and CoorLite, which account for 50.1% of the US market, suck? Depends on your taste.
But like it or not, and I am guessing you do not, this popular(in the US) style of beer is what is meant by American beer.
Yes, I am aware of the issues with starvation in poverty in most of Africa and other parts of the non-industrialized world. Somalia also covers the Horn of Africa and is a prime staging ground for pirates attacking ships heading through the Suez. I also have seen sporadic coverage throughout the years that tends to peak when some sexy news story hits about pirates or something else, black hawk downs incident was what, 2 decades ago?
Point taken though, this was probably the wrong story to comment on this about. I think I am just confused that a non-story about the relaties of maritime activity in the region, that probably would have been ignored a few weeks ago, happens to rise to a point of note.
The Nation's article on CIA black sites? I may have been in a bubble, but I don't recall many articles mentioning Somalia until The Nation ran their article about the US Torture camps in Somalia.
Now I see article, after article, about how there is a humanitarian crisis in that country is caused by people the US want to torture/murder and now an article about how climate change research is being hampered by evil people in the area. It all seems a little much.
I really want to stay away from tinfoil hat material but, when a story about torture camps run by the US gov seems to be ignored and then humanization problems seems to appear at the same time, I can't help but wonder if a counter information campaign, like what the hack on HBGary help to expose may be responsible.
I cant really agree with either of you. Killing poor people because they were born in the wrong part of the world is EVIL. Kidnapping, torturing and, in some cases, killing people because they share the same name/alias(in that a guys alias is actually their name)/religion/sold to by tribal rivals is EVIL.
Both acts are disgusting.
To be clear, the Bush torture program found some random low ranking lawyer to sign off, but we haven't seen reports that his attorneys general, office of legal counsel and [major governing agency] disagreed. To equate this asinine legal opinion to Bush we would have to go to the domestic spying program.
This illegal wiretap program had the counsel of the FBI, OLC and the attorneys general saying that its incredibly illegal. You know, the program that Ashcroft refused to sign off on and was visited in a hospital room and refused to sign? The one that Bush modified to get Ashcroft to sign off on, that the NYT sat on until the end of the election, and that even after being modified(so that Ashcroft would signoff on)was still illegal.
Like Bush's unmodified wiretap program, Obama had his OLC, Pentagon Legal Counsel and (as the NYT buries on A6 in the second to last paragraph of a 21 paragraph article) the Attorneys General.
tl;dr Both obscene decisions come at the objection of the Attorneys General;OLC and [major governing agency],
From what I remember about late 2001, the events of 9/11 were traumatic and confusing, but not really fear inspiring. It felt more like a one off, more similar to the Cole, embassy bombings or all the hijackings/bombings of planes in the decade before. Getting on a plane was scary for a few months, but that was about it. The anthrax was completely different.
With the anthrax we had a few weeks of new reports that people were getting sick or dying. And unlike working in a fancy highrise in New York City, everyone gets the mail and everyone could be a potential victim. Anthrax brought about a sustained fear of terrorism where anyone could be a victim, and made people afraid that they could be the victim of WMD's that would kill, not a few thousand, but millions.
I am sure the discussion as to the major cause of Iraq will continue for decades for many reasons least of which is probably not that the national science foundation doesn't accept the FBIs conclusions where the science is concerned, and that aside from Bruce Ives was creepy the anthrax investigation pointed back to government labs.
tl;dr Powell didn't go before the security council with a toy plane but with a vial of anthrax.
Can you name one "terrorist" attack that hasn't been severly one sided in terms of cost?
Oklahoma city - for less than $5k there was 82.5Million in investigative cost alone
9/11 -4 Planes, Several buildings, more expensive airport security, loss of jobs, etc have been estimated at over 2 trillion. +10 years of expensive war in Afghanistan
Anthrax Attacks - for the cost of 7 letters we got a clean up that the FBI put over 1billion and the war in Iraq
Liquid bombers - didn't even happen and we got more security theater and still have restrictions on liquids
Times square bomber - unsuccessful attack that got politically elites talking about suspending Miranda
Underwear bomb - Super expensive scanners and more security theater.
Seriously, what "terrorist" attack in the last 10 years were you thinking of that hasn't caused a serous disproportionate response? Why do you think there seem to be more attacks in the last few years? For every couple thousand spent blowing, or attempting to blow, something up we spend hundreds or millions/billions/trillions reacting to it and every few large attacks causes the US to give away more of the "freedom(s)" that the terrorists hate. Over the last decade
I don't understand your PBS link. The article mentions that MoveOn advocated for public funding of Public Broadcasting, not PBS advocating for MoveOn. Some how you take an organizations(MoveOn) advocacy for a third party(PBS) and use that as evidence that the third party(PBS) is advocating for the other group(MoveOn.)
If this logic holds up does that mean that Palin supports neo-Nazi's as many of those groups supported her and McCain in the last election cycle?
I know most people are looking for snuff porn and other want conformation (really???) and if those were the only reason for not releasing the photos I would totally understand; but, they are not the only reason.
Like it or not the US is supposed to be a country governed by law not by fiat. Over the past decade we have been compelled to listen to tortured rhetoric that [The "war" on terror is justified because they don't respect out freedom(s).] To use that logic, to say that the US is the greatest country ever, to say we have a constitution that protects people from the government and that is "why they hate us" requires us to live up to our ideals. This means: you CANNOT wiretap everyone(4th amendment) you CANNOT torture(5th and 8th amendments) you CANNOT order the assassination of a US Citizen(and possibly not really anyone) because they said something mean(1st; 5th; 6th; 8th amendments) you CANNOT convict someone in a secret trial where they are unable to defend themselves(5th and 6th amendments.)
Why I would like a few groups like Amnesty, UNOHCHR, maybe ACLU to examine the photos, and more importantly the videos, is to verify that despite the "misstatements" by the US government and witness at the compound, bin Laden was NOT captured and executed.
I know that many of you don't care and that any trial would have only been for show and achieved the same outcome. But if we are going to pretend to be a nation governed by laws, and if we are going to be forced to listen to our tea party (republican) friends go on and on about the supremacy of the constitution, and we continue to spout "they hate us for our freedoms", then shouldn't we at least pay lip service to that founding document?
tl;dr: Release the video to have reputable NGOs verify that bin laden was killed while in a frantic shootout; err using a human shield; I mean lunging for a weapon(but that doesn't make too much sense since the combatants shot one of his wives in the calf while she was lunging at them(I guess UBL hasn't been running much and has small calves?))how about: doing anything other than look confused while and armed force descended on his house.
Do you think that just by killing bin laden Al Queda will just magically vanish?
And do you really think that the reason people are willing to be martyrs for their cause is because of bin laden? More importantly do you really think the threat of "terrorism" will ever go away? Every drone strike, every "hunting party", every time a coalition (read: US) soldier kills another person you create more people willing to pick up the standard of anti-western imperialism. The US has done far more to foment the anti-Western cause than bin laden ever could. But don't take my word for it, General McChrystal has spoken numerous times on the subject.
Declare mission accomplished and an end to combat operations, make up some BS about a duty to the region, etc. To appease the militant masses in the US you can leave a bunch of "security advisers" who will stay there forever (see Korea, Germany, Japan, Cuba, Philippines or Iraq for examples.) The death of bin laden is the golden opportunity to get out of the Afghan quagmire and stop wasting money and lives for the sake of looking tough.
Seriously? Promote the general Welfare is right after after provide for the common defence in the preamble to the constitution. You could also probably catagorize public health care in to insuring domestic Tranquility(prevent epidemics) and establishing Justice(break your back doing manual labor, organization you got hurt working for has to pick up the tab.)
Also,I am not sure how publicly invading three other countries, and having "secret" bombing campaigns in several others, counts as defense.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The summary draws the conclusion: that despite the Xoom being a good product, what moves tablets isn't the product but the marketing and hype. And despite how long tablets have been around the average person on a sales floor can't really tell you what their good for, where as at the apple store they know their talking points about the device and are able to make a more convincing sale.
The jump I made when I read the article is that: a) the average person can't articulate what a tablet is good for and what it can do for you, unlike a phone, pc, tv, microwave, etc. Since the average store clerk can't vocalize the benefit of a tablet people don't buy the Xoom, but because Apple will tell you why a tablet is so awesome people buy the iPad. If this long after a product launch, the average person can't tell you anything benefit to the device other than you hipster friends will think you are cool, it could be an indicator of a fad.
b) People aren't buying tablets from Apple because they have a need for a tablet, or because it fits a niche that their otehr computing platforms lack, they are buying because its Apple and a new thing. If that is true than it's even more of an indicator that its a fad, and much like furby there is not a large market for them past one or two generations.
What would have made the article much better would be trending numbers for sales of both Xoom and the iPad. What rate are they currently selling at? What is the conversion rate between the two? Did iPad and Xoom have similar sales before the launch of iPad2? How do sales of iPad2 compare with the original? Really any hard information would have been better than Apple stores look cool.
, I'm sure that during your pre-election research you decided not to vote for him
Seriously, what is wrong with people like you? Yes, many progressives that voted for Obama are pissed at him and don't have any problem painting him with the same brush as the previous war mongering corporate shill. But he isn't McCain. Let me repeat that he is not McCain! On the one you have a guy who at least appears to be anti-kill poor people in third world countries, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law and he is even a constitution scholar. On the other you have someone who talks about staying in Iraq for another 100 years and during the campaign appear to run to embrace the policies of the last 8 years(plus don't forget the running mate, if that doesn't show poor judgment I don't know what does.)
Well it turns out we may be stuck in Iraq for a 100 years, the erosion of privacy, indefinite detention, preemptive war(without congress approval this time,) a large healthcare bill that, while helping to cover more Americans, effectively requires you to hand over money to private corporations and if you can't afford to the government will step in and help you pay money to private corporations. And the list goes on.
So yes, progressives are pissed, but had it to do over again I still probably would have voted for him. I would rather play Russian Roulette with a six shooter and five rounds than play with a semi-automatic. The result may be the same but at least there is hope.
I never really understood the conservative echo chambers view of the NYT, or NPR for that matter. Why do you people hate it so much?
My perception of both organizations is that they occasionally do an interesting piece but are more than willing to bury a news stories like: CIA black sites, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, etc. and their editorial boards seem to take their lead from whoever is in Washington regardless of party. Although they can both be lazy to when it comes to fact checking the errors usually seem to benefit the neo-con view of the world(examples from the last decade NYT:Judith Miller NPR:anything related to O'Keeffe.) I would think the echo chamber would be in full support of these factual inaccuracies, not against them.
Maybe the issue is that these outlets occasionally deviate from their SOP of protecting those in power and report a different view of the world? Deviate from the script of: its the browns/Muslims/foreigners that are making you poor, when talking to the "right", or its the teabaggers/"stupids" in middle America, when talking to the "left", and start talking about how its those with power/resources who are making you life worse, paying you lower wages for longer hours, sending your children to die in conflicts whose point or reason has been forgotten or eroding your right to basic human rights and dignity and you are made to pay. Stop framing the discussion in terms of it’s the other average person that is you enemy not those in power and you are derided by those who control the echo chamber as having "liberal" bias or a conservative "bias".
... and does not handle release of classified information the way the NY Times does.
You mean going to the US government and asking what it is OK for them to print? NYT: We have evidence of massive illegal wiretaps from the federal government US Gov:Ummm, could you not print that we are kind running for reelection right now and the general populous, although kinda stupid and they tend to let us do what ever we want if we just say there are scary terrorists(read:non-whites/non-christians) out there who are going to eat your babies, they may vote us out of power. NYT: Okey-doke, just let us know when it's ok to tell the country of your crimes.
In fact, once the government pointed that out following its original releases, Wikileaks changed its methods and now submits the information to the NY Times for redaction, so as to avoid further charges.
In fact Wikileaks doesn't trust the NYT and so now cuts them out of their releases. The last batch the NYT had to get from another newspaper.
I still don't see how its any different than playing pirated games on a computer. Many pirated games require items that modify the OS to break SecureROM, reroute packets to prevent calling home, etc. There is also the risk of the downloaded game carring a payload that messes with the OS. How is that any different than breaking out of CHROOT jail and running an unapproved app?
Where I agree with you is that either pirating apps on the PC or mobile is very different than playing a pirated MP3, but only because a pirated MP3 has the same barrier to use on both platforms. If all you are interested in is pirated music you don't need to jailbreak your phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on where you are. Flying though Amsterdam there was no opt-out; even for the preggers wife.
Even in the US you an face absurd pressure from the TSA to go through the machine. I have had to wait 15 min+ on an opt-out(causing a run through ORD barefooted to make the flight); insinuations/outright declarations that I must be a "funny man" to want another man touching his "junk" and I must be some sort of queer(the TSA screeners words, not mine; this was ATL); all the opt out point are right next to the input of the X-Ray bag scanner leading a TSA agent(I think at SFO) to tell me that i was exposed to far more radiation waiting here then going through the scanner.
(TL;DR) It's easy to say you opt-out, but it's not alwsy an option and there is still tremendous pressure for you to go though the security theater.
I sometimes wonder what real change could occur if people channeled all their energy into the real issues instead of getting lost in divisive political spin.
Amen.
Page 6 drops the whole al-Qa'ida part and just says a U.S. citizen who is an operational leader. But guess we can chalk this up to a typo.
To split hairs, which I don't think was either of our original intent, it says a
senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force
This distinction is kind-of important as AQAP is not an organization designated by the AUMF(that was for 9/11 participants,) and the U.S. citizens we know were murdered, al-Aulaqi and son(so unless your going to argue that a 16 year old boy from Denver is a senior operational leader with AQ we already know that killings occur when even the low bar set by this whitepaper is not met), was part of a co-belligerent force, not AQ. Problem here is associated forces is pretty vague. A link to the circuit court decision about associated forces can be found here. The conclusion of the ruling talks about how determining who is and isn't a member when they are not actively armed is something that needs to be adjudicated on a case by case basis, something those who are assassinated will never get. This is where it comes down to your a member of AQ because we say you are.
I will point out that this document contains
As stated earlier, this paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful
so basically as long as you meet these requirements your all set to go killing(at least until a court says you can't at which point, much like the torture memos, this document will be used a legal shield.)
It doesn't seem like you are disputing the whole you a member of al-Qa'ida, because we say so. So i'll skip the down to the part i have in quote tags.
Here is where we get to the whole imminent threat part. The quote
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
is directly lifted from the document that you don't need clear evidence. 9/11 was used right after this statement as an example of why you can't wait for clear details, except there was evidence of a clear and imminent threat in this case as the 9-11 report details. I used the whole "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" document as an example since it is well known. You are correct that the document asserts that
certain members if al-Qa'ida (including any potential targets of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against he United States
what you miss is the rest of the rational in the same sentance
; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qu'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur
. Think about this argument, even if you accept that whole "they are always plotting against us" thing, the rest is there is always an imminent threat because there may be a secret threat that we don't know anything about. By this logic, any time a "sovereign citizen" leaves the country can they be assassinated since that group has a track record of plotting against the US and has engaged in terrorists acts? How about survivalists, another group with a track record of terrorist activities? KKK member leaves the country can we kill them, their certainly they are a terrorism organization who actively plots against the US? Let's set aside the US citizen thing, if someone post to a message board from outside the US how they would like to see the US government fall is the US justified in murdering them? After all, they are outside of the US, probably can't be captured, and to their extent possible would be plotting against the US.
At the top of page 10 we get there is not proper court to adjudicate this.
Finally, the Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations...Were a court to intervene here, it might be required to inappropriately issue an ex ante command.
Basiclly, there is not court with jurisdiction to adjudicate and if one were to intervene their ruling may not be proper.
And in section III on the same page
Section 1119, however, incorporates the federal murder and manslaughter statutes, and thus its prohibition extends only to "unlawful killing[s]"
Killing someone is only murder or manslaughter if it's unlawful
Section 1119 is best construed to incorporate the "public authority" justification
There is a "public authority" justification that can be used to exempt someone fro the letter of the law
As this paper explains below, a lethal operation of the kind discussed here would fall within the public authority exception
This paper is going to tell you that killing someone falls within this exception
The first paragraph says the only burden to someone being a member of al-Qu'ida is a informed, high-level official of the U.S. government. It was only a decade ago that we had "informed" high-level officials claiming Iraq had a stockpile of WMDs and was producing more. So, if an entire weapons program could be missed/fabricated, what are the odds of the classsification being screwed up. Further, on page 10 we get that judicial over site is unconstitutional. So you can be placed on the kill list because a high-level offical says you are a member of a group and there is no appeal or review process permitted."
Paragraph 2 on page 7:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
Although it goes on to cite 9/11 as reason why immanence cannot be used, it does not address the whole issue of clear evidence. In the case of 9-11 there was clear evidence of "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." (Not that the US didn't already try to kill him after the USS Cole and Embassy bombings) Top of page 8 gets even more specific with, and i am paraphrasing, [because some leaders may always be plotting, and the US government may not be aware of all al-Qu'ida plots, and thus cannot be confident none are about to occur]. The logical inference here is that, without clear evidence, we can assume they are always scheming for an imminent plot so an imminent threat always exists.
The paragraph at the top of page 10 lays out that because the military may do the killing, in response to the hypothetical threat, judicial over site would be unconstitutional.
Later in page 10(under III) we get the rational that these killings would not be unlawful because this paper says they and not unlawful, and as we just discussed not subject to judicial review. And at the bottom of page 12 we get the suggestion that we should think of this like a speeding by a fire engine responding to an alarm.
No. Try reading the memo. From the very first page it mentions it is for high level ranking al-Qa'ida located outside of the US.
I think the ACLU summed up your statement nicely with:
[T]he white paper assumes a key conclusion: It takes as a given that the target of the strike will be a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force of al-Qa’ida,” and it reasons from that premise that judicial process is unnecessary. This is a little bit like assuming that the defendant is guilty and then asking whether it’s useful to have a trial.
So, basically all it takes is the government/president to say your al-Qa'ida and they are allowed to murder you far from any battle field and as the original NBC piece put it:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
They don't even need to have clear evidence you are a member of al-Qa'ida or planning anything.
Remember, as a result of signature strikes any male "of military age" is declared to be a combatant and can therefore be murdered regardless of what they are doing or where they are. And they don't even have to be of militay age as evdinced by the killing of three children who were gathering firewood last Decmber
Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have “accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians.
So yes, it is for high level ranking al-Qa'ida located outside of the US, but the government, who is then conducting the assassination, gets to decided who is al-Qa'ida. Nobody get to review the decision and no evidence ever has to be put forth before or after the killing.
I had the same problem as OP, and used to use far more expensive drafting pens. My brother gave me a few PaperMate InkJoy 500 RT 0.5 XF a few years ago and I have used nothing else since. A given pen last for months, never clogs on me, at .5 I can write as small as I want(typically 3 to 4 lines per college ruled line), and at under <$1 per pen I am not too worried about breaking or losing it.
I know this may sound a little overboard, but I really like these pens.
But Standard American Lager is a recognized type of Beer, like IPA or Pilsner Although not the only type of beer produced in the US (and one I prefer not to drink), it is the style most commonly associated with US beer. Do all American beers suck? Defintally not. Does the beer type closely associated with the US, bears the name America, and the top 3 brands, BudLite, Budwiser, and CoorLite, which account for 50.1% of the US market, suck? Depends on your taste.
But like it or not, and I am guessing you do not, this popular(in the US) style of beer is what is meant by American beer.
BJCP Standards for judging American Standard Lagers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_the_United_States#Economy
Yes, I am aware of the issues with starvation in poverty in most of Africa and other parts of the non-industrialized world. Somalia also covers the Horn of Africa and is a prime staging ground for pirates attacking ships heading through the Suez. I also have seen sporadic coverage throughout the years that tends to peak when some sexy news story hits about pirates or something else, black hawk downs incident was what, 2 decades ago?
Point taken though, this was probably the wrong story to comment on this about. I think I am just confused that a non-story about the relaties of maritime activity in the region, that probably would have been ignored a few weeks ago, happens to rise to a point of note.
The Nation's article on CIA black sites? I may have been in a bubble, but I don't recall many articles mentioning Somalia until The Nation ran their article about the US Torture camps in Somalia.
Now I see article, after article, about how there is a humanitarian crisis in that country is caused by people the US want to torture/murder and now an article about how climate change research is being hampered by evil people in the area. It all seems a little much.
I really want to stay away from tinfoil hat material but, when a story about torture camps run by the US gov seems to be ignored and then humanization problems seems to appear at the same time, I can't help but wonder if a counter information campaign, like what the hack on HBGary help to expose may be responsible.
I cant really agree with either of you. Killing poor people because they were born in the wrong part of the world is EVIL. Kidnapping, torturing and, in some cases, killing people because they share the same name/alias(in that a guys alias is actually their name)/religion/sold to by tribal rivals is EVIL.
Both acts are disgusting.
To be clear, the Bush torture program found some random low ranking lawyer to sign off, but we haven't seen reports that his attorneys general, office of legal counsel and [major governing agency] disagreed. To equate this asinine legal opinion to Bush we would have to go to the domestic spying program.
This illegal wiretap program had the counsel of the FBI, OLC and the attorneys general saying that its incredibly illegal. You know, the program that Ashcroft refused to sign off on and was visited in a hospital room and refused to sign? The one that Bush modified to get Ashcroft to sign off on, that the NYT sat on until the end of the election, and that even after being modified(so that Ashcroft would signoff on)was still illegal.
Like Bush's unmodified wiretap program, Obama had his OLC, Pentagon Legal Counsel and (as the NYT buries on A6 in the second to last paragraph of a 21 paragraph article) the Attorneys General.
tl;dr Both obscene decisions come at the objection of the Attorneys General;OLC and [major governing agency],
I am at a loss for words. That has to be one of the stupidest thoughts I have ever read.
I can't wait until the first poor defendant goes before a judge as says "If crack was in fact a drug" then of course id be a drug dealer.
It makes me sad to begin thinking that the set of birthers who think Obama never went to law school may be on to something.
Maybe, I think the leading causes will be debated by historians for decades. Wired has a summary(wordpress link to the same story, after wireds part in Bradley Manning and their smear job of Bruce Ives I have a hard time sending traffic there) and a google search will pull open more debates and comments about the link between anthrax and the Iraq War.
From what I remember about late 2001, the events of 9/11 were traumatic and confusing, but not really fear inspiring. It felt more like a one off, more similar to the Cole, embassy bombings or all the hijackings/bombings of planes in the decade before. Getting on a plane was scary for a few months, but that was about it. The anthrax was completely different.
With the anthrax we had a few weeks of new reports that people were getting sick or dying. And unlike working in a fancy highrise in New York City, everyone gets the mail and everyone could be a potential victim. Anthrax brought about a sustained fear of terrorism where anyone could be a victim, and made people afraid that they could be the victim of WMD's that would kill, not a few thousand, but millions.
I am sure the discussion as to the major cause of Iraq will continue for decades for many reasons least of which is probably not that the national science foundation doesn't accept the FBIs conclusions where the science is concerned, and that aside from Bruce Ives was creepy the anthrax investigation pointed back to government labs.
tl;dr Powell didn't go before the security council with a toy plane but with a vial of anthrax.
Can you name one "terrorist" attack that hasn't been severly one sided in terms of cost?
Seriously, what "terrorist" attack in the last 10 years were you thinking of that hasn't caused a serous disproportionate response? Why do you think there seem to be more attacks in the last few years? For every couple thousand spent blowing, or attempting to blow, something up we spend hundreds or millions/billions/trillions reacting to it and every few large attacks causes the US to give away more of the "freedom(s)" that the terrorists hate. Over the last decade
the "terrorists", so to speak, [have] won.
Looks like it'll be on shelves around June 10th... Can it really be true?
No, its not true. The Ars, Amazon and EBGames all list the release date nearly a week later on June 14th.
I don't understand your PBS link. The article mentions that MoveOn advocated for public funding of Public Broadcasting, not PBS advocating for MoveOn. Some how you take an organizations(MoveOn) advocacy for a third party(PBS) and use that as evidence that the third party(PBS) is advocating for the other group(MoveOn.)
If this logic holds up does that mean that Palin supports neo-Nazi's as many of those groups supported her and McCain in the last election cycle?
I know most people are looking for snuff porn and other want conformation (really???) and if those were the only reason for not releasing the photos I would totally understand; but, they are not the only reason.
Like it or not the US is supposed to be a country governed by law not by fiat. Over the past decade we have been compelled to listen to tortured rhetoric that [The "war" on terror is justified because they don't respect out freedom(s).] To use that logic, to say that the US is the greatest country ever, to say we have a constitution that protects people from the government and that is "why they hate us" requires us to live up to our ideals. This means:
you CANNOT wiretap everyone(4th amendment)
you CANNOT torture(5th and 8th amendments)
you CANNOT order the assassination of a US Citizen(and possibly not really anyone) because they said something mean(1st; 5th; 6th; 8th amendments)
you CANNOT convict someone in a secret trial where they are unable to defend themselves(5th and 6th amendments.)
Why I would like a few groups like Amnesty, UNOHCHR, maybe ACLU to examine the photos, and more importantly the videos, is to verify that despite the "misstatements" by the US government and witness at the compound, bin Laden was NOT captured and executed.
I know that many of you don't care and that any trial would have only been for show and achieved the same outcome. But if we are going to pretend to be a nation governed by laws, and if we are going to be forced to listen to our tea party (republican) friends go on and on about the supremacy of the constitution, and we continue to spout "they hate us for our freedoms", then shouldn't we at least pay lip service to that founding document?
tl;dr: Release the video to have reputable NGOs verify that bin laden was killed while in a frantic shootout; err using a human shield; I mean lunging for a weapon(but that doesn't make too much sense since the combatants shot one of his wives in the calf while she was lunging at them(I guess UBL hasn't been running much and has small calves?))how about: doing anything other than look confused while and armed force descended on his house.
Do you think that just by killing bin laden Al Queda will just magically vanish?
And do you really think that the reason people are willing to be martyrs for their cause is because of bin laden? More importantly do you really think the threat of "terrorism" will ever go away? Every drone strike, every "hunting party", every time a coalition (read: US) soldier kills another person you create more people willing to pick up the standard of anti-western imperialism. The US has done far more to foment the anti-Western cause than bin laden ever could. But don't take my word for it, General McChrystal has spoken numerous times on the subject.
Declare mission accomplished and an end to combat operations, make up some BS about a duty to the region, etc. To appease the militant masses in the US you can leave a bunch of "security advisers" who will stay there forever (see Korea, Germany, Japan, Cuba, Philippines or Iraq for examples.) The death of bin laden is the golden opportunity to get out of the Afghan quagmire and stop wasting money and lives for the sake of looking tough.
Also,I am not sure how publicly invading three other countries, and having "secret" bombing campaigns in several others, counts as defense.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The summary draws the conclusion: that despite the Xoom being a good product, what moves tablets isn't the product but the marketing and hype. And despite how long tablets have been around the average person on a sales floor can't really tell you what their good for, where as at the apple store they know their talking points about the device and are able to make a more convincing sale.
The jump I made when I read the article is that:
a) the average person can't articulate what a tablet is good for and what it can do for you, unlike a phone, pc, tv, microwave, etc. Since the average store clerk can't vocalize the benefit of a tablet people don't buy the Xoom, but because Apple will tell you why a tablet is so awesome people buy the iPad. If this long after a product launch, the average person can't tell you anything benefit to the device other than you hipster friends will think you are cool, it could be an indicator of a fad.
b) People aren't buying tablets from Apple because they have a need for a tablet, or because it fits a niche that their otehr computing platforms lack, they are buying because its Apple and a new thing. If that is true than it's even more of an indicator that its a fad, and much like furby there is not a large market for them past one or two generations.
What would have made the article much better would be trending numbers for sales of both Xoom and the iPad. What rate are they currently selling at? What is the conversion rate between the two? Did iPad and Xoom have similar sales before the launch of iPad2? How do sales of iPad2 compare with the original? Really any hard information would have been better than Apple stores look cool.
, I'm sure that during your pre-election research you decided not to vote for him
Seriously, what is wrong with people like you? Yes, many progressives that voted for Obama are pissed at him and don't have any problem painting him with the same brush as the previous war mongering corporate shill. But he isn't McCain. Let me repeat that he is not McCain! On the one you have a guy who at least appears to be anti-kill poor people in third world countries, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law and he is even a constitution scholar. On the other you have someone who talks about staying in Iraq for another 100 years and during the campaign appear to run to embrace the policies of the last 8 years(plus don't forget the running mate, if that doesn't show poor judgment I don't know what does.)
Well it turns out we may be stuck in Iraq for a 100 years, the erosion of privacy, indefinite detention, preemptive war(without congress approval this time,) a large healthcare bill that, while helping to cover more Americans, effectively requires you to hand over money to private corporations and if you can't afford to the government will step in and help you pay money to private corporations. And the list goes on.
So yes, progressives are pissed, but had it to do over again I still probably would have voted for him. I would rather play Russian Roulette with a six shooter and five rounds than play with a semi-automatic. The result may be the same but at least there is hope.
I never really understood the conservative echo chambers view of the NYT, or NPR for that matter. Why do you people hate it so much?
My perception of both organizations is that they occasionally do an interesting piece but are more than willing to bury a news stories like: CIA black sites, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, etc. and their editorial boards seem to take their lead from whoever is in Washington regardless of party. Although they can both be lazy to when it comes to fact checking the errors usually seem to benefit the neo-con view of the world(examples from the last decade NYT:Judith Miller NPR:anything related to O'Keeffe.) I would think the echo chamber would be in full support of these factual inaccuracies, not against them.
Maybe the issue is that these outlets occasionally deviate from their SOP of protecting those in power and report a different view of the world? Deviate from the script of: its the browns/Muslims/foreigners that are making you poor, when talking to the "right", or its the teabaggers/"stupids" in middle America, when talking to the "left", and start talking about how its those with power/resources who are making you life worse, paying you lower wages for longer hours, sending your children to die in conflicts whose point or reason has been forgotten or eroding your right to basic human rights and dignity and you are made to pay. Stop framing the discussion in terms of it’s the other average person that is you enemy not those in power and you are derided by those who control the echo chamber as having "liberal" bias or a conservative "bias".
... and does not handle release of classified information the way the NY Times does.
You mean going to the US government and asking what it is OK for them to print?
NYT: We have evidence of massive illegal wiretaps from the federal government
US Gov:Ummm, could you not print that we are kind running for reelection right now and the general populous, although kinda stupid and they tend to let us do what ever we want if we just say there are scary terrorists(read:non-whites/non-christians) out there who are going to eat your babies, they may vote us out of power.
NYT: Okey-doke, just let us know when it's ok to tell the country of your crimes.
Seriously though, the NYT goes around bragging about getting the administrations permission before publishing anything bad.
In fact, once the government pointed that out following its original releases, Wikileaks changed its methods and now submits the information to the NY Times for redaction, so as to avoid further charges.
In fact Wikileaks doesn't trust the NYT and so now cuts them out of their releases. The last batch the NYT had to get from another newspaper.
I believe the cat was out of the bag a month ago when ArsTechnics was reporting on HBGary?
I still don't see how its any different than playing pirated games on a computer. Many pirated games require items that modify the OS to break SecureROM, reroute packets to prevent calling home, etc. There is also the risk of the downloaded game carring a payload that messes with the OS. How is that any different than breaking out of CHROOT jail and running an unapproved app?
Where I agree with you is that either pirating apps on the PC or mobile is very different than playing a pirated MP3, but only because a pirated MP3 has the same barrier to use on both platforms. If all you are interested in is pirated music you don't need to jailbreak your phone.