Paraphrasing the news monster, declarations of war do not work that way. Only Congress has Constitutional authorization to declare wars, regardless of what traitors and turncoats try to imply.
...and one Private in the military shoots one civilian, you believe the entire chain of command, from the President, Generals, and everyone in between should be tried for war crimes?
Yes.
By that standard, every President and every General in the history of mankind would be guilty of war crimes, included Obama.
No - you're conflating "tried" with "convicted." Contrary to what the court of public opinion insists, being charged with a crime is not the same thing as being proven guilty of it. There is an equal chance that they would be exonerated.
If you mean a President orders war crimes to be committed, and everyone down the chain of command follows those orders, then that standard was created out of the Nuremburg trials and exists today.
Yet it isn't applied universally; thus, an affront to justice.
Logically it's true; but by technical definition, a classified thing is always classified until a party with the proper clearance de-classifies it. Don't take my word for it, Google is but a fresh tab away.
What is also true is that the Army/US Government is insane to act otherwise.
But if the guy got shot dead in the mean time by a random citizen who makes a clean getaway, how would the cost of that + the fallout from it compare to the costs of the trials+either death penalty or life imprisonment?
Considering that said random citizen would then be placed on trial for a number of charges, not nearly as inexpensive as you probably think; that would basically be moving the main show from one circus ring to another.
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
The point is that it was during the course of armed conflict. The simple fact is that no one has succeeded in having the armed conflict ruled illegal. Not before the Supreme Court or any other agency which has true jurisdiction.
Yea, that's just a function of a completely corrupted system: they'll all always agree that whatever powers they want to give themselves are just. They could be using drones to murder Americans by the thousands, and would insist that the unconstitutional "laws" they've passed legally justify the action. Doesn't make it true.
Hence the reason that the Constitution lays out what powers the government actually has so specifically.
The difference being, McCarthy was chasing imaginary boogeymen to satisfy his own political agenda; the boogeymen in my narrative are far from imaginary, and my only agenda is to force government agents to live up to the expectations set forth in the Constitution (presumably a far nobler goal than "flushin' out Joe Red")
I was really hoping for the force-feedback codpiece.
I know that it's just the vernacular for a certain kind of device, but I find myself a bit uneasy with the idea of any sort of 'force-feedback' in the general vicinity of my ballsack...
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Thank you for playing.
You're really trying to say that killing children who weren't even fucking born on 9/11/2001 is justified?
Goddamn, we knew you were a statist, but this... this is just fucked, man. You need serious mental counselling.
Considering recent disclosures about just how expansive government surveillance really is (compared to what we thought it was), I suspect, since we're now hearing about it, the systems use is far more expansive than we're currently being made aware of.
Spies are like cockroaches: for ever one you actually see, there's a few thousand more hiding in the walls.
I was wondering why that black van was parked in front of my house for the past 2 weeks. My wife offered them some coffee, and they just pointed guns at her. Maybe I shouldn't go back home anytime soon.
Black, huh? In my one experience with asshole government agents doing surveillance, they were rollin' in a gold Escalade.
FYI no, they weren't watching me, they were using my parking lot to watch the meth cooks in the trailer park across the way. Which I was OK with.
The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.
But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police.
In fact the Bofors 40mm AA autocannon (the largest machinegun in civillian hands) fits the bill, and there's videos of someone (legally) setting off his WMD at a number of entertaining targets.
Ah, yes, good ol' FPSRussia, a true American patriot!
Here's the Bofors vid if anyone is interested (FYI, it is frigging spectacular. DO WANT)
Slashdot Mirror
So if the President declares war on a country...
Paraphrasing the news monster, declarations of war do not work that way. Only Congress has Constitutional authorization to declare wars, regardless of what traitors and turncoats try to imply.
...and one Private in the military shoots one civilian, you believe the entire chain of command, from the President, Generals, and everyone in between should be tried for war crimes?
Yes.
By that standard, every President and every General in the history of mankind would be guilty of war crimes, included Obama.
No - you're conflating "tried" with "convicted." Contrary to what the court of public opinion insists, being charged with a crime is not the same thing as being proven guilty of it. There is an equal chance that they would be exonerated.
If you mean a President orders war crimes to be committed, and everyone down the chain of command follows those orders, then that standard was created out of the Nuremburg trials and exists today.
Yet it isn't applied universally; thus, an affront to justice.
No, technically, it is true.
Logically it's true; but by technical definition, a classified thing is always classified until a party with the proper clearance de-classifies it. Don't take my word for it, Google is but a fresh tab away.
What is also true is that the Army/US Government is insane to act otherwise.
No disagreement there.
But if the guy got shot dead in the mean time by a random citizen who makes a clean getaway, how would the cost of that + the fallout from it compare to the costs of the trials+either death penalty or life imprisonment?
Considering that said random citizen would then be placed on trial for a number of charges, not nearly as inexpensive as you probably think; that would basically be moving the main show from one circus ring to another.
The point is that it was during the course of armed conflict. The simple fact is that no one has succeeded in having the armed conflict ruled illegal. Not before the Supreme Court or any other agency which has true jurisdiction.
Yea, that's just a function of a completely corrupted system: they'll all always agree that whatever powers they want to give themselves are just. They could be using drones to murder Americans by the thousands, and would insist that the unconstitutional "laws" they've passed legally justify the action. Doesn't make it true.
Hence the reason that the Constitution lays out what powers the government actually has so specifically.
You are correct
The difference being, McCarthy was chasing imaginary boogeymen to satisfy his own political agenda; the boogeymen in my narrative are far from imaginary, and my only agenda is to force government agents to live up to the expectations set forth in the Constitution (presumably a far nobler goal than "flushin' out Joe Red")
It was probably a confiscated vehicle.
I thought that, until I saw that it wasn't sitting on rims that cost twice what the truck itself did.
There's a big difference between,"Hey, this guy needs help" and "Please lock this person up without trial for several months for making a joke"
Namely, with the former you actually try and help the person, whereas in the case of the latter you make a phone call and sick the Stasi on them.
I was really hoping for the force-feedback codpiece.
I know that it's just the vernacular for a certain kind of device, but I find myself a bit uneasy with the idea of any sort of 'force-feedback' in the general vicinity of my ballsack...
The difference is that you have to tithe Apple $5 for a license.
FTFY; the word 'pay' just doesn't seem sanctimonious enough.
Is it sort of like if you could somehow plug in a speakon connector or a 1/4 inch connector into the same jack?
http://www.markertek.com/Connectors-Adapters/Audio-Connectors/Speakon-Connectors/Neutrik-USA-Inc/NLJ2MD-H.xhtml?utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=googlebase&cvsfa=3786&cvsfe=2&cvsfhu=4e4c4a324d442d48&gclid=CLqKt4Kjh7gCFU7hQgodkS0AbA
... or the 1/4" | XLR combo port found on most decent quality mixing boards since at least the 1990's.
USB 3.0 cables are a marriage of two different connectors.
Abomination!
Marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman! So sayeth the bearded fairy in the sky!
You imply that he doesn't intend to fuck some Canadians...
This.
Not a fan of icicle pussy.
(I keed, I keed!)
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Thank you for playing.
You're really trying to say that killing children who weren't even fucking born on 9/11/2001 is justified?
Goddamn, we knew you were a statist, but this... this is just fucked, man. You need serious mental counselling.
No sarc.
It's just surprising it hasn't expanded yet.
Yea, about that...
Considering recent disclosures about just how expansive government surveillance really is (compared to what we thought it was), I suspect, since we're now hearing about it, the systems use is far more expansive than we're currently being made aware of.
Spies are like cockroaches: for ever one you actually see, there's a few thousand more hiding in the walls.
1) Drop the 'o' so it's spelled 'pwning'
2) Nah, I don't consider someone PWND unless I'm carpeting them with solid burns like the archangels at Sodom and Gomorrah.
On behalf of this woman, I'm sorry.
Shouldn't that be, "on behalf of all Canadians who aren't stupid, nosy bitches like this woman?"
I was wondering why that black van was parked in front of my house for the past 2 weeks. My wife offered them some coffee, and they just pointed guns at her. Maybe I shouldn't go back home anytime soon.
Black, huh? In my one experience with asshole government agents doing surveillance, they were rollin' in a gold Escalade.
FYI no, they weren't watching me, they were using my parking lot to watch the meth cooks in the trailer park across the way. Which I was OK with.
The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.
But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police.
Fucking Canadians...
In fact the Bofors 40mm AA autocannon (the largest machinegun in civillian hands) fits the bill, and there's videos of someone (legally) setting off his WMD at a number of entertaining targets.
Ah, yes, good ol' FPSRussia, a true American patriot!
Here's the Bofors vid if anyone is interested (FYI, it is frigging spectacular. DO WANT)
Shouldn't all the Presidents, Secretary of States, Joint Chiefs of Staffs and soldiers be investigated for war crimes during those conflicts?
Yes. In fact, I would argue that those people should be put on trial any and every time they commit a violent act against another person or nation.
If the system is just, as they swear to us it is, then they should be found innocent of any wrongdoing, right? What's to fear?
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
Keeping them alive makes the rest of us pay for it...
That's just stupid.
You want him kept alive forever? YOU pay for it... I'd rather pay $.005 for a bullet and be done with it.
You are an idiot.
Please stop talking until you learn something about the topic.
If it is available from a public web site then the information is no longer "classified", but public knowledge
Technically, that's not true - a document is only de-classified if a government agent declares it as such, public disclosure notwithstanding.
The thinking and the process here is flawed.
Understatement of the month, man.
This isn't about preventing employees from knowing. It's about keeping classified information off of unclassified networks.
By blocking a publicly accessible journalism website?
Oh, right this is the Army, where Process A Requires Solution B, So Do C Instead is command's modus operandi.