Now if you stream netflix to your computer, then say put a webcam in front to record and then stream to people via a 3rd party site, then you'd be publically broadcasting.
What about if you stream it to yourself? Like you're on vacation, and you want to watch something on your cell phone. That doesn't seem like a public broadcast.
That's what Aereo is doing.
When you watch netflix on your device over wifi you are simply consuming...
Wifi is literally broadcasting it to everyone within range. Wifi is obviously a public performance because the signal goes to the public.
Oh my, so you think that hiring security guards should be illegal, because security guards depend for their livelihood on the premise that without them you are at risk of falling victim to crime?
And you think insurance products should be illegal?
That's some weak shit buddy. Both of the things you listed are actually legal and pretty popular. My car insurance specifically covers broken windshields.
Ummm yeah I totally believe in innocent until proven guilty. But al-Awlaki has already been proven guilty. He admitted to being a terrorist and wanting to attack the US. So.. guilty. It's not that complicated.
Not relevant, I stated that the assassination is absolutely illegal by our Constitution. You did not argue my original point,
I think you forgot your original point, because in fact I was illustrating the difference between your new argument ("death to infidels" == "death to terrorists" == "killing people on some principle" which I agree with you on) and what you said previously ("You are close, but the Bill of Rights states that lethal force may need to be used to protect the public from eminent danger. Not "just because a cop feels like it""). That was a straw-man argument because nobody is saying you can kill people "just because you feel like it" and that's not what Obama did either.
I didn't want to JUST agree with you because that loses the context in which we disagreed. I wasn't sure whether you were conceding the original point and starting fresh (which is unusual, but appears to be what happened) or whether you thought you were restating your original idea (which you were not).
Those different countries should be within their rights to assassinate those people.
You can't have it both ways while thinking clearly and rationally.
Again, you're absolutely right and I agree. I think assassinating heads of state (or removing them) for your own national interest is legitimate. For instance I totally support (I mean, would have supported, if I'd been around) the British and American aid for the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran. I think the Shah was better.
Are you aware that the US and other countries made plans to assassinate Hitler in WWII, but failed?
It's weird, you act like assassination of enemies is some novel concept and we have to nip it in the bud because it's really evil.
Now you'd have to make a pretty strong case to assassinate *anyone* in a foreign government, like some deputy to the undersecretary or something... what's the national interest there?
The Government lied about Sadam having WMDs and the whole pretext for killing millions of people was false.
If you assume it was a conscious lie, then there are reasonable ulterior motives you can find... oil, destabilizing the Middle East, getting military contracts for buddies, whatever.
So what's the motivation for killing al-Awlaki beyond the publicly stated motivation (that he's a dangerous terrorist)? That's why your theory makes no sense. Lack of reasonable ulterior motives.
Wait, are you claiming that the Government does not work with media outlets to ensure a specific message is being sent out to the American public which is falsifying reality?
No I'm not claiming that. However, working with media outlets is different from dictating the entire story. I don't believe they do that. Since groups like the ACLU openly operate and openly defend people like al-Awlaki, it's pretty clear that the government is less powerful and less evil than you think.
Are you trying to claim that if we can show one conspiracy all others vanish? Are you trying to claim that if you can't prove one conspiracy all other conspiracies can't be true? I really don't get your point.
It's pretty clear that you don't get the point because those questions are nonsensical and have nothing to do with what I said.
Let me repeat. IF the government killed al-Awlaki for a hidden reason, AND controlled the entire world's media (not just the NY Times etc) to paint a certain picture of him, AND there's no reasonable ulterior motive, so the hidden reason is something far-fetched....
THEN...
I don't think you're the type of person who would accept the outcome of a trial if it didn't go in your favor.
Because I think there'd be a slashdot article on here saying "Al-Awlaki found guilty, sentenced to death!!" and I'd be like "Good, but what a waste of time, they should have just droned him."
And you'd be like "No this trial was bullshit, the go
Really, you think "tried" could ever mean that? That's a slippery slope argument where there is no evidence of a slippery slope, a fundamental flaw. "Tried" could never mean that because the public wouldn't support the cops killing every criminal suspect on the grounds that they checked the broom closet back at the station and he wasn't there.
But let's play along. If a cop were 100 feet away in a crowd, clearly I wouldn't hear him say "I'm placing you under arrest" etc. Maybe not even at 10 feet, like in a nightclub. So using a slippery slope argument like you did, I'm going to say "That means a cop has to be close enough to shout in your ear. And if I'm deaf, I literally can never be arrested, and any force used to subdue me is illegal because an arrest attempt was never made."
And now it's your turn to say "Slippery slope fail... nobody would ever support that extreme of a requirement, especially with a deaf person."
Either that or you'll say "Well technically you can *say* I'm placing you under arrest even if the person is deaf and can't hear you" to which I'd response technically we can say you're under arrest while the suspect is in Yemen if you don't have a requirement that they hear and acknowledge you.
I think you have to accept that it's a gray area that depends on circumstances. In a crowd the arrest attempt has to be made physically nearer to the target than in a quiet, open field. And it should likewise be different for a high-level operator in a terrorist network who is thousands of miles away hiding in the mountains with the armed supporters.
Yes. Note the qualifier, "In every place I've been to."
Haha, okay. You've been to America, presumably, and it's not illegal in America to sell access to public space, as the Supreme Court examples hows.
I was hoping you'd share an actual example of it being illegal, because I'm pretty sure your example won't line up very well with the parking place swap thing.
Selling public property is illegal, and barring people from accessing public property is illegal, but both line-holding and parking-space-holding share the concept that you're not blocking access to available public property, just the property that you are physically occupying yourself which is unavailable to others. And you do have the right to physically occupy public property and not leave just because someone is waiting for you to leave. You certainly don't have the right to force someone else off of public property. So the only way you can take someone's parking space (or place in the line) is to make a deal with them or wait until they leave voluntarily. That's what you're buying, not access to the public property.
You keep bringing up stupid analogies. For one thing, Lincoln was a tyrant.
It's not a stupid analogy, it's precedent. You think it's stupid because you don't like what it reveals about our national character. Lincoln was a cruel and oppressive ruler? Nah.
Second of all, as for the actual analogy, the civil war is in no way comparable to a band of idiotic terrorists hiding out in deserts, and definitely isn't comparable to a single man who posed no current threat.
Sure I'd absolutely agree with that. Luckily, al-Qaeda isn't an idiotic band of terrorists hiding out in deserts. And al-Awlaki wasn't a single man who posed no current threat.
The enemy in the civil war was at least somewhat definable, unlike the vague and far-reaching 'war on a concept.'
Terrorism is at least somewhat definable as well, therefore terrorists are an at least somewhat definable enemy. I like that you threw in "somewhat" because I would agree with you that there's not a strict, universally accepted definition of terrorism.
Within the population of all terrorists, there are subsets that are in better defined, self-identified groups like al-Qaeda, who have openly and publicly declared their intent to attack us. I have no problem with killing those people with no trial, because the situation is similar enough to war that a trial is unnecessary and impractical.
And again, no imminent threat.
In the Civil War analogy, imminent threat was not a requirement, so why should it be here? We're not talking about regular law enforcement cops confronting a regular citizen in regular circumstances and thinking about whether the cops can shoot the guy. It's a mistake you keep making to infantalize terrorist groups by calling them idiots or inept and implying they're harmless. That undermines your entire argument. It's such a poor foundation for the argument that every time you reference terrorists, you are wrong.
From a language perspective, I wonder if you've considered why we have different words for different crimes, different words for people who commit different crimes, and even different words for actions that we call "crimes" in everyday settings? Why is killing someone in war not called murder? Why is killing sometimes called terrorism?
I mean even if you personally believe that killing someone in war is murder, and killing someone in an act of terrorism is also just plain old murder, surely you've wondered why soooo many people draw the distinction? I know you like to pretend that popularity doesn't matter, but in fact it does. Especially with things like language.
Your response indicates you don't understand freedom itself. We must stick to principles if we wish to have freedom.
Actually that's false. We don't have to stick to principles to have freedom. You can violate your principles and then "come back" and be principled again later. You're way too simplistic.
Furthermore, your principles can change over time as circumstances dictate. Do you have the same principles as when you were 5 years old? That shows lack of cognitive development.
You obviously don't understand the difference between criminals attacking people and the government violating people's rights.
You obviously don't understand the difference between criminals attacking people, to which the response is law enforcement, and large, wealthy, remote terrorist groups attacking people, which law enforcement cannot reach. You should think about that because it's one of the determining factor between applying law enforcement and applying the military.
Appealing to popularity will get you nowhere.
What a ridiculous idea. Recognizing the popularity of different viewpoints is fundamental to the human experience since we're such social creatures. Fail.
Only in cases of imminent danger (i.e. he's about to kill/hurt someone right now, not at some unspecified point in the future, and it doesn't matter what group he belongs to) should this ever be allowed to happen.
Well there are two responses to this: 1. He was an imminent danger 2. That's not right, and in fact we kill people without being in imminent danger all the time. For instance, in the Civil War, sharp shooters were used to kill people at a distance who were not in the midst of battle. Those were US citizens executed because they had declared war against the US and were out of the reach of law enforcement for practical purposes. So they were executed on the spot.
Just like some people might think 1 + 1 = 3. But they're wrong.
Whew, well you better let the Supreme Court know that constitutional interpretation is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. In fact why do we need a Supreme Court if it's so dang simple?
Then you're an enemy of freedom, and a traitor to the principles of the 'land of the free.'
No, you are. You want to put the land of free at risk because you want to cling to some very strict interpretation of rights.
Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to murder citizens without trial who do not pose an imminent threat, and no, 'traitors' are not an exception. He should have a trial to even determine if he's a traitor.
Yes it does, it allows the government to go to war against our enemies. If an US citizen is fighting for the enemy, they're fair game too. Again, for the quintessential example of this, see: Civil War.
Incorrect. Even if they escape, outright murder is not necessary. It's only necessary if they, again, pose an imminent threat. I'd rather let people escape than just murder them.
Good for you... but more people think like me than like you, including the President, so calling me incorrect is a bit of a stretch. We disagree, sure, but I'm as right as you are.
Your main problem is that you think 'the land of the free' should catch alleged criminals above all else, but that's not what the 'home of the brave' is about at all.
Uh what? I'm the one saying it's fine to just kill them in circumstances like these. No need to catch them first. That's your side. What are you talking about?
I'd rethink your authoritarian nonsense if I were you, but we both know there's zero chance of that.
Yeah, only what I'm talking about isn't authoritarianism, it's populism. We don't like terrorists who threaten us, so we kill them. Trial or not. Citizen or not. Fuck em. That's not authoritarianism though.
Based on what you're saying here, I guess you're assuming that if I support drone strikes against al-Awlaki, then I must also support drone strikes against like, union protesters and Wall Street bankers and anybody else who, I don't know, gets on the government's shit list (depending who's in power). But that's not the case, that's an unfounded assumption on your part.
We did try to arrest al-Awlaki, if you read that article, but we failed and in fact never got within (say hypothetically) 100 miles of him. How close does a US official have to get to al-Awlaki to count as an "arrest attempt?" Let's say you say "you have to come within X feet for it to count as an attempted arrest." If I build a moat X+1 feet wide, and have guided missiles to defend my moat, then I can never be legally brought to justice in your world because the cops can never make an arrest attempt. Send in deputized paratroopers you say? I kill them all while they are X+1 feet in the air. They never got close enough. Does that really make sense to you?
So let's say you say there's no hard limit X, it's just whether a reasonable person would think the arrest was attempted. Okay well I think it was attempted, but because this guy was hiding out in the wilds of Yemen with widespread local support, it was impossible to get close. But we tried. That's good enough.
I am curious if you have a hard number in mind, or if not, what's wrong with my reasoning.
No, because what's happening in San Francisco isn't about preventing access to public property. It's about paying someone to leave a parking spot that they are lawfully occupying (you know, by putting money in the meter).
In this case, the person blocking the private driveway is not there legally to begin with. So...
Person C can deny person A the right to take the spot from person B. Easily. Person C can use the app to locate the parking spot, drive to it, and then refuse to move away in order to let person A assume the spot.
You can't block people from entering a public parking spot, that's ridiculous. Person C is breaking an existing law, no need to add regulation to persons A and B.
Person C could cut in and take the spot, and then put money in the meter. That's fine. But that can happen today without the app... I've had parking spots that I claimed (blinker was on!) stolen from me. I didn't call the cops.
Nobody's selling the parking spot. They're selling an agreement to have you move out of the parking spot when they get there. And you do own that. I mean you are in control of when you leave a public parking spot, as long as you keep putting quarters in the meter right?
In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
Is it really? I know there are people who are paid to stand in line at the Supreme Court for popular cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-business-of-waiting-in-line/2012/03/25/gIQAhFJkZS_blog.html). There were talks about passing new laws to ban it, but it's not illegal yet.
We hold trials even for people who have overwhelming evidence against them.
And? We don't hold trials for people in all circumstances. Plenty of people are killed without a trial. Please think a bit on the Civil War for instance. Did the North hold a trial before engaging every single soldier fighting for the South?
It is not "silly" to follow the constitution
Of course not, but your interpretation of the constitution isn't the only one. I personally think it's fine and dandy to kill avowed enemies of the US without a trial and I don't think the constitution affords them any protection, just like it doesn't protect enemy soldiers.
It is extremely dangerous to allow the government to punish (murder, in this case) people just because they're 'sure' they committed some crime.
I agree, it is extremely dangerous. But sometimes it's necessary, like when the "accused" is well outside the reach of law enforcement. Today we have the technology to reach people even when they try really really really hard to evade us -- but only to deliver death. We still aren't at the point where we can send a drone to arrest someone. When that day comes, you'll have a stronger argument and I'd probably agree with you.
If the government started killing people who very clearly were within the power of traditional law enforcement, then I'd be with you. But throughout our history, exceptional circumstances demand exceptional action.
"As for the Americans, I will never surrender to them," al-Awlaki said. "If the Americans want me, let them come look for me. God is the protector."
So there you go, he publicly admitted that he knew he was wanted, and he refused to surrender. Then he invited us to find him. And we did. His "god" certainly wasn't able to protect him, but that's not our fault.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
Umm, well, again, if they are AIMING for an economic target, then it's not collateral damage. What are you not understanding here? I think you need a dictionary.
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
Not only were they not on a battlefield, they were not terrorists. So why do you think I'm okay with them dying?
Oh yeah you're a little crazy. Right.
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing?
Huh? Not sorry? Or is this a trick question?
Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
Force feedings are stupid. Let them not eat cake. I couldn't care less.
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink.
What are you talking about? I think you've lost it.
Let me bottomline this for ya since you seem a bit confused:
According to TFA, the problem was reported by Metro PCS because they noticed a transmission tower near the highway having problems in the morning and evening (during the guy's commute).
al-Awlaki saying "Death to Infidels" is different how from US agencies claiming "Death to Terrorists"? There is no difference.
Correct. There is no difference.
But that's not what you originally said. A "principled" Muslim terrorist wouldn't kill someone just because he felt like it. He would say "I'm going to kill you because you're an infidel." That has a meaning. That means he wouldn't kill someone who is not an infidel, like someone who said "I surrender and I want to become a Muslim and join up with you." I mean he still could... maybe he'd say "Sorry but I have to make an example of you." That's still not killing someone "because you feel like it."
But again lets' use the Socratic method.
How are you sure that they were not lying about al-Awlaki?
I'm reasonably sure because I don't see why they would lie about this one guy. Do you have some evidence about al-Awlaki having dirt on Obama's fake birth certificate or something? Where's the motivation to take out this guy and expend so many resources on him?
A war is made up of many small battles, not a single action. It seems as though you are advocating silence and no action because it can't change enough to win the war on it's own.
No you're misunderstanding... I was just trying to point out the futility of your argument. If you believe in this big conspiracy, then a guilty verdict in court isn't going to change your mind. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with what I think (I think al-Awlaki was a terrorist and deserved to die by any means necessary, including a drone strike without a trial).
Let me ask you directly -- if he had had a trial, and had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to death, would that honestly be enough for you? You'd be like "Oh I guess it wasn't all lies and conspiracies.. this was fair!"
If not, then what is your point in arguing that he should have had a trial if you wouldn't accept such an outcome? It's dishonest.
If so, then you get points for consistency but I think it's silly. He's a terrorist who appears in videos asking people to attack the US. Trials are for exploring both sides of an issue and finding the most likely truth. Well we already have that.
Your point is well taken. I disagree with you that gold is safer than government bonds, in the sense that they protect their value and as you pointed out the government can simply print money to honor its obligations.
But in a practical sense, in terms of the overall program of Social Security, investing solely in low-yield bonds was stupid and put the program in jeopardy. A mix of investments would have been safer because it would have been more profitable.
The thing is, America has a problem with turning the SS Fund into a sovereign wealth fund, which is what it would be. I see their point... I didn't appreciate the automaker bailouts and "Government Motors" and all that... but it's unfortunate. I've always said if we invested more wisely, we'd own half of China and they would be working for us right now instead of the other way around.
No, the level of introspection you see about these types of issues is the sign of a society in decline. Constantly worrying about "should we do this or that" means you are past your peak.
Gee, did we treat that terrorist fairly? Should we even call him a terrorist? Terrorists are people too! He's expressing himself! Oh he just needs a good job and some foreign aid!
Bullshit.. you're telling me the North didn't use night attacks or other surprise tactics? And they waited until each individual soldier fired a shot before engaging that soldier? And they never killed or captured people on recon missions? And they never confiscated supplies to outfit their army?
Then there's simpler stuff like taking "criminals" into custody and then not giving them a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time, or even bringing charges against them for years. Then they were just let go like nothing happened.
Come on man... face the facts, war has different standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if you stream netflix to your computer, then say put a webcam in front to record and then stream to people via a 3rd party site, then you'd be publically broadcasting.
What about if you stream it to yourself? Like you're on vacation, and you want to watch something on your cell phone. That doesn't seem like a public broadcast.
That's what Aereo is doing.
When you watch netflix on your device over wifi you are simply consuming...
Wifi is literally broadcasting it to everyone within range. Wifi is obviously a public performance because the signal goes to the public.
Oh my, so you think that hiring security guards should be illegal, because security guards depend for their livelihood on the premise that without them you are at risk of falling victim to crime?
And you think insurance products should be illegal?
That's some weak shit buddy. Both of the things you listed are actually legal and pretty popular. My car insurance specifically covers broken windshields.
Ummm yeah I totally believe in innocent until proven guilty. But al-Awlaki has already been proven guilty. He admitted to being a terrorist and wanting to attack the US. So.. guilty. It's not that complicated.
Not relevant, I stated that the assassination is absolutely illegal by our Constitution. You did not argue my original point,
I think you forgot your original point, because in fact I was illustrating the difference between your new argument ("death to infidels" == "death to terrorists" == "killing people on some principle" which I agree with you on) and what you said previously ("You are close, but the Bill of Rights states that lethal force may need to be used to protect the public from eminent danger. Not "just because a cop feels like it""). That was a straw-man argument because nobody is saying you can kill people "just because you feel like it" and that's not what Obama did either.
I didn't want to JUST agree with you because that loses the context in which we disagreed. I wasn't sure whether you were conceding the original point and starting fresh (which is unusual, but appears to be what happened) or whether you thought you were restating your original idea (which you were not).
Those different countries should be within their rights to assassinate those people.
You can't have it both ways while thinking clearly and rationally.
Again, you're absolutely right and I agree. I think assassinating heads of state (or removing them) for your own national interest is legitimate. For instance I totally support (I mean, would have supported, if I'd been around) the British and American aid for the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran. I think the Shah was better.
Are you aware that the US and other countries made plans to assassinate Hitler in WWII, but failed?
It's weird, you act like assassination of enemies is some novel concept and we have to nip it in the bud because it's really evil.
Now you'd have to make a pretty strong case to assassinate *anyone* in a foreign government, like some deputy to the undersecretary or something... what's the national interest there?
The Government lied about Sadam having WMDs and the whole pretext for killing millions of people was false.
If you assume it was a conscious lie, then there are reasonable ulterior motives you can find... oil, destabilizing the Middle East, getting military contracts for buddies, whatever.
So what's the motivation for killing al-Awlaki beyond the publicly stated motivation (that he's a dangerous terrorist)? That's why your theory makes no sense. Lack of reasonable ulterior motives.
Wait, are you claiming that the Government does not work with media outlets to ensure a specific message is being sent out to the American public which is falsifying reality?
No I'm not claiming that. However, working with media outlets is different from dictating the entire story. I don't believe they do that. Since groups like the ACLU openly operate and openly defend people like al-Awlaki, it's pretty clear that the government is less powerful and less evil than you think.
Are you trying to claim that if we can show one conspiracy all others vanish? Are you trying to claim that if you can't prove one conspiracy all other conspiracies can't be true? I really don't get your point.
It's pretty clear that you don't get the point because those questions are nonsensical and have nothing to do with what I said.
Let me repeat. IF the government killed al-Awlaki for a hidden reason, AND controlled the entire world's media (not just the NY Times etc) to paint a certain picture of him, AND there's no reasonable ulterior motive, so the hidden reason is something far-fetched....
THEN...
I don't think you're the type of person who would accept the outcome of a trial if it didn't go in your favor.
Because I think there'd be a slashdot article on here saying "Al-Awlaki found guilty, sentenced to death!!" and I'd be like "Good, but what a waste of time, they should have just droned him."
And you'd be like "No this trial was bullshit, the go
Really, you think "tried" could ever mean that? That's a slippery slope argument where there is no evidence of a slippery slope, a fundamental flaw. "Tried" could never mean that because the public wouldn't support the cops killing every criminal suspect on the grounds that they checked the broom closet back at the station and he wasn't there.
But let's play along. If a cop were 100 feet away in a crowd, clearly I wouldn't hear him say "I'm placing you under arrest" etc. Maybe not even at 10 feet, like in a nightclub. So using a slippery slope argument like you did, I'm going to say "That means a cop has to be close enough to shout in your ear. And if I'm deaf, I literally can never be arrested, and any force used to subdue me is illegal because an arrest attempt was never made."
And now it's your turn to say "Slippery slope fail... nobody would ever support that extreme of a requirement, especially with a deaf person."
Either that or you'll say "Well technically you can *say* I'm placing you under arrest even if the person is deaf and can't hear you" to which I'd response technically we can say you're under arrest while the suspect is in Yemen if you don't have a requirement that they hear and acknowledge you.
I think you have to accept that it's a gray area that depends on circumstances. In a crowd the arrest attempt has to be made physically nearer to the target than in a quiet, open field. And it should likewise be different for a high-level operator in a terrorist network who is thousands of miles away hiding in the mountains with the armed supporters.
Yes. Note the qualifier, "In every place I've been to."
Haha, okay. You've been to America, presumably, and it's not illegal in America to sell access to public space, as the Supreme Court examples hows.
I was hoping you'd share an actual example of it being illegal, because I'm pretty sure your example won't line up very well with the parking place swap thing.
Selling public property is illegal, and barring people from accessing public property is illegal, but both line-holding and parking-space-holding share the concept that you're not blocking access to available public property, just the property that you are physically occupying yourself which is unavailable to others. And you do have the right to physically occupy public property and not leave just because someone is waiting for you to leave. You certainly don't have the right to force someone else off of public property. So the only way you can take someone's parking space (or place in the line) is to make a deal with them or wait until they leave voluntarily. That's what you're buying, not access to the public property.
You keep bringing up stupid analogies. For one thing, Lincoln was a tyrant.
It's not a stupid analogy, it's precedent. You think it's stupid because you don't like what it reveals about our national character. Lincoln was a cruel and oppressive ruler? Nah.
Second of all, as for the actual analogy, the civil war is in no way comparable to a band of idiotic terrorists hiding out in deserts, and definitely isn't comparable to a single man who posed no current threat.
Sure I'd absolutely agree with that. Luckily, al-Qaeda isn't an idiotic band of terrorists hiding out in deserts. And al-Awlaki wasn't a single man who posed no current threat.
The enemy in the civil war was at least somewhat definable, unlike the vague and far-reaching 'war on a concept.'
Terrorism is at least somewhat definable as well, therefore terrorists are an at least somewhat definable enemy. I like that you threw in "somewhat" because I would agree with you that there's not a strict, universally accepted definition of terrorism.
Within the population of all terrorists, there are subsets that are in better defined, self-identified groups like al-Qaeda, who have openly and publicly declared their intent to attack us. I have no problem with killing those people with no trial, because the situation is similar enough to war that a trial is unnecessary and impractical.
And again, no imminent threat.
In the Civil War analogy, imminent threat was not a requirement, so why should it be here? We're not talking about regular law enforcement cops confronting a regular citizen in regular circumstances and thinking about whether the cops can shoot the guy. It's a mistake you keep making to infantalize terrorist groups by calling them idiots or inept and implying they're harmless. That undermines your entire argument. It's such a poor foundation for the argument that every time you reference terrorists, you are wrong.
From a language perspective, I wonder if you've considered why we have different words for different crimes, different words for people who commit different crimes, and even different words for actions that we call "crimes" in everyday settings? Why is killing someone in war not called murder? Why is killing sometimes called terrorism?
I mean even if you personally believe that killing someone in war is murder, and killing someone in an act of terrorism is also just plain old murder, surely you've wondered why soooo many people draw the distinction? I know you like to pretend that popularity doesn't matter, but in fact it does. Especially with things like language.
Your response indicates you don't understand freedom itself. We must stick to principles if we wish to have freedom.
Actually that's false. We don't have to stick to principles to have freedom. You can violate your principles and then "come back" and be principled again later. You're way too simplistic.
Furthermore, your principles can change over time as circumstances dictate. Do you have the same principles as when you were 5 years old? That shows lack of cognitive development.
You obviously don't understand the difference between criminals attacking people and the government violating people's rights.
You obviously don't understand the difference between criminals attacking people, to which the response is law enforcement, and large, wealthy, remote terrorist groups attacking people, which law enforcement cannot reach. You should think about that because it's one of the determining factor between applying law enforcement and applying the military.
Appealing to popularity will get you nowhere.
What a ridiculous idea. Recognizing the popularity of different viewpoints is fundamental to the human experience since we're such social creatures. Fail.
You're a useful idiot
Only in cases of imminent danger (i.e. he's about to kill/hurt someone right now, not at some unspecified point in the future, and it doesn't matter what group he belongs to) should this ever be allowed to happen.
Well there are two responses to this:
1. He was an imminent danger
2. That's not right, and in fact we kill people without being in imminent danger all the time. For instance, in the Civil War, sharp shooters were used to kill people at a distance who were not in the midst of battle. Those were US citizens executed because they had declared war against the US and were out of the reach of law enforcement for practical purposes. So they were executed on the spot.
Just like some people might think 1 + 1 = 3. But they're wrong.
Whew, well you better let the Supreme Court know that constitutional interpretation is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. In fact why do we need a Supreme Court if it's so dang simple?
Then you're an enemy of freedom, and a traitor to the principles of the 'land of the free.'
No, you are. You want to put the land of free at risk because you want to cling to some very strict interpretation of rights.
Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to murder citizens without trial who do not pose an imminent threat, and no, 'traitors' are not an exception. He should have a trial to even determine if he's a traitor.
Yes it does, it allows the government to go to war against our enemies. If an US citizen is fighting for the enemy, they're fair game too. Again, for the quintessential example of this, see: Civil War.
Incorrect. Even if they escape, outright murder is not necessary. It's only necessary if they, again, pose an imminent threat. I'd rather let people escape than just murder them.
Good for you... but more people think like me than like you, including the President, so calling me incorrect is a bit of a stretch. We disagree, sure, but I'm as right as you are.
Your main problem is that you think 'the land of the free' should catch alleged criminals above all else, but that's not what the 'home of the brave' is about at all.
Uh what? I'm the one saying it's fine to just kill them in circumstances like these. No need to catch them first. That's your side. What are you talking about?
I'd rethink your authoritarian nonsense if I were you, but we both know there's zero chance of that.
Yeah, only what I'm talking about isn't authoritarianism, it's populism. We don't like terrorists who threaten us, so we kill them. Trial or not. Citizen or not. Fuck em. That's not authoritarianism though.
Based on what you're saying here, I guess you're assuming that if I support drone strikes against al-Awlaki, then I must also support drone strikes against like, union protesters and Wall Street bankers and anybody else who, I don't know, gets on the government's shit list (depending who's in power). But that's not the case, that's an unfounded assumption on your part.
This is no such circumstance.
Actually there is, such as this case.
We did try to arrest al-Awlaki, if you read that article, but we failed and in fact never got within (say hypothetically) 100 miles of him. How close does a US official have to get to al-Awlaki to count as an "arrest attempt?" Let's say you say "you have to come within X feet for it to count as an attempted arrest." If I build a moat X+1 feet wide, and have guided missiles to defend my moat, then I can never be legally brought to justice in your world because the cops can never make an arrest attempt. Send in deputized paratroopers you say? I kill them all while they are X+1 feet in the air. They never got close enough. Does that really make sense to you?
So let's say you say there's no hard limit X, it's just whether a reasonable person would think the arrest was attempted. Okay well I think it was attempted, but because this guy was hiding out in the wilds of Yemen with widespread local support, it was impossible to get close. But we tried. That's good enough.
I am curious if you have a hard number in mind, or if not, what's wrong with my reasoning.
No, because what's happening in San Francisco isn't about preventing access to public property. It's about paying someone to leave a parking spot that they are lawfully occupying (you know, by putting money in the meter).
In this case, the person blocking the private driveway is not there legally to begin with. So...
Person C can deny person A the right to take the spot from person B. Easily. Person C can use the app to locate the parking spot, drive to it, and then refuse to move away in order to let person A assume the spot.
You can't block people from entering a public parking spot, that's ridiculous. Person C is breaking an existing law, no need to add regulation to persons A and B.
Person C could cut in and take the spot, and then put money in the meter. That's fine. But that can happen today without the app... I've had parking spots that I claimed (blinker was on!) stolen from me. I didn't call the cops.
No, it's illegal to squat on a public parking space
Squat? That typically means you are occupying a place without paying for it.
If people are putting money in the meters, then they are there lawfully, not squatting.
Nobody's selling the parking spot. They're selling an agreement to have you move out of the parking spot when they get there. And you do own that. I mean you are in control of when you leave a public parking spot, as long as you keep putting quarters in the meter right?
In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
Is it really? I know there are people who are paid to stand in line at the Supreme Court for popular cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-business-of-waiting-in-line/2012/03/25/gIQAhFJkZS_blog.html). There were talks about passing new laws to ban it, but it's not illegal yet.
You are simply incorrect.
No, I'm not.
We hold trials even for people who have overwhelming evidence against them.
And? We don't hold trials for people in all circumstances. Plenty of people are killed without a trial. Please think a bit on the Civil War for instance. Did the North hold a trial before engaging every single soldier fighting for the South?
It is not "silly" to follow the constitution
Of course not, but your interpretation of the constitution isn't the only one. I personally think it's fine and dandy to kill avowed enemies of the US without a trial and I don't think the constitution affords them any protection, just like it doesn't protect enemy soldiers.
It is extremely dangerous to allow the government to punish (murder, in this case) people just because they're 'sure' they committed some crime.
I agree, it is extremely dangerous. But sometimes it's necessary, like when the "accused" is well outside the reach of law enforcement. Today we have the technology to reach people even when they try really really really hard to evade us -- but only to deliver death. We still aren't at the point where we can send a drone to arrest someone. When that day comes, you'll have a stronger argument and I'd probably agree with you.
If the government started killing people who very clearly were within the power of traditional law enforcement, then I'd be with you. But throughout our history, exceptional circumstances demand exceptional action.
Well no point speculating, a quick search revealed that yes they did try to arrest him. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...
"As for the Americans, I will never surrender to them," al-Awlaki said. "If the Americans want me, let them come look for me. God is the protector."
So there you go, he publicly admitted that he knew he was wanted, and he refused to surrender. Then he invited us to find him. And we did. His "god" certainly wasn't able to protect him, but that's not our fault.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
Umm, well, again, if they are AIMING for an economic target, then it's not collateral damage. What are you not understanding here? I think you need a dictionary.
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
Not only were they not on a battlefield, they were not terrorists. So why do you think I'm okay with them dying?
Oh yeah you're a little crazy. Right.
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing?
Huh? Not sorry? Or is this a trick question?
Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
Force feedings are stupid. Let them not eat cake. I couldn't care less.
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink.
What are you talking about? I think you've lost it.
Let me bottomline this for ya since you seem a bit confused:
Killing terrorists is good.
According to TFA, the problem was reported by Metro PCS because they noticed a transmission tower near the highway having problems in the morning and evening (during the guy's commute).
It can't be your top priority or you would put it away / stop driving.
It's *a* priority but it's secondary to shooting something / getting somewhere.
Ok, lets make this a Socratic method.
al-Awlaki saying "Death to Infidels" is different how from US agencies claiming "Death to Terrorists"? There is no difference.
Correct. There is no difference.
But that's not what you originally said. A "principled" Muslim terrorist wouldn't kill someone just because he felt like it. He would say "I'm going to kill you because you're an infidel." That has a meaning. That means he wouldn't kill someone who is not an infidel, like someone who said "I surrender and I want to become a Muslim and join up with you." I mean he still could... maybe he'd say "Sorry but I have to make an example of you." That's still not killing someone "because you feel like it."
But again lets' use the Socratic method.
How are you sure that they were not lying about al-Awlaki?
I'm reasonably sure because I don't see why they would lie about this one guy. Do you have some evidence about al-Awlaki having dirt on Obama's fake birth certificate or something? Where's the motivation to take out this guy and expend so many resources on him?
A war is made up of many small battles, not a single action. It seems as though you are advocating silence and no action because it can't change enough to win the war on it's own.
No you're misunderstanding... I was just trying to point out the futility of your argument. If you believe in this big conspiracy, then a guilty verdict in court isn't going to change your mind. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with what I think (I think al-Awlaki was a terrorist and deserved to die by any means necessary, including a drone strike without a trial).
Let me ask you directly -- if he had had a trial, and had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to death, would that honestly be enough for you? You'd be like "Oh I guess it wasn't all lies and conspiracies.. this was fair!"
If not, then what is your point in arguing that he should have had a trial if you wouldn't accept such an outcome? It's dishonest.
If so, then you get points for consistency but I think it's silly. He's a terrorist who appears in videos asking people to attack the US. Trials are for exploring both sides of an issue and finding the most likely truth. Well we already have that.
I don't know, I would assume the CIA would have liked to capture him and I'm sure they entertained ideas about missions to do so.
In the absence of evidence either way, I'm inclined to go with common sense and assume the insane terrorist who wanted to kill us all is in the wrong.
You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911.
No, because civilians were the target in the 9/11 attack. That's the opposite of collateral damage.
most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield"
Well yeah, so? I never said they were literally on a battlefield, and that's okay. They don't have to be.
They're minding their own business in their own homes, walking around town, or attending a wedding
Yes, terrorists are not in full-on terrorism mode 100% of the time. They also have weddings and go on walks after dinner. Point being?
The USG is the largest and deadliest terrorist organization on the planet.
That just tells me you're using "terrorist" differently from the commonly accepted definition.
Your point is well taken. I disagree with you that gold is safer than government bonds, in the sense that they protect their value and as you pointed out the government can simply print money to honor its obligations.
But in a practical sense, in terms of the overall program of Social Security, investing solely in low-yield bonds was stupid and put the program in jeopardy. A mix of investments would have been safer because it would have been more profitable.
The thing is, America has a problem with turning the SS Fund into a sovereign wealth fund, which is what it would be. I see their point... I didn't appreciate the automaker bailouts and "Government Motors" and all that... but it's unfortunate. I've always said if we invested more wisely, we'd own half of China and they would be working for us right now instead of the other way around.
No, the level of introspection you see about these types of issues is the sign of a society in decline. Constantly worrying about "should we do this or that" means you are past your peak.
Gee, did we treat that terrorist fairly? Should we even call him a terrorist? Terrorists are people too! He's expressing himself! Oh he just needs a good job and some foreign aid!
And other such dreck.
Bullshit.. you're telling me the North didn't use night attacks or other surprise tactics? And they waited until each individual soldier fired a shot before engaging that soldier? And they never killed or captured people on recon missions? And they never confiscated supplies to outfit their army?
Then there's simpler stuff like taking "criminals" into custody and then not giving them a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time, or even bringing charges against them for years. Then they were just let go like nothing happened.
Come on man... face the facts, war has different standards.