One unmentioned dynamic: how often the U.S.'s current enemy was the enemy of our enemy 5, 10, 20 years ago, and thus our friend.
Cases in point: Saddam, when he was our good friend when he attacked the hated Iran. Until he attacked Kuwait, then we had to bomb his ass.
The Mujahedin, when we supplied them with weapons when they were resisting the hated U.S.S.R. Until they changed names and became the Taliban, then we had to bomb their asses.
Gaddafi, who used to be a bad guy when he was supporting terrorism, then because one of our fine upstanding friends when he was supplying western powers with oil. It was a total coincidence
that we started bombing him shortly after he stopped playing ball with western powers on oil.
Uh huh. And when President Michael Moore labels GreyFox a "terrorist asshole", what are you gonna do about it? Calmly submit to your house being bombed, or surrender and take your chances at being shipped off to Gitmo or Bagram to be held and abused without trial - or even held after being found innocent in a court of law?
So, then, how is he in any different class than anyone else in the world who has declared they want to kill Americans and actually takes steps to do it
And you are certain of this how, exactly? And that militia in Michigan that reportedly was plotting to kill police officers - should we have skipped the whole arrested-by-the-FBI thing and just bombed their houses instead?
If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases-- not only when it serves our interests.
"except in cases arising in... public danger" A terrorist helping recruit crazies in another country certainly is a "public danger".
Based on what? Government say-so. And when the government asserts that TheCeltic is a terrorist recruiter and bombs his house, based on nothing more than government say-so.....
Since the individual in question voluntarily left the country and provided training to those who would target American military personal, his actions fall within the language of "cases of rebellion."
No, they don't, but thanks for an attempted rationalization that would tear Gumby's arm right out of his socket if he tried to reach that far. Your "insight" would apply to secessionist supporters like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry long before some guy living on the other side of the planet. And to right wing crazies like G. Gordon Liddy, who once advised that teabaggers shoot federal agents in the head, because they might be wearing body armor.
Somehow, I doubt you're going to argue for their assassinations.
(But you are correct, it is authorized military action, not a declared war)
When has Congress authorized military action in Yemen? Not even the Obama administration has claimed that al-Awlaki was involved in 911, so Bush's AUMF would not apply.
And you would know this how. What I know is that this wouldn't be the first time that yes, they HAVE encouraged exactly these sort of people in exactly these sort of cases. Go watch the Better this World documentary and note the undercover informant who first regales the suspects with his own history of aggressive protesting and then challenges them to do the same.
Citation needed. I don't find it at all hard to believe that he could have obtained real weapons had the FBI not been involved from the beginning.
NY Times In what seems an elaborate operation, undercover F.B.I. agents who had been talking to Mr. Ferdaus for months provided him with some of the necessary components for his planned attack, including six assault rifles, three grenades, 25 pounds of C-4 plastic explosives and even an F-86 remote-controlled aircraft. The explosives and guns were provided on Wednesday just before his arrest, law enforcement officials said.
En. Trap. Ment. Without the FBI, this "case" simply would not have happened, deal with it. If this guy had actually come up with an actual plan and actually tried to carry it out on his own, than go ahead and bust him for that plan. Not one written, directed, and produced by the FBI.
Not create a criminal to justify the continued military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex.
I'm quite certain that al-Awlaki very much considered himself at "war", very much an "enemy" of the US and its civilians, and very much a "soldier" in what he considered to be "God's Army" for the Jihad, intentionally lived long term in a foreign country for that purpose, willfully surrounded by other "soldiers" of like mind and intent.
Based on what. And while you're coming up with those links, would you have any interest in buying some shares in the Brooklyn Bridge? I swear, it's a great deal....
He could have turned himself in, assuming he wasn't shot in the attempt, where he could be sent off to Gitmo or Bagram where he could be held without charges for a decade. Then he could face a military commission, where evidence obtained through torture was admitted, and exculpatory evidence was called a "state secret" and locked up by the same government putting him on trial. Finally, Obama, like Bush, has claimed "post acquittal power", and would continue to hold Al-Awlaki, even if found innocent in a court of law.
There, did you the favor of adding in all the stuff you left out. Now, who wouldn't want to surrender to that?
Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to the "moneyed interests".
Laughable. Just because he'd stand up to the Fed doesn't mean he's going to stand up to the banks on their usurious interest rates. Just because he'd reign in the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex doesn't mean he'd do jack to stop Tyson from forming a monopoly on chicken meat while axing their already meager safety budget.
Who wants some salmonella with their KFC, paid for with your CitiBOAMorgan VISA card, which only charges 40% plus annual fees? Anyone? Anyone?
I almost completely disagree with Ron Paul on his political views, but I'd still support him over most other American politicians, for one simple reason: in vast majority of cases, regardless of his personal position, he's for letting the states decide.
Yes, he's for letting the states decide. Which goes to such an extent that he doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to them. Which means that if Utah passes a law that automatically takes 10% of your salary and sends it to the Mormon Church, that's just fine. If Texas decides to pass a law making it okay to shoot suspected "illegal immigrants" on site, that's just fine as well.
Tell that to the families of 2,977 people murdered on September 11, 2001.
WYP? That we have a catch-all justification to do to anyone we want because of one day ten years ago? What are the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in our wars since then entitled to do to us in return?
And keep in mind that you have a greater chance of dying because you slipped, hit your head, and drowned in your own bathtub than dying in a terrorist attack. But addressing that grave, grave threat to your existence wouldn't feed over a trillion dollars a year into the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex, now would it.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The market is only "bearing it" because people aren't given any other choice in an oligopoly. Case in point: you used to see airlines wage price wars against eachother. But after rounds of consolidation, when one airline added baggage fees, the rest started to add them as well instead of taking their lunch.
If Verizon offered across-the-board free text messaging as an aggressive move against AT&T, the latter would be forced to follow suit. If Sprint offered 20 gigabytes of data for the same price that T-Mobile wants for 2, etc.
However, in this case the country of Yemen gave us permission to carry out the attack - we're not at war with them since it was done with their blessing.
Puppet governments tend to do that. Moreso when buying your weapons while you cover their asses for slaughtering civilian protesters. Which happens to be our stated reason for joining one side in the civil war in Libya: Gaddafi was killing civilian protesters.
Supremacy Clause: the idea that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States as well as the Federal Government. Ron Paul doesn't believe in it, which is why he sponsored the "We the People Act", which:
forbids federal courts from adjudicating "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion"
This means that if your state passes a law forcing you to tithe to a church - we'll say Roman Catholic if you're in Massachusetts or the Southern Baptists if you're in Georgia - there's jack shit you can do about it.
And hey, gun nuts - if the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states, neither does the 2nd. So state bans on guns would be A-Okay.
Nor would states be chained by due process or prohibitions on "cruel and unusual treatment". Virginia wants to take a hard line on pot smokers? Shot on sight. Family members of alleged potheads don't want to give up their locations so they can be shot? Waterboard em, the 8th Amendment only applies to the Feds.
Just because your police state apologia sucks, doesn't mean I have a hard time understanding it.
They know how to do an undercover investigation without entrapping someone.
Which is why they try like hell to get their suspects on tape saying they are acting of their own free will. So that tape can be presented at trial to negate the entrapment defense.
Which does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that the FBI supplied the encouragement, the (fake) weapons, the (fake) bombs, without which these "crimes" never would have been planned in the first place.
Right now there's a bakers dozen comments, most from AC's, saying the same thing: that Chrome is not on the Android. I got the memo from the 2nd person who responded. I'm putting the cover sheets on top the TPS reports, thank you.
Entrapment. Google it. If your buddy encourages you to break the law in some way and you go through with it, that's your problem. If an undercover cop encourages you to break the law and you go through with it....the cop is working for the same state entity that's going to be prosecuting you.
That's bullshit, and obviously so, no matter how many contortions you go through to try and justify it. Without the FBI actively encouraging their "suspects", these cases would have never happened. Period. If some nutjob comes up with his own plan and tries to procure his own weapons on his own, then you go ahead and prosecute him for that case.
Yes, I RTFA and it doesn't seem to say. Growing sales of Android phones and tablets would give a huge post to Chrome's marketshare, and while you could count it as the same browser, the distinction should be noted.
Slashdot Mirror
One unmentioned dynamic: how often the U.S.'s current enemy was the enemy of our enemy 5, 10, 20 years ago, and thus our friend.
Cases in point: Saddam, when he was our good friend when he attacked the hated Iran. Until he attacked Kuwait, then we had to bomb his ass.
The Mujahedin, when we supplied them with weapons when they were resisting the hated U.S.S.R. Until they changed names and became the Taliban, then we had to bomb their asses.
Gaddafi, who used to be a bad guy when he was supporting terrorism, then because one of our fine upstanding friends when he was supplying western powers with oil. It was a total coincidence
that we started bombing him shortly after he stopped playing ball with western powers on oil.
And when President Pelosi labels uncqual a "terrorist recruiter" and authorizes drone strikes on your house, what are you going to do about it?
Uh huh. And when President Michael Moore labels GreyFox a "terrorist asshole", what are you gonna do about it? Calmly submit to your house being bombed, or surrender and take your chances at being shipped off to Gitmo or Bagram to be held and abused without trial - or even held after being found innocent in a court of law?
And you are certain of this how, exactly? And that militia in Michigan that reportedly was plotting to kill police officers - should we have skipped the whole arrested-by-the-FBI thing and just bombed their houses instead?
Sure thing - how about two?
Legislation introduced by Paul that would strip federal courts of jurisdiction over 1st Amendment cases wrt to the states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_People_Act
Or a letter he wrote in 2005:
Or do a generic search for ron paul incorporation bill of rights.
Irrelevant.
Based on what? Government say-so. And when the government asserts that TheCeltic is a terrorist recruiter and bombs his house, based on nothing more than government say-so.....
No, they don't, but thanks for an attempted rationalization that would tear Gumby's arm right out of his socket if he tried to reach that far. Your "insight" would apply to secessionist supporters like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry long before some guy living on the other side of the planet. And to right wing crazies like G. Gordon Liddy, who once advised that teabaggers shoot federal agents in the head, because they might be wearing body armor.
Somehow, I doubt you're going to argue for their assassinations.
When has Congress authorized military action in Yemen? Not even the Obama administration has claimed that al-Awlaki was involved in 911, so Bush's AUMF would not apply.
And you would know this how. What I know is that this wouldn't be the first time that yes, they HAVE encouraged exactly these sort of people in exactly these sort of cases. Go watch the Better this World documentary and note the undercover informant who first regales the suspects with his own history of aggressive protesting and then challenges them to do the same.
Sure thing:
En. Trap. Ment. Without the FBI, this "case" simply would not have happened, deal with it. If this guy had actually come up with an actual plan and actually tried to carry it out on his own, than go ahead and bust him for that plan. Not one written, directed, and produced by the FBI.
Not create a criminal to justify the continued military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex.
Based on what. And while you're coming up with those links, would you have any interest in buying some shares in the Brooklyn Bridge? I swear, it's a great deal....
He could have turned himself in, assuming he wasn't shot in the attempt, where he could be sent off to Gitmo or Bagram where he could be held without charges for a decade. Then he could face a military commission, where evidence obtained through torture was admitted, and exculpatory evidence was called a "state secret" and locked up by the same government putting him on trial. Finally, Obama, like Bush, has claimed "post acquittal power", and would continue to hold Al-Awlaki, even if found innocent in a court of law.
There, did you the favor of adding in all the stuff you left out. Now, who wouldn't want to surrender to that?
Laughable. Just because he'd stand up to the Fed doesn't mean he's going to stand up to the banks on their usurious interest rates. Just because he'd reign in the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex doesn't mean he'd do jack to stop Tyson from forming a monopoly on chicken meat while axing their already meager safety budget.
Who wants some salmonella with their KFC, paid for with your CitiBOAMorgan VISA card, which only charges 40% plus annual fees? Anyone? Anyone?
Yes, he's for letting the states decide. Which goes to such an extent that he doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to them. Which means that if Utah passes a law that automatically takes 10% of your salary and sends it to the Mormon Church, that's just fine. If Texas decides to pass a law making it okay to shoot suspected "illegal immigrants" on site, that's just fine as well.
WYP? That we have a catch-all justification to do to anyone we want because of one day ten years ago? What are the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in our wars since then entitled to do to us in return?
And keep in mind that you have a greater chance of dying because you slipped, hit your head, and drowned in your own bathtub than dying in a terrorist attack. But addressing that grave, grave threat to your existence wouldn't feed over a trillion dollars a year into the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex, now would it.
What part of
do you have a hard time understanding?
The market is only "bearing it" because people aren't given any other choice in an oligopoly. Case in point: you used to see airlines wage price wars against eachother. But after rounds of consolidation, when one airline added baggage fees, the rest started to add them as well instead of taking their lunch.
If Verizon offered across-the-board free text messaging as an aggressive move against AT&T, the latter would be forced to follow suit. If Sprint offered 20 gigabytes of data for the same price that T-Mobile wants for 2, etc.
Puppet governments tend to do that. Moreso when buying your weapons while you cover their asses for slaughtering civilian protesters. Which happens to be our stated reason for joining one side in the civil war in Libya: Gaddafi was killing civilian protesters.
Supremacy Clause: the idea that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States as well as the Federal Government. Ron Paul doesn't believe in it, which is why he sponsored the "We the People Act", which:
This means that if your state passes a law forcing you to tithe to a church - we'll say Roman Catholic if you're in Massachusetts or the Southern Baptists if you're in Georgia - there's jack shit you can do about it.
And hey, gun nuts - if the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states, neither does the 2nd. So state bans on guns would be A-Okay.
Nor would states be chained by due process or prohibitions on "cruel and unusual treatment". Virginia wants to take a hard line on pot smokers? Shot on sight. Family members of alleged potheads don't want to give up their locations so they can be shot? Waterboard em, the 8th Amendment only applies to the Feds.
Why the fuck do you think this is binary?
Just because your police state apologia sucks, doesn't mean I have a hard time understanding it.
Which is why they try like hell to get their suspects on tape saying they are acting of their own free will. So that tape can be presented at trial to negate the entrapment defense.
Which does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that the FBI supplied the encouragement, the (fake) weapons, the (fake) bombs, without which these "crimes" never would have been planned in the first place.
En. Trap. Ment.
Right now there's a bakers dozen comments, most from AC's, saying the same thing: that Chrome is not on the Android. I got the memo from the 2nd person who responded. I'm putting the cover sheets on top the TPS reports, thank you.
Entrapment. Google it. If your buddy encourages you to break the law in some way and you go through with it, that's your problem. If an undercover cop encourages you to break the law and you go through with it....the cop is working for the same state entity that's going to be prosecuting you.
That's bullshit, and obviously so, no matter how many contortions you go through to try and justify it. Without the FBI actively encouraging their "suspects", these cases would have never happened. Period. If some nutjob comes up with his own plan and tries to procure his own weapons on his own, then you go ahead and prosecute him for that case.
Not one you directly supplied and encouraged.
Nevermind then. :)
Yes, I RTFA and it doesn't seem to say. Growing sales of Android phones and tablets would give a huge post to Chrome's marketshare, and while you could count it as the same browser, the distinction should be noted.