I do not think I do: Here, you cannot access product quality without using it. And for using it you already have to pay in full. So not I have it backwards, but the relationship actually is backwards..
You still have it backwards. Here's how: I cannot asses the product quality of a chef without eating it. And because I ate it, I have to pay in full.
Or are you arguing that the chef should provide you a free meal and you'll only pay for it if you deem it worthy?
The rest of your argument might be true, but is orthogonal to the above statements. It could merely be stated that handing out free samples draws people into the place of business to buy the entire experience. (i.e., advertising)
It doesn't matter if they're free, DRM free, or whatever, they are still protected by copyright. Once obtaining your copy, no matter if it's legal, free, and DRM free, you cannot distribute without permission. Doing so is a violation of copyright law.
This is the one thing that's overlooked. Copyright law as written in 1787 is as valid today as it was then. Distribution is the thing that's illegal, not copying itself, no matter what that FBI warning says at the beginning of every movie you see these days.
90% of the time you're right, but there are a few bugs in the JVM with regard to Windows vs Linux filesystems that will bite you the first time you see them.
I've also run into issues with Windows-only memory leaks in the JAI libraries when using JPEG-compressed TIFFs.
You're right that it's generally fine.
Other than windows issues, which very well might be windows bugs, it really is WORA.
Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability. I wasn't really heavy Office user but have used in from time to time. Same is true now. The difference is, when I use it now, I find it much easier to use and I'm using the advanced features I didn't know about. That's because Ribbon shows them more clearly to me when I need them.
You had to pick the one thing that's arguably worse than a simple hierarchical text menu system? What do those icons mean again? I'm trying to save a file, what icon do I hit? (Oh yeah, the big circle thingie up top, yep.... much more clear than the "File->Save" menu item.
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
And yet you still swing and miss.
Note 2 things: they are agents of the government, and behaving on behalf of the government. This places them under the rule of the government. Note that if they happen to do something while off-duty, while they may still get punished by the US, often local rules apply first. Note the recent incarceration of a USservicemanin Koreafor rape. He won't be punished by the US until he's done with his Korean jail sentence. (btw, this would be known as citing references in support of a point, it's not some opinion piece by an unknown website.)
Had his activities while being off-duty been legal, there would have been little recourse for the US gov against him. Should you argue that if he took drugs, and when he returned to duty, he would have been punished by failing a drug test, you'd still be incorrect, because the drugs would be in him at that time, and that's what he would have been his "crime".
"And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit."
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Note that this was in 2006, not 2001 as alleged in your linked article and debunked as stated previously. Another "fail" on your part.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words (which, I repeat, is not a crime or at least sure as hell isn't treason under the law). Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
"I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept.... I am not here to hold your hand"
it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.
The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...
Not exactly... all I get are Server 500 errors. That's not what I pictured an alien sunset looking like.
You made an obviously incorrect statement (the Supreme Court only decides on issues that take place within the United States), then blow it off with a smartass remark. Sure. You're a lawyer. I get it.
I don't think you do. I said no such thing, I said "Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US".
You can twist in however many ways you'd like, but that statement is as true as it's possible to be.
The Supreme Court can decide most matters that have to do with the behavior of our government, regardless of whether its actions take place at home or abroad. So you were very clearly wrong.
"... but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?"
Then you must have Fuck All for Googling skills, because I found dozens of them in a few seconds.
And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit.
"Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos."
Again, you demonstrate that (A) you have not been paying attention, and (B) you have no clue as to the law.
Videos of speeches are videos of speech. Which is a protected right under our Constitution, not an act of war.
I ask again: please provide examples of his aiding and giving comfort to the enemy, in a way that was more than just speech. Because so far, according to your arguments, anybody who speaks out against the United States government can be assassinated. This is a rather dangerous idea. So I am asking you to show me that it isn't what you actually think, because I would rather not view you as a complete asshole.
Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. Why didn't he just turn himself in? If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why....
That's merely an argument against the current campaign funding practices, not against a 50 state 1day caucus.
We no longer live in the dark ages. We have several instant communication mediums that allow nationwide discussions. It would be easy enough to have a fully interactive nationwide caucus with voting run in a few hours. It would remove any single state from having more sway than any other state, and thus would be more fair and equitable.
"Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US."
Citations? I don't think you understand the law very well.
I'm suspicious you don't understand law at all.
See how that works?
But, as an example, the SC has no power nor jurisdiction in, say, Mexico. Furthermore, if a US citizen goes to Mexico and does something against the law in the US but perfectly ok in Mexico, that person would never see the SC, as it has no jurisdiction.
"citations?"
I gave you a link to an article. If you have problems with them and their references, take it up with them. Or go hit Google... because that was hardly the only article on the subject. There are hundreds.
I tried reading it. It's a massive TBBA with no references. It's interesting how they imply Awlaki was arrested in 2001 ("authorities were eventually compelled to release him"), but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?
"There was proof he was associated with terrorists."
"Association" is not guilt. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be debating this at all. And by the way, my point about his earlier arrest was in no way intended to be "ingenious", so it hardly bothers me that you don't find it so.
Association isn't guilt. Active support is. Kind of like you and your friend, who has a gun in hand, breaks down the door of a random house. You haven't done anything but accompany him, you're still guilty. In OK apparently if the homeowner shoots and kills your friend, you can be held for murder. (Happened this week)
"He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008."
"Appears"? What does that mean? Please produce evidence yourself, that he "fully joined" and was a participant, rather than merely speaking out in their favor. They are not the same things.
"Appears" is synonymous with "alleged" in this case. I don't have the proof or references, since this is already taking up too much time for something irrelevant. (Yes, the world is a better place without Awlaki. Fomenters of hate and violence are people we can do better without.) Next up you'll be arguing for a full investigation into the murder of Gaddafi.
"As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous...."
Please explain in detail: was al-Awlaki "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort"?
Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos. Next you'll be arguing that Saddam was innocent, as he was only a figurehead, or that his sons were only supporting their father.
Frankly, I think obliteration by an unmanned drone might just fall in the "cruel and unusual" category.
Why do you think that? Is it any more "cruel and unusual" than, say, a 500# bomb or a missile, or an M-40 grenade? How about hanging?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.
Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US. This was outside the US borders, and a military action to boot.
"And how is it against the law?... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."
Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.
It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.
Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.
citations?
Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you. Try reading this article.
There was proof he was associated with terrorists. Whether he was associated with a specific plot is irrelevant. It takes more than operations to carry out large scale and continuous activity. It takes people like, surprise, Awlaki.
Regarding his previous arrests, you are less than ingenious: 1996 and 1997, and by Yemen in 2006? Really? He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008. Would you care to present any of your points with some relevant facts?
As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous. Had he surrendered himself, he could have been found guilty of being a traitor. Last time I checked, that one crime is explicitly listed in the Constitution with a clear potential penalty of death, carried out by hanging by the founders of the country.
Do do not agree, at all. Even enemy combatants can be captured, imprisoned, and later brought to trial. It has happened thousands of times in our history. Further, the United States has always maintained that killing is not the point of war, but rather an unfortunate necessity.
Enemy combatants can be captured etc, but it requires boots on the ground, lots of them. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have those in the areas these people are, and we've been looking for some of them for years. In war, you remove threats, and sometimes that means people. That's what happened in this case.
However, no attempt was made to capture al-Awlaki. Instead a concerted (successful) attempt was made to assassinate him, and in fact in such a way that capture was not ever possible. The act was against both U.S. and international law.
No, it is NOT "black and white". It's just plain black. It wasn't war, it was murder. According to the law.
And how is it against the law? The strike was done in Yemen, with Yemen's permission and approval. So no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken. So what law(s) were broken? You'd have to come up with that before it can be called murder. And it is a black and white case. The US killed him under a war proclamation. You may disagree with that, but that's also black and white.
You obviously don't understand how the economy works. Read up on the Weimar Republic. Fiat currency is based on trust. When the public loses trust in it, it's de facto worthless.
The world didn't end after World War II. So then it's totally cool if we drag this world into World War III and end up getting blown to pieces, and possibly conquered by China and Russia? Yeah, that totally sounds like the bright, sunny future we should continue working towards. And if you think it can't happen, then you are in serious need of a reality check and wake up call.
You must be using your "Jump to Conclusions" mat. Why refer to the Weimar Republic? Why not Zimbabwe which is current? But just because we stop trading with the rest of the world doesn't mean that our currency necessarily becomes worthless. You could see South Africa prior to the ending of Apartheid, the PRC before they decided to enter world trade, Vietnam after 72, N Korea, despite the people being poor, the country's currency internally is stable. The US has the largest gold stockpile in the world. It could go back to the gold standard if it wanted to or was forced to, which would mean the money had intrinsic value. So apparently you don't have a clue what you're talking about, or more to the point, you're arguing for a specific outcome based on insufficient facts and wishful thinking.
As for WW3, if you think we'd get blow to bits and/or being conquered by China and Russia, you have no understanding of reality, world politics, military logistics nor US policy. What's left of Russia's non-nuclear military might could be taken out by the US on a Sunday while throwing a picnic. China would be the one to worry about with conventional forces, but there's this problem known as the Pacific. The US is the only country in history to have successfully deployed large conventional forces overseas since the 1800s, and has done it multiple times. So being conquered is out. And just in case you are proposing that conventional air power can be brought to bear, witness every military action the US has been involved in since Vietnam. In the air, like on the sea, the US military has no equal. It would take decades to achieve parity.
Being blown to bits? Since we've established that conventional forces are out you're essentially stating that there would be a nuclear first strike. You are aware of MAD? You don't think that the end result would not occur if the US were nuked? Let's just suppose that every system in N America failed, and a nuke attack was successful with no counterstrike. There are still a rather large number of nuclear subs with a hundred or more warheads each that would launch right after. And no, they are not easy to find and destroy.
As a last note, I'm not the one arguing for war, you are. I don't believe we're heading there at all.
So rather than running around spouting random FUD, get a story together with some rational thought behind it backed by some facts instead of "Truth by Blatant Assertion". TBBA is as valid now as it ever was (ie, not, just in case you're unclear on the statement)
I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned by al-Awlaki's assassination. Although I agree with Nursie - one of the things that struck me in all this talk is how US citizens are supposed to have certain rights to trial, while we're not concerned with other people in the world having that right. Kill an American citizen without a trial: That's terrible and we can't stop talking about it. Kill a citizen of another country: It doesn't even warrant comment or concern. It's obvious that if al-Awlaki had been Canadian or French or Egyptian or Pakistani, we wouldn't bat an eyelash. I just think it's a weird contradiction for people to get on their soapbox simply because he was American.
US citizens being assassinated by the US would be a criminal act. Foreign citizens being assassinated by the US could be considered an act of war. US citizens who side with the opposition in war and physically move to be co-located and join them in their efforts are - surprise - the enemy.
Since we're at war, the latter occurring isn't a big deal, provided the assassinatees are citizens of countries the US is at war with. If they were citizens, of say, Britain, France, or Germany, you can bet your right leg that the current hew over al-waste-of-skin would be a minor foot note in comparison.
He was still a US citizen who was assassinated without any chance for a fair trial.
He was killed as a combatant. He effectively declared and was engaged in war while also actively consorting, conspiring, and assisting an enemy. As such, he becomes a military target, not merely a civilian criminal.
While I'm as paranoid as anyone about the powers the US gov is attempting to annex, this particular case is not one I'd ever touch in those arguments.Some things are just black and white and this was one of those cases, whether you like it or not.
The problem is transporting it. And the other looming problem is, how do people buy food if their money is worthless?
Don't be so smug as to think a worldwide interruption in trade (due to, I don't know... World War III perhaps?) wouldn't hurt us. It could hurt us pretty bad.
You are incorrect - there is no internal problem with food production in the US. Additionally, the value of money is relative, and it's worth something to those in the country. If it truly becomes worthless compared to other world currencies, we won't be able buy anything external. However, since money has no intrinsic value, internally a dollar is still worth a dollar, the only difference is what it will buy. So we'll still be able to buy whatever that cob of corn costs.
WW3 won't end the world unless it's nuclear. Then all bets are off.
Exactly. Let's not forget how Allison Halataei and Lauren Pastarnak whored themselves out to the RIAA/MPAA straight out of Lamar Smith's office.
Yeah...but for the amounts of $$ they're likely getting....who wouldn't??
You have this wrong... they "whored themselves out to the RIAA/MPAA while in Lamar Smith's office". The amounts of money granted were for work already performed.
This is what I'm hoping for. The rest of the world finally says "enough" and puts the U.S. on a trade blacklist. We face the possibility of 100 million deaths because we don't produce any food anymore. We go to war to secure stations in food-producing countries. Both the EU and China join forces to stop us. The U.S. military is completely destroyed. The U.S. signs treaties. We go back to a "normal" country again and start putting money into infrastructure and education instead of bombing the shit out of the backwoods tiny nation du jour.
so this is the result of abused medical marijuana? No wonder the feds want to keep it illegal.
Agriculture is a major industry in the United States and the country is a net exporter of food. With vast tracts of temperate arable land, technologically advanced agribusiness, and agricultural subsidies, the United States controls almost half of world grain exports.
from Wikipedia as the first source in a long list.
It wouldn't be the US that starves as we have no issues with any food product that can be produced in the country. The rest of your delusional ramblings aren't even worthy of a response.
Indeed. Witness Perry's decision to stay in it. There has been some speculation that a group of serious GOP power brokers, meeting in Brenham (TX) recently has had some influence on that decision. Staying visible, at least, just might make an unelectable village idiot a great pick for VP running mate a few months from now. Romney scares the "social conservatives" who think Mormonism is "a cult", and that gay marriage and abortion are issues that matter, and Perry has plainly demonstrated that he is willing to pander to that bunch like nobody's business.
Mormonism is a cult, and you're spot on about Perry. Should the Republican Biden come to pass, wait, that's insulting Biden... You do recall his incredible series of quotes, including that most wonderful one involving seceding from the union, or the one that single-handedly slammed all Californians as un-american (which is it? Is he pro-America or anti-America?) He's apparently this election's Republican clown, since Palin refused to go on stage again - maybe 2 brain cells fired in unison and made a rational thought?
Seriously, it's Iowa, the only thing this one's good for is showing who definitely should not run, and even that's questionable.
They really should run all the caucuses in just a few days. There's no good reason, other than lots of opportunities to bribe, err, donate to your favorite candidate, that these should run more than a day or two for all 50 states. But, that would go against the political machine and those that keep it greased purposes.
Let me know when you're able to train your technophobe mom on using Photoshop to lengthen people's noses and stretching their chins, and when you're able to convince your sexting teenage cousin that it's not kosher throwing pictures of everyone up everywhere.
Funny enough, iOS users have this little app called "Fat Booth" which will handle both issues above as it is exceptionally easy to use and "fun", apparently. I'm sure there's an equivalent for Android out there as well. No computers even needed.
For the teenagers, the more off pictures, the better. If we could convince them at the same time to tag them with funny names, it'd resolve itself quickly.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, practically speaking, it's not going to happen. That genie is already out of its bottle. We need to start from the fundamental assumption that the data is out there and will be collected, and figure out from that what we need to do.
Just a few users can poison the well pretty handily, at least for a targeted set of subjects. Once the integrity of the DB goes low enough, it becomes essentially useless.
The first step would be to stop making this easier for the government by posting and correctly tagging all those Facebook and flicker, etc, photos.
In fact, if you really want to start messing with this, get photo manipulation software, and on an entire sequence of photos stretch the nose a little, reduce the space between the nose and mouth, lengthen the chin, change the eyes a little, essentially changing all the standard measurements useful for visual identification, then "poison the well" by continuously posting these slightly altered shots up on these tracking sites and tag them appropriately. I'd personally even round robin tag them with friends names, or random ones if you don't already have a history to overcome, just to confuse the matter even more. (What, you didn't think that those pictures and info weren't available to the government, did you? They're the biggest, and free!, ID DB ever constructed)
All the other stuff, wrap around mirrored glasses that are IR/UV opaque etc will only assist in keeping them from making an easy match.
Out of all lawsuits, the few "successful" ones (i.e. usually settlements) often result in the faceless entity accepting or admitting to absolutely no fault, blame, or liability as part of the agreement. Where is the blame left there? It certainly wasn't really any individual or corporation copping to it, as they march on almost as if nothing happened. Hell, they probably get to write the whole thing off as a business expense, obtaining the tax benefit.
Therefore, you might as well have sued an inanimate object (a.k.a. the "gun"), which has about as much ability to accept blame as many large corporations do.
(Ironically, I just read recently about a woman filing a lawsuit against a dead man for getting his body parts all over her when his body exploded after being hit by a high-speed train. Gotta love our legal system.)
So we're in agreement. I'm not sure what difference it makes whether a corporation accepts blame or not. Whatever the legal world says or thinks, the corporation has no conscience, you can't put the corporation in jail, so I don't see what difference blame would have. (Union Carbide, India was found at fault, IIRC, in the Bhopal disaster. I don't believe it made any real difference in the penalties assessed against the corporation. However, I believe the executives of the company were put on trial, don't recall if India's attempt at filing charges against the executives of the parent were successful, as they were alleged to have been aware of the practices of Union Carbide, India.)
Actually, this line of reasoning seems to me to prove why a corporation cannot be a person, nor should have rights similar to a person. If you can't jail it nor penalize it in the same fashion, then it shouldn't have the same protections either.
On the dead man lawsuit - I'm sure it's against his estate. I haven't read it, but I can see why someone would sue. What if some rich guy recklessly careens his car through a sidewalk cafe and injures you before plunging off the cliff that the cafe sits on? Should that victim be deprived of the ability to address their grievances? (I bring this up, because if the man purposefully stepped in front of the train...)
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think I do: Here, you cannot access product quality without using it. And for using it you already have to pay in full. So not I have it backwards, but the relationship actually is backwards..
You still have it backwards. Here's how: I cannot asses the product quality of a chef without eating it. And because I ate it, I have to pay in full.
Or are you arguing that the chef should provide you a free meal and you'll only pay for it if you deem it worthy?
The rest of your argument might be true, but is orthogonal to the above statements. It could merely be stated that handing out free samples draws people into the place of business to buy the entire experience. (i.e., advertising)
It doesn't matter if they're free, DRM free, or whatever, they are still protected by copyright. Once obtaining your copy, no matter if it's legal, free, and DRM free, you cannot distribute without permission. Doing so is a violation of copyright law.
This is the one thing that's overlooked. Copyright law as written in 1787 is as valid today as it was then. Distribution is the thing that's illegal, not copying itself, no matter what that FBI warning says at the beginning of every movie you see these days.
90% of the time you're right, but there are a few bugs in the JVM with regard to Windows vs Linux filesystems that will bite you the first time you see them.
I've also run into issues with Windows-only memory leaks in the JAI libraries when using JPEG-compressed TIFFs.
You're right that it's generally fine.
Other than windows issues, which very well might be windows bugs, it really is WORA.
Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability. I wasn't really heavy Office user but have used in from time to time. Same is true now. The difference is, when I use it now, I find it much easier to use and I'm using the advanced features I didn't know about. That's because Ribbon shows them more clearly to me when I need them.
You had to pick the one thing that's arguably worse than a simple hierarchical text menu system? What do those icons mean again? I'm trying to save a file, what icon do I hit? (Oh yeah, the big circle thingie up top, yep.... much more clear than the "File->Save" menu item.
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
And yet you still swing and miss.
Note 2 things: they are agents of the government, and behaving on behalf of the government. This places them under the rule of the government. Note that if they happen to do something while off-duty, while they may still get punished by the US, often local rules apply first. Note the recent incarceration of a US serviceman in Korea for rape. He won't be punished by the US until he's done with his Korean jail sentence. (btw, this would be known as citing references in support of a point, it's not some opinion piece by an unknown website.)
Had his activities while being off-duty been legal, there would have been little recourse for the US gov against him. Should you argue that if he took drugs, and when he returned to duty, he would have been punished by failing a drug test, you'd still be incorrect, because the drugs would be in him at that time, and that's what he would have been his "crime".
"And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit."
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Note that this was in 2006, not 2001 as alleged in your linked article and debunked as stated previously. Another "fail" on your part.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words (which, I repeat, is not a crime or at least sure as hell isn't treason under the law). Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
"I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept.... I am not here to hold your hand"
it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.
The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...
Not exactly... all I get are Server 500 errors. That's not what I pictured an alien sunset looking like.
"I'm suspicious you don't understand law at all."
You made an obviously incorrect statement (the Supreme Court only decides on issues that take place within the United States), then blow it off with a smartass remark. Sure. You're a lawyer. I get it.
I don't think you do. I said no such thing, I said "Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US".
You can twist in however many ways you'd like, but that statement is as true as it's possible to be.
The Supreme Court can decide most matters that have to do with the behavior of our government, regardless of whether its actions take place at home or abroad. So you were very clearly wrong.
"... but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?"
Then you must have Fuck All for Googling skills, because I found dozens of them in a few seconds.
And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit.
"Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos."
Again, you demonstrate that (A) you have not been paying attention, and (B) you have no clue as to the law.
Videos of speeches are videos of speech. Which is a protected right under our Constitution, not an act of war.
I ask again: please provide examples of his aiding and giving comfort to the enemy, in a way that was more than just speech. Because so far, according to your arguments, anybody who speaks out against the United States government can be assassinated. This is a rather dangerous idea. So I am asking you to show me that it isn't what you actually think, because I would rather not view you as a complete asshole.
Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. Why didn't he just turn himself in? If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why....
That's merely an argument against the current campaign funding practices, not against a 50 state 1day caucus.
We no longer live in the dark ages. We have several instant communication mediums that allow nationwide discussions. It would be easy enough to have a fully interactive nationwide caucus with voting run in a few hours. It would remove any single state from having more sway than any other state, and thus would be more fair and equitable.
"Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US."
Citations? I don't think you understand the law very well.
I'm suspicious you don't understand law at all.
See how that works?
But, as an example, the SC has no power nor jurisdiction in, say, Mexico. Furthermore, if a US citizen goes to Mexico and does something against the law in the US but perfectly ok in Mexico, that person would never see the SC, as it has no jurisdiction.
"citations?"
I gave you a link to an article. If you have problems with them and their references, take it up with them. Or go hit Google... because that was hardly the only article on the subject. There are hundreds.
I tried reading it. It's a massive TBBA with no references. It's interesting how they imply Awlaki was arrested in 2001 ("authorities were eventually compelled to release him"), but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?
"There was proof he was associated with terrorists."
"Association" is not guilt. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be debating this at all. And by the way, my point about his earlier arrest was in no way intended to be "ingenious", so it hardly bothers me that you don't find it so.
Association isn't guilt. Active support is. Kind of like you and your friend, who has a gun in hand, breaks down the door of a random house. You haven't done anything but accompany him, you're still guilty. In OK apparently if the homeowner shoots and kills your friend, you can be held for murder. (Happened this week)
"He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008."
"Appears"? What does that mean? Please produce evidence yourself, that he "fully joined" and was a participant, rather than merely speaking out in their favor. They are not the same things.
"Appears" is synonymous with "alleged" in this case. I don't have the proof or references, since this is already taking up too much time for something irrelevant. (Yes, the world is a better place without Awlaki. Fomenters of hate and violence are people we can do better without.) Next up you'll be arguing for a full investigation into the murder of Gaddafi.
"As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous. ..."
Please explain in detail: was al-Awlaki "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort"?
Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos. Next you'll be arguing that Saddam was innocent, as he was only a figurehead, or that his sons were only supporting their father.
Frankly, I think obliteration by an unmanned drone might just fall in the "cruel and unusual" category.
Why do you think that? Is it any more "cruel and unusual" than, say, a 500# bomb or a missile, or an M-40 grenade? How about hanging?
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
OK, so let's immediately triple the gas tax, because apparently we all need roads and bridges...
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.
Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US. This was outside the US borders, and a military action to boot.
"And how is it against the law? ... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."
Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.
It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.
Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.
citations?
Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you.
Try reading this article.
There was proof he was associated with terrorists. Whether he was associated with a specific plot is irrelevant. It takes more than operations to carry out large scale and continuous activity. It takes people like, surprise, Awlaki.
Regarding his previous arrests, you are less than ingenious: 1996 and 1997, and by Yemen in 2006? Really? He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008. Would you care to present any of your points with some relevant facts?
As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous. Had he surrendered himself, he could have been found guilty of being a traitor. Last time I checked, that one crime is explicitly listed in the Constitution with a clear potential penalty of death, carried out by hanging by the founders of the country.
Do do not agree, at all. Even enemy combatants can be captured, imprisoned, and later brought to trial. It has happened thousands of times in our history. Further, the United States has always maintained that killing is not the point of war, but rather an unfortunate necessity.
Enemy combatants can be captured etc, but it requires boots on the ground, lots of them. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have those in the areas these people are, and we've been looking for some of them for years. In war, you remove threats, and sometimes that means people. That's what happened in this case.
However, no attempt was made to capture al-Awlaki. Instead a concerted (successful) attempt was made to assassinate him, and in fact in such a way that capture was not ever possible. The act was against both U.S. and international law.
No, it is NOT "black and white". It's just plain black. It wasn't war, it was murder. According to the law.
And how is it against the law? The strike was done in Yemen, with Yemen's permission and approval. So no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken. So what law(s) were broken? You'd have to come up with that before it can be called murder. And it is a black and white case. The US killed him under a war proclamation. You may disagree with that, but that's also black and white.
You obviously don't understand how the economy works. Read up on the Weimar Republic. Fiat currency is based on trust. When the public loses trust in it, it's de facto worthless.
The world didn't end after World War II. So then it's totally cool if we drag this world into World War III and end up getting blown to pieces, and possibly conquered by China and Russia? Yeah, that totally sounds like the bright, sunny future we should continue working towards. And if you think it can't happen, then you are in serious need of a reality check and wake up call.
You must be using your "Jump to Conclusions" mat. Why refer to the Weimar Republic? Why not Zimbabwe which is current? But just because we stop trading with the rest of the world doesn't mean that our currency necessarily becomes worthless. You could see South Africa prior to the ending of Apartheid, the PRC before they decided to enter world trade, Vietnam after 72, N Korea, despite the people being poor, the country's currency internally is stable. The US has the largest gold stockpile in the world. It could go back to the gold standard if it wanted to or was forced to, which would mean the money had intrinsic value. So apparently you don't have a clue what you're talking about, or more to the point, you're arguing for a specific outcome based on insufficient facts and wishful thinking.
As for WW3, if you think we'd get blow to bits and/or being conquered by China and Russia, you have no understanding of reality, world politics, military logistics nor US policy. What's left of Russia's non-nuclear military might could be taken out by the US on a Sunday while throwing a picnic. China would be the one to worry about with conventional forces, but there's this problem known as the Pacific. The US is the only country in history to have successfully deployed large conventional forces overseas since the 1800s, and has done it multiple times. So being conquered is out. And just in case you are proposing that conventional air power can be brought to bear, witness every military action the US has been involved in since Vietnam. In the air, like on the sea, the US military has no equal. It would take decades to achieve parity.
Being blown to bits? Since we've established that conventional forces are out you're essentially stating that there would be a nuclear first strike. You are aware of MAD? You don't think that the end result would not occur if the US were nuked? Let's just suppose that every system in N America failed, and a nuke attack was successful with no counterstrike. There are still a rather large number of nuclear subs with a hundred or more warheads each that would launch right after. And no, they are not easy to find and destroy.
As a last note, I'm not the one arguing for war, you are. I don't believe we're heading there at all.
So rather than running around spouting random FUD, get a story together with some rational thought behind it backed by some facts instead of "Truth by Blatant Assertion". TBBA is as valid now as it ever was (ie, not, just in case you're unclear on the statement)
I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned by al-Awlaki's assassination. Although I agree with Nursie - one of the things that struck me in all this talk is how US citizens are supposed to have certain rights to trial, while we're not concerned with other people in the world having that right. Kill an American citizen without a trial: That's terrible and we can't stop talking about it. Kill a citizen of another country: It doesn't even warrant comment or concern. It's obvious that if al-Awlaki had been Canadian or French or Egyptian or Pakistani, we wouldn't bat an eyelash. I just think it's a weird contradiction for people to get on their soapbox simply because he was American.
US citizens being assassinated by the US would be a criminal act. Foreign citizens being assassinated by the US could be considered an act of war. US citizens who side with the opposition in war and physically move to be co-located and join them in their efforts are - surprise - the enemy.
Since we're at war, the latter occurring isn't a big deal, provided the assassinatees are citizens of countries the US is at war with. If they were citizens, of say, Britain, France, or Germany, you can bet your right leg that the current hew over al-waste-of-skin would be a minor foot note in comparison.
He was still a US citizen who was assassinated without any chance for a fair trial.
He was killed as a combatant. He effectively declared and was engaged in war while also actively consorting, conspiring, and assisting an enemy. As such, he becomes a military target, not merely a civilian criminal.
While I'm as paranoid as anyone about the powers the US gov is attempting to annex, this particular case is not one I'd ever touch in those arguments.Some things are just black and white and this was one of those cases, whether you like it or not.
The problem is transporting it. And the other looming problem is, how do people buy food if their money is worthless?
Don't be so smug as to think a worldwide interruption in trade (due to, I don't know... World War III perhaps?) wouldn't hurt us. It could hurt us pretty bad.
You are incorrect - there is no internal problem with food production in the US. Additionally, the value of money is relative, and it's worth something to those in the country. If it truly becomes worthless compared to other world currencies, we won't be able buy anything external. However, since money has no intrinsic value, internally a dollar is still worth a dollar, the only difference is what it will buy. So we'll still be able to buy whatever that cob of corn costs.
WW3 won't end the world unless it's nuclear. Then all bets are off.
Yeah...but for the amounts of $$ they're likely getting....who wouldn't??
You have this wrong... they "whored themselves out to the RIAA/MPAA while in Lamar Smith's office". The amounts of money granted were for work already performed.
This is what I'm hoping for. The rest of the world finally says "enough" and puts the U.S. on a trade blacklist. We face the possibility of 100 million deaths because we don't produce any food anymore. We go to war to secure stations in food-producing countries. Both the EU and China join forces to stop us. The U.S. military is completely destroyed. The U.S. signs treaties. We go back to a "normal" country again and start putting money into infrastructure and education instead of bombing the shit out of the backwoods tiny nation du jour.
so this is the result of abused medical marijuana? No wonder the feds want to keep it illegal.
from Wikipedia as the first source in a long list.
It wouldn't be the US that starves as we have no issues with any food product that can be produced in the country. The rest of your delusional ramblings aren't even worthy of a response.
For a real world example, see Donald Trump.
Indeed. Witness Perry's decision to stay in it. There has been some speculation that a group of serious GOP power brokers, meeting in Brenham (TX) recently has had some influence on that decision. Staying visible, at least, just might make an unelectable village idiot a great pick for VP running mate a few months from now. Romney scares the "social conservatives" who think Mormonism is "a cult", and that gay marriage and abortion are issues that matter, and Perry has plainly demonstrated that he is willing to pander to that bunch like nobody's business.
Mormonism is a cult, and you're spot on about Perry. Should the Republican Biden come to pass, wait, that's insulting Biden... You do recall his incredible series of quotes, including that most wonderful one involving seceding from the union, or the one that single-handedly slammed all Californians as un-american (which is it? Is he pro-America or anti-America?) He's apparently this election's Republican clown, since Palin refused to go on stage again - maybe 2 brain cells fired in unison and made a rational thought?
Seriously, it's Iowa, the only thing this one's good for is showing who definitely should not run, and even that's questionable.
They really should run all the caucuses in just a few days. There's no good reason, other than lots of opportunities to bribe, err, donate to your favorite candidate, that these should run more than a day or two for all 50 states. But, that would go against the political machine and those that keep it greased purposes.
Of course now we're both being tracked....
Let me know when you're able to train your technophobe mom on using Photoshop to lengthen people's noses and stretching their chins, and when you're able to convince your sexting teenage cousin that it's not kosher throwing pictures of everyone up everywhere.
Funny enough, iOS users have this little app called "Fat Booth" which will handle both issues above as it is exceptionally easy to use and "fun", apparently. I'm sure there's an equivalent for Android out there as well. No computers even needed.
For the teenagers, the more off pictures, the better. If we could convince them at the same time to tag them with funny names, it'd resolve itself quickly.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, practically speaking, it's not going to happen. That genie is already out of its bottle. We need to start from the fundamental assumption that the data is out there and will be collected, and figure out from that what we need to do.
Just a few users can poison the well pretty handily, at least for a targeted set of subjects. Once the integrity of the DB goes low enough, it becomes essentially useless.
The first step would be to stop making this easier for the government by posting and correctly tagging all those Facebook and flicker, etc, photos.
In fact, if you really want to start messing with this, get photo manipulation software, and on an entire sequence of photos stretch the nose a little, reduce the space between the nose and mouth, lengthen the chin, change the eyes a little, essentially changing all the standard measurements useful for visual identification, then "poison the well" by continuously posting these slightly altered shots up on these tracking sites and tag them appropriately. I'd personally even round robin tag them with friends names, or random ones if you don't already have a history to overcome, just to confuse the matter even more. (What, you didn't think that those pictures and info weren't available to the government, did you? They're the biggest, and free!, ID DB ever constructed)
All the other stuff, wrap around mirrored glasses that are IR/UV opaque etc will only assist in keeping them from making an easy match.
Out of all lawsuits, the few "successful" ones (i.e. usually settlements) often result in the faceless entity accepting or admitting to absolutely no fault, blame, or liability as part of the agreement. Where is the blame left there? It certainly wasn't really any individual or corporation copping to it, as they march on almost as if nothing happened. Hell, they probably get to write the whole thing off as a business expense, obtaining the tax benefit.
Therefore, you might as well have sued an inanimate object (a.k.a. the "gun"), which has about as much ability to accept blame as many large corporations do.
(Ironically, I just read recently about a woman filing a lawsuit against a dead man for getting his body parts all over her when his body exploded after being hit by a high-speed train. Gotta love our legal system.)
So we're in agreement. I'm not sure what difference it makes whether a corporation accepts blame or not. Whatever the legal world says or thinks, the corporation has no conscience, you can't put the corporation in jail, so I don't see what difference blame would have. (Union Carbide, India was found at fault, IIRC, in the Bhopal disaster. I don't believe it made any real difference in the penalties assessed against the corporation. However, I believe the executives of the company were put on trial, don't recall if India's attempt at filing charges against the executives of the parent were successful, as they were alleged to have been aware of the practices of Union Carbide, India.)
Actually, this line of reasoning seems to me to prove why a corporation cannot be a person, nor should have rights similar to a person. If you can't jail it nor penalize it in the same fashion, then it shouldn't have the same protections either.
On the dead man lawsuit - I'm sure it's against his estate. I haven't read it, but I can see why someone would sue. What if some rich guy recklessly careens his car through a sidewalk cafe and injures you before plunging off the cliff that the cafe sits on? Should that victim be deprived of the ability to address their grievances? (I bring this up, because if the man purposefully stepped in front of the train...)