It appears there are some externalities with that solution.
Reports: Britons might have 'helped construct the bomb' The unconfirmed reports suggesting British jihadists were involved in the bombing claim that Britons trained in Syria with an "electronics background" might have helped to construct the bomb that brought down the Russian jet. "Chatter" picked up by GCHQ reportedly featured jihadists with London and Birmingham accents celebrating in Egypt after the explosion.
He didn't "hit it on the nose," he has it completely wrong. Try reading this at Cornell law school and see if it cuts through the fog for you. I've already corrected him in another place. We're 14 years into this at this point, I would hope that people still aren't clueless after all this time. And while you're at it, read this. Legally is it equivalent to a declaration of war. And the rest of your statement is rubbish too. Good grief. (I suppose I should mention this final clue: LAW OF WAR vs CRIMINAL LAW - different things, different standards.)
You seem to have difficulties following the flow of discussion in a thread. Try rereading it and see if you can follow it this time. And yes, a person matching the description at the head of the tread did join al Qaeda. Should I be calling you a name at this point and mocking your lack of comprehension?
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 offense 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.
Note that we aren't even considering Article II here, just the sections of Amendment V that you "skipped over."
Why don't you follow the link to Cornell Law School and get that firmed up for you?
For matters of criminal law. That isn't how things work at war, on the battlefield, under the Law of War.
If you want to dispute that I would appreciate your thoughts on how the Federal soldiers facing the 15,000 charging Confederates of Pickett's Charge would have arrested, investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced the Confederates prior to shooting them by the thousands with musket and cannon.
Wrong? Not really, no. The point was that they weren't murdered. It's unfortunate that a couple of captives were killed as a consequence of legitimate military operations, but many captives of ISIS or al Qaeda's have wished for death given their treatment. It is reasonable to feel sorry for them. The others were generally there supporting or fighting on behalf of al Qaeda or ISIS and deserve little pity whether they were directly targeted like Anwar al Awlakis, or were accompanying a targeted individual as some of the other Americans were.
Anwar al Awlaki’s son said he hoped “to attain martyrdom as my father attained it” just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control. , ,,'
Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP’s media emir.
Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.
To be far, far more Americans pay taxes and have sex than are targets for government-sanctioned killing. So it's hardly surprising people will vote on things that affect them more.
To be fair, the number of Americans that left the US to fight for Germany or Italy in WW2 was very small, but they were treated the same as other German or Italian soldiers: shot at, bombed, targeted by artillery, and otherwise put at mortal risk.
Join al Qaeda and you are the same as any other member, subject to being shot, bombed, droned, or attacked by any other means until you are either captured or killed. Why do you think the average American would oppose that? Something in the water?
Trying to pretend that this is some sort of random hazard that American citizens face is ridiculous.
can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????
Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.
No US citizen was murdered by a drone, they were killed, legally. The law of war permits that. When you fight with the enemy in an armed conflict against the US you are part of the enemy and can be killed just like any other enemy combatant. That is what those US citizens had done, and it cost them.
For most people this is pretty simple to understand.
they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.
The Americans killed overseas by drones did get the due process they were entitled to. You can see a depiction of similarly appropriate due process here. (Notice that nobody was being read a Miranda rights warning.)
If during time of war you join an enemy and take up arms against the US you are no different than any other enemy, subject to being killed by the same means. That includes bayonet, sword, musket, rifle, canon, mine, rockets, bombs, missiles, grenades, giant rocks, or any other means used. This isn't a question of criminal law due process but of the law of war and the treatment of unsurrendered enemy combatants. Criminal law versus the law of war - different games have different rules. You better be sure you want to play by those rules, or don't go there.
If you want a trial and criminal law due process, then surrender. The local US embassy can probably help you there. Or hop a plane to the US and surrender at customs.
You seem to have misstated things. If the women could stay and repeat RTAC rather than being removed from the course upon failure as a man would, there isn't an inconsistency with only 5 passing a particular iteration. So your claim of "a bold faced lie" doesn't hold up.
Anonymous sources... I seem to have heard of them. The sources of the story are unknown to you, but not to the reporter. And there are people on the record there making interesting statements.
Did you notice that the Sargent Major of the Marine Corps was apparently slapped down recently for stating a position on a related issue in opposition to the ideologically driven Secretary of the Navy? What do you think would happen to lower ranking people in the army leaking embarrassing information? They'd be squashed like bugs.
It seems there are some things we'll never know, and that is intended.
Sources listed a variety of exceptions women received, despite men still being held to the rigorous standards outlined in the Standing Operating Procedures handbook for Ranger School.
First, female candidates received two weeks training from the National Guard’s Ranger Training and Assessment Course (RTAC) in January in preparation for the course, which started April 20. Males weren’t allowed to repeat RTAC, but women were — again and again.
Following the pre-training, females were assigned to a platoon at Fort Benning for months to receive full-time training with a Ranger, Sergeant First Class Robert Hoffnagle. They were even taken out to the field regularly to see the land navigation course. This is a difficult segment which is timed. When male candidates in Ranger School came across the land navigation segment, it was the first time they had ever seen it.
“He taught [them] everything, including how to do patrols,” a source told PEOPLE. While the Army denied that women were even part of the special platoon, a woman who belonged to the platoon confirmed with PEOPLE that “Hoffnagle got us ready for Ranger School.”
And finally, a two-star general showed up to cheer the women on throughout the most difficult parts of the course.
Even Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the two females who graduated the course, was surprised she made it through successfully.
Similar things have happened before.
The current administrations' main interest is winning the battle for diversity and appeasing feminist activists. Battlefield victory is a distant concern if it concerns them at all, and it is a problematic issue with their base.
Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.
Hey. American Exceptionalist. If the rest of the world held the U.S. to that standard, the entire American population would have been exterminated decades ago. Because you can take the above number, add four zeros to it, double that number, and you have a good approximation of the number of deaths the U.S. is responsible for since WWII.
Actually you're an "American Exceptionalist" too. The difference is that you seem to think that the US is "exceptionally" bad and has had an exceptionally evil influence and impact on the world. In fact you think it is so bad that you're resorting to imaginary numbers to describe it. It is completely understandable that you turn to desperate measures if you want to deflect attention from the horror that the internationalist socialists called Communists wrecked on the world. They killed 100,000,000 people while visiting untold misery and torment on countless others. Their actions dwarf anything that the US actually did (as opposed to your imaginary numbers).
I have to wonder if Mayor de Blasio will force the NYC PD to take a dive on this suit to get a particular precedent into law like the Obama administration has done?
The would seem to be as easy method of advancing the agenda in a way hard to reverse. Of course that probably won't work out well for everyone else.
So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim) dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization that the proper course of action is to search for violent Buddhists, Lutherans, and atheists? Because, Diversity!??
What "understanding" do you think people lack that causes them to opposed groups that intend to kill large number of your fellow citizens in the hopes of forcing either surrender or conformity to a foreign religion, and the overthrow of the current society and government?
Do you think it is possible that the actual problem is people that don't acknowledge the danger and support reasonable means to oppose it? Do you think it is possible that the faulty application of a value such as diversity is leading people astray?
How do the think the problem of Islamic extremists trying to overthrow your society and government gets better with more "diversity" in government?
That is some Game of Thrones level of hypocrisy right there.
You will be far better informed, and probably wiser, if you watch these instead of or in addition to GoT. This is where most of Europe was, and where the world was heading. It can still head in that direction, and that is far, far, far more linkely than the imaginary peace and love of a Star Trek world.
The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Viet Nam, much of Africa and other places were in the grip of this sort of madness. Should you bother to watch the above maybe you will contemplate how you would be fair to them, and how you would survive?
And Iran would still have it's democratically elected leader instead of enduring the Shah for 38 years.
You're mistaken. Iran had no democracy when the Shah was restored to power. The Prime Minister had dissolved parliament, faked an election, and was ruling by decree. The Prime Minister also refused the traditional check on the power of a PM in a constitutional monarchy, the right of the monarch to dismiss the Prime Minister. No, you are quite mistaken. Iran's government was overthrown before the counter-coup that restore the Shah to power, and he reconstituted the government.
The Mullahs have been far more brutal than the Shah was. You should factor both of these factors into your thinking.
When a country has nuclear weapons, the US stops meddling in its internal affairs and begins to treat it as an equal.
So your thinking is that the USSR/Russia, UK, US, and China didn't/don't meddle with each other?
You think India, Pakistan, and China (with a little help from North Korea) will be an "island of stability" and peace, and a lack of meddling? Has North Korea grown more peaceful since obtaining nuclear weapons? (Maybe they'll demonstrate their commitment to peace the next time they launch missiles OVER Japan.)
You want to be "equal" with North Korea, a country that has starved millions of its people that it could have fed, did didn't, diverting food aid to the military? (A minor slice of the military budget would have fed them as well.) A country that puts three generations of a family in prison camps that kill large percentages of their inmates put there for such crimes as telling a joke about the Glorious Leader, or maybe not cheering enthusiastically enough for the increase in chocolate ration from 25g to 15g?
You think it was good to be "equal" with Stalin's Soviet Union, that only a few years previously killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians by confiscating their food and starving them to death for not being enthusiastic about the Soviet government? The Soviet Union killed far more people than Nazi Germany (after helping the Nazis invade Poland, and prepare for war against the rest of Europe). The Soviet government that spread its tentacles across the world, even controlling many in the US?
You want to be "equal" with Iran, an genocidal genuine theocracy* that wants to be the leader of the Islamic world as a competitor to al Qaeda, has missiles that will reach Europe now, and warhead designs just waiting for fissionable material? A country that makes no secret about its genocidal desires against Israel, and longs to destroy your own country even while it fosters the cult of the suicide bomber?
Might I suggest you may have a pathological desire for "equality" and probably a warped view of the US?
Might I suggest you watch this some time? What do you want to be equal to?
*Not the rhetorical or pretend kind that some people want to claim about the US
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point of confusion. It refers to love, not sex. That is a "trifle" that is best to not confuse.
Some atheists conveniently forget that their godless brethern started much of this mess when the atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
It requires some magical thinking to believe that atheism doesn't have blood on its hands, but I guess that goes with the territory.
What do you think?
Paris attacks: At least 153 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say
Uh-huh. Right. Because all the other obvious false flag shit Israel has done hasn't been a red flag to you?
If the only explanation you have for the Arab situation in Palestine is sabotage by Jews then you need to start looking for some new explanations.
PALESTINIANS: NO WAY TO HELP – THE SAGA OF THE GIFTED GREENHOUSES
Going dark is the solution, not the problem.
It appears there are some externalities with that solution.
Reports: Britons might have 'helped construct the bomb'
The unconfirmed reports suggesting British jihadists were involved in the bombing claim that Britons trained in Syria with an "electronics background" might have helped to construct the bomb that brought down the Russian jet. "Chatter" picked up by GCHQ reportedly featured jihadists with London and Birmingham accents celebrating in Egypt after the explosion.
He didn't "hit it on the nose," he has it completely wrong. Try reading this at Cornell law school and see if it cuts through the fog for you. I've already corrected him in another place. We're 14 years into this at this point, I would hope that people still aren't clueless after all this time. And while you're at it, read this. Legally is it equivalent to a declaration of war. And the rest of your statement is rubbish too. Good grief. (I suppose I should mention this final clue: LAW OF WAR vs CRIMINAL LAW - different things, different standards.)
You seem to have difficulties following the flow of discussion in a thread. Try rereading it and see if you can follow it this time. And yes, a person matching the description at the head of the tread did join al Qaeda. Should I be calling you a name at this point and mocking your lack of comprehension?
The part you didn't read that provides context?
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
Note that we aren't even considering Article II here, just the sections of Amendment V that you "skipped over."
Why don't you follow the link to Cornell Law School and get that firmed up for you?
You do know that the US Congress has authorized military action, right? That authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
I would have thought that you might have heard a thing or two about since it has been in force for 14 years.
That sounds ugly. Same result with different flavors of VNC?
Makes me wonder how some other virtual display technology would fare with it.
It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
For matters of criminal law. That isn't how things work at war, on the battlefield, under the Law of War.
If you want to dispute that I would appreciate your thoughts on how the Federal soldiers facing the 15,000 charging Confederates of Pickett's Charge would have arrested, investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced the Confederates prior to shooting them by the thousands with musket and cannon.
Since the "1960s"?? Nothing from ... say ... the 1860s comes to mind? Maybe the 1770s? I hear there was a commotion or two before the 1960s.
Wrong? Not really, no. The point was that they weren't murdered. It's unfortunate that a couple of captives were killed as a consequence of legitimate military operations, but many captives of ISIS or al Qaeda's have wished for death given their treatment. It is reasonable to feel sorry for them. The others were generally there supporting or fighting on behalf of al Qaeda or ISIS and deserve little pity whether they were directly targeted like Anwar al Awlakis, or were accompanying a targeted individual as some of the other Americans were.
Poor Abdul Rahman Awlaki?? Not so much.
Anwar al Awlaki’s son hoped ‘to attain martyrdom as my father attained it’
Anwar al Awlaki’s son said he hoped “to attain martyrdom as my father attained it” just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control. , , ,'
Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP’s media emir.
Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.
To be far, far more Americans pay taxes and have sex than are targets for government-sanctioned killing. So it's hardly surprising people will vote on things that affect them more.
To be fair, the number of Americans that left the US to fight for Germany or Italy in WW2 was very small, but they were treated the same as other German or Italian soldiers: shot at, bombed, targeted by artillery, and otherwise put at mortal risk.
Join al Qaeda and you are the same as any other member, subject to being shot, bombed, droned, or attacked by any other means until you are either captured or killed. Why do you think the average American would oppose that? Something in the water?
Trying to pretend that this is some sort of random hazard that American citizens face is ridiculous.
can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????
Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.
No US citizen was murdered by a drone, they were killed, legally. The law of war permits that. When you fight with the enemy in an armed conflict against the US you are part of the enemy and can be killed just like any other enemy combatant. That is what those US citizens had done, and it cost them.
For most people this is pretty simple to understand.
they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.
The Americans killed overseas by drones did get the due process they were entitled to. You can see a depiction of similarly appropriate due process here. (Notice that nobody was being read a Miranda rights warning.)
If during time of war you join an enemy and take up arms against the US you are no different than any other enemy, subject to being killed by the same means. That includes bayonet, sword, musket, rifle, canon, mine, rockets, bombs, missiles, grenades, giant rocks, or any other means used. This isn't a question of criminal law due process but of the law of war and the treatment of unsurrendered enemy combatants. Criminal law versus the law of war - different games have different rules. You better be sure you want to play by those rules, or don't go there.
If you want a trial and criminal law due process, then surrender. The local US embassy can probably help you there. Or hop a plane to the US and surrender at customs.
You seem to have misstated things. If the women could stay and repeat RTAC rather than being removed from the course upon failure as a man would, there isn't an inconsistency with only 5 passing a particular iteration. So your claim of "a bold faced lie" doesn't hold up.
Anonymous sources ... I seem to have heard of them. The sources of the story are unknown to you, but not to the reporter. And there are people on the record there making interesting statements.
Did you notice that the Sargent Major of the Marine Corps was apparently slapped down recently for stating a position on a related issue in opposition to the ideologically driven Secretary of the Navy? What do you think would happen to lower ranking people in the army leaking embarrassing information? They'd be squashed like bugs.
It seems there are some things we'll never know, and that is intended.
Pentagon Could Be ‘Shredding’ Docs About Female Rangers
It seems very possible there is something to it.
Sources: Generals Decided Long Before Ranger School That ‘A Woman Will Graduate’
Sources listed a variety of exceptions women received, despite men still being held to the rigorous standards outlined in the Standing Operating Procedures handbook for Ranger School.
First, female candidates received two weeks training from the National Guard’s Ranger Training and Assessment Course (RTAC) in January in preparation for the course, which started April 20. Males weren’t allowed to repeat RTAC, but women were — again and again.
Following the pre-training, females were assigned to a platoon at Fort Benning for months to receive full-time training with a Ranger, Sergeant First Class Robert Hoffnagle. They were even taken out to the field regularly to see the land navigation course. This is a difficult segment which is timed. When male candidates in Ranger School came across the land navigation segment, it was the first time they had ever seen it.
“He taught [them] everything, including how to do patrols,” a source told PEOPLE. While the Army denied that women were even part of the special platoon, a woman who belonged to the platoon confirmed with PEOPLE that “Hoffnagle got us ready for Ranger School.”
And finally, a two-star general showed up to cheer the women on throughout the most difficult parts of the course.
Even Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the two females who graduated the course, was surprised she made it through successfully.
Similar things have happened before.
The current administrations' main interest is winning the battle for diversity and appeasing feminist activists. Battlefield victory is a distant concern if it concerns them at all, and it is a problematic issue with their base.
Hey. American Exceptionalist. If the rest of the world held the U.S. to that standard, the entire American population would have been exterminated decades ago. Because you can take the above number, add four zeros to it, double that number, and you have a good approximation of the number of deaths the U.S. is responsible for since WWII.
Actually you're an "American Exceptionalist" too. The difference is that you seem to think that the US is "exceptionally" bad and has had an exceptionally evil influence and impact on the world. In fact you think it is so bad that you're resorting to imaginary numbers to describe it. It is completely understandable that you turn to desperate measures if you want to deflect attention from the horror that the internationalist socialists called Communists wrecked on the world. They killed 100,000,000 people while visiting untold misery and torment on countless others. Their actions dwarf anything that the US actually did (as opposed to your imaginary numbers).
The Black Book of Communism
I have to wonder if Mayor de Blasio will force the NYC PD to take a dive on this suit to get a particular precedent into law like the Obama administration has done?
The would seem to be as easy method of advancing the agenda in a way hard to reverse. Of course that probably won't work out well for everyone else.
So is your thinking that when facing the persistent long term threat of violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim) dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization that the proper course of action is to search for violent Buddhists, Lutherans, and atheists? Because, Diversity!??
What "understanding" do you think people lack that causes them to opposed groups that intend to kill large number of your fellow citizens in the hopes of forcing either surrender or conformity to a foreign religion, and the overthrow of the current society and government?
Do you think it is possible that the actual problem is people that don't acknowledge the danger and support reasonable means to oppose it? Do you think it is possible that the faulty application of a value such as diversity is leading people astray?
How do the think the problem of Islamic extremists trying to overthrow your society and government gets better with more "diversity" in government?
I don't think you must listen to the Iranian leaders much.
If they manage to erase Israel from the pages of history do you think you'll survive the process? What about your people?
It appears that both Iran and al Qaeda believe in what is referred to as "involuntary martyrdom". The Israelis? Not so much.
That is some Game of Thrones level of hypocrisy right there.
You will be far better informed, and probably wiser, if you watch these instead of or in addition to GoT. This is where most of Europe was, and where the world was heading. It can still head in that direction, and that is far, far, far more linkely than the imaginary peace and love of a Star Trek world.
The Soviet Story
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Viet Nam, much of Africa and other places were in the grip of this sort of madness. Should you bother to watch the above maybe you will contemplate how you would be fair to them, and how you would survive?
And Iran would still have it's democratically elected leader instead of enduring the Shah for 38 years.
You're mistaken. Iran had no democracy when the Shah was restored to power. The Prime Minister had dissolved parliament, faked an election, and was ruling by decree. The Prime Minister also refused the traditional check on the power of a PM in a constitutional monarchy, the right of the monarch to dismiss the Prime Minister. No, you are quite mistaken. Iran's government was overthrown before the counter-coup that restore the Shah to power, and he reconstituted the government.
The Mullahs have been far more brutal than the Shah was. You should factor both of these factors into your thinking.
When a country has nuclear weapons, the US stops meddling in its internal affairs and begins to treat it as an equal.
So your thinking is that the USSR/Russia, UK, US, and China didn't/don't meddle with each other?
You think India, Pakistan, and China (with a little help from North Korea) will be an "island of stability" and peace, and a lack of meddling? Has North Korea grown more peaceful since obtaining nuclear weapons? (Maybe they'll demonstrate their commitment to peace the next time they launch missiles OVER Japan.)
You want to be "equal" with North Korea, a country that has starved millions of its people that it could have fed, did didn't, diverting food aid to the military? (A minor slice of the military budget would have fed them as well.) A country that puts three generations of a family in prison camps that kill large percentages of their inmates put there for such crimes as telling a joke about the Glorious Leader, or maybe not cheering enthusiastically enough for the increase in chocolate ration from 25g to 15g?
You think it was good to be "equal" with Stalin's Soviet Union, that only a few years previously killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians by confiscating their food and starving them to death for not being enthusiastic about the Soviet government? The Soviet Union killed far more people than Nazi Germany (after helping the Nazis invade Poland, and prepare for war against the rest of Europe). The Soviet government that spread its tentacles across the world, even controlling many in the US?
You want to be "equal" with Iran, an genocidal genuine theocracy* that wants to be the leader of the Islamic world as a competitor to al Qaeda, has missiles that will reach Europe now, and warhead designs just waiting for fissionable material? A country that makes no secret about its genocidal desires against Israel, and longs to destroy your own country even while it fosters the cult of the suicide bomber?
Might I suggest you may have a pathological desire for "equality" and probably a warped view of the US?
Might I suggest you watch this some time? What do you want to be equal to?
*Not the rhetorical or pretend kind that some people want to claim about the US