Execution without trial

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well no, they had yet to receive a response as of the publishing of that article back on August 3. They got the license the next day.

Not really--for instance, the President can issue Executive Orders which have the force of law; the Judiciary creates law because America (outside of Louisiana) is a common law jurisdiction; Congress can set up Article I and Article IV courts. There's also administrative law where there is both lawmaking and judging done by agencies.

Oh good, though it was the day after they launched their lawsuit challenging the authority. Hopefully that's just a coincidence.

While these are legitimate, though sometimes controversial expansions of branch power, they are still held in check by the other branches correct? For instance, the Supreme Court can rule an Executive Order or Article I and III tribunal decision as unconstitutional right?

DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too. I had honestly hoped that Obama was going to scale back down the executive branch's powers, but nope... we've opened that door and now no president is going to want to give up that power apparently.

Farscry wrote:

My thoughts are pretty close to this, DeVil. I've been outspoken against our reckless slaughter of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan for years (and yes, that's exactly what it is, because the numbers are ridiculous). I don't subscribe to the nationalistic view that some humans' lives are somehow more important than others just because of where they happen to live or be born (or to whom they happen to be born).

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily speaking about civilians though. Nobody wants to see civilians killed.

I was thinking more about terrorist leaders who are killed by special forces or Predator drones. Even leaving out collateral damage I see an inconsistency in how they are considered.

I'm not sitting here going, 'Y'all are racists.' It's just a bit of food for thought.

Ultimately I will agree with Robear here. Intelligence agencies exist to break laws. While this may be distasteful it's pretty much par for the course. At least, that's what John Le Carre has taught me. What's different here is that it's out in the open.

And what is the American government supposed to do? If they really consider him a threat do they just sit back and watch? (And let Americans die) Do they kill him? (Illegal) Do they kidnap him and arrest him? (Illegal)

I don't see how anyone excepts a possible terrorist leader wins here.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I don't see how anyone excepts a possible terrorist leader wins here.

Pretty much. While we debate the constitutionality, he's planning (if he is a terrorist Imam) how to destroy our society and kill us. That doesn't make the debate any less important, but it does add perspective.

Shoal07 wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I don't see how anyone excepts a possible terrorist leader wins here.

Pretty much. While we debate the constitutionality, he's planning (if he is a terrorist Imam) how to destroy our society and kill us. That doesn't make the debate any less important, but it does add perspective.

As I said before, I would rather let a monster go free than kill an innocent. Killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster.

How open is the trial we have to have in order to prove he's a bad guy trying to kill us? Suck for Abu Bub Rub, his bff/lover/mechanic/right hand man who has been feeding us information. Does this guy have to confront his accuser?

MaverickDago wrote:

How open is the trial we have to have in order to prove he's a bad guy trying to kill us? Suck for Abu Bub Rub, his bff/lover/mechanic/right hand man who has been feeding us information. Does this guy have to confront his accuser?

That will be hard after they slit his throat and bleed him out like a goat.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I don't see how anyone excepts a possible terrorist leader wins here.

Pretty much. While we debate the constitutionality, he's planning (if he is a terrorist Imam) how to destroy our society and kill us. That doesn't make the debate any less important, but it does add perspective.

As I said before, I would rather let a monster go free than kill an innocent. Killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster.

Even if the monster is free to kill other innocents?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Well, Cheeze, I don't know what there's left for us to discuss. Your responses to my responses have degraded into, "I disagree" with little or no support as to why. That either means you have no support for your disagreement or we're talking about pure opinions. I suspect it's the latter. Neither makes for good conversation.

You're confused my responses degrading into "I disagree" with little or no support with my responses pointing out issues with the logic of your arguments, where it wouldn't be about evidence, so you wouldn't find 'support'. There are three threads it seems in this argument:

--the government is violating his constitutional rights;

--the government shouldn't do this because he's an American citizen and is entitled to extra protections;

--the government doesn't have the power to do this.

The problem is you keep bouncing around between them without realizing it. For example:

You also keep trotting out this:
Like I keep saying: are we demanding a trial because someone's rights are being violated, or because we want protection from government misbehavior?

I've answered this at least twice so let me break it out here so you can stop asking:

There is no difference. We have those rights as a means of protection.

Questions?

I trotted it out in response to what you said here:

Wiretapping someone illegally is bad. OK? I don't agree with it. I still think it's not as bad as straight-up murdering someone. Can you get on board with me there? Give me at least that much? That maybe, just maybe, tapping someone's phone is slightly less rude than shooting them in the head, but it is preferable that you do neither?

That was a response to me asking how under your argument the government can conduct any intelligence operation from wiretapping on up that it could not in the U.S.

That's why I trotted it out: the idea that even if there isn't an infringement on a right involved, the government might not have the power to do something is a concept that would make sense of what you said.

Because as it is your answer isn't really an answer: I ask you to apply your arguments about what his constitutional rights are to wiretapping, and you stop giving me arguments about his rights and start talking about 'it's preferable that we do neither, but killing him is worse'

You don't see that at that point you've stopped arguing that we shouldn't do this because it violates his rights, and you've started arguing we shouldn't do this because it violates his rights AND because it's "pure evil" and not just "wrong"?

You say "We have those rights as a means of protection" but I think you don't see the logic of that statement: just because those rights are a means of protection does not necessarily mean all the means of protection are rights. When you start arguing that he should get more protection from assassination because it's "pure evil" and less protection from wiretapping because it's "wrong" then unless you're going to argue we have some right against things that are "pure evil" you're no longer making an argument based on rights.

That's why I supplied the concept of non-rights protections, rather than accuse you of slipping into just making an emotional argument of 'both are violations of his rights, but the one bothers me too much so we shouldn't do it'.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I don't see how anyone excepts a possible terrorist leader wins here.

Pretty much. While we debate the constitutionality, he's planning (if he is a terrorist Imam) how to destroy our society and kill us. That doesn't make the debate any less important, but it does add perspective.

As I said before, I would rather let a monster go free than kill an innocent. Killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster.

I don't think you understand what that phrase means. Of course killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster, but if you knew who was innocent and who was the monster and had the capacity to kill exactly one of them, you'd just kill the monster. That phrase is for when there are two people where you can't tell which is the innocent and which is the monster or where you can either kill both or none, but not just one.

Do you really think anyone *wants* to kill innocents in ways that let monsters go free?

Ballotechnic wrote:

Oh good, though it was the day after they launched their lawsuit challenging the authority. Hopefully that's just a coincidence.

Why wouldn't it be a coincidence? If they wanted to delay, why wouldn't they wait until, say, the day before the judgment on on the lawsuit challenging the authority?

While these are legitimate, though sometimes controversial expansions of branch power, they are still held in check by the other branches correct? For instance, the Supreme Court can rule an Executive Order or Article I and III tribunal decision as unconstitutional right?

Sure, but you see now why you can't say 'this is judging--anything that is judging belongs in the Article III courts, therefore this is in violation of the checks and balances'. You need to show how this is judging that doesn't belong to the President.

Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too.

Why though? One Supreme Court case and all those "extra-judicial" powers could be gone just like those powers to put you in jail for telling people to resist the draft were gone. Putting someone in jail for that is not being on the brink--that's pretty far over the cliff I would say.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think you understand what that phrase means. Of course killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster, but if you knew who was innocent and who was the monster and had the capacity to kill exactly one of them, you'd just kill the monster. That phrase is for when there are two people where you can't tell which is the innocent and which is the monster or where you can either kill both or none, but not just one.

Do you really think anyone *wants* to kill innocents in ways that let monsters go free?

Cheeze, it appears to me that when someone uses a metaphor that does not precisely line up with your own expectations, you focus on your perceived problems with the metaphor rather than the matter which it is to represent. In fact, this is not the first thread where I've noticed that metaphors are sometimes sticking points with you.

I will try to avoid using metaphors in the future if you will try to ignore the ones you find faulty. You are free to ignore the point I was trying to make with them, too. In short, I don't want to spend this entire thread arguing poetry and semantics with you. Let's get back to the matter at hand.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that you're saying that a right is a binary thing and that if the man has rights under the constitution then it should be illegal to wiretap him just as it's illegal to kill him. Let's work with that, and if my assumption is wrong then you can back us up to this point and we'll try a different approach. Fair?

There is merit to that statement. I suppose my problem is that I do not view the Constitution as a barrier or shell, that, once broken, offers no protection at all. I see wiretapping as a breach of his rights but a correctable one. It should be stopped but does not hold the same urgency as an assassination, as that is irrevocable. If someone's going to go wiretap him we need to stop that person but if they're going to kill him we need to stop that person right the f*** now. We can sort out the legal stuff later, once we're sure we aren't doing something we will regret, or something we should regret even if we don't. That is why I believe he should be taken into custody and tried rather than killed on sight. From what I know, which is admittedly not everything, I do not feel the situation merits the urgency or permanence of a bullet.

Are we on the right track or have I mischaracterized your argument? I know you said it in many more words than I used so I'm going for a general idea here. We can work on the nuance once we're sure we're looking at the same picture.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Even if the monster is free to kill other innocents?

Yes. If you know (can prove) that you have a monster, you don't let it go. If you don't know, you might make a mistake and let one go. Either way, you can be sure of one thing: you are not the monster. I am not so afraid for my safety that I am willing to give up that which makes me human.

LobsterMobster wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Even if the monster is free to kill other innocents?

Yes. If you know (can prove) that you have a monster, you don't let it go. If you don't know, you might make a mistake and let one go. Either way, you can be sure of one thing: you are not the monster. I am not so afraid for my safety that I am willing to give up that which makes me human.

But the American government seems pretty sure about the monster, and the monster is hesitant to prove its innocence. While it is tempting to keep one's hands clean sometimes hard choices need to be made for the greater good.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too.

Why though? One Supreme Court case and all those "extra-judicial" powers could be gone just like those powers to put you in jail for telling people to resist the draft were gone. Putting someone in jail for that is not being on the brink--that's pretty far over the cliff I would say.

Can't go to the Supreme Court, "it's a matter of national security and discussing it outside of a select few individuals would put our nation at risk."

Now do you see the problem?

Farscry wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too.

Why though? One Supreme Court case and all those "extra-judicial" powers could be gone just like those powers to put you in jail for telling people to resist the draft were gone. Putting someone in jail for that is not being on the brink--that's pretty far over the cliff I would say.

Can't go to the Supreme Court, "it's a matter of national security and discussing it outside of a select few individuals would put our nation at risk."

Now do you see the problem?

No, because the court can disagree and reject that argument.

LobsterMobster wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think you understand what that phrase means. Of course killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster, but if you knew who was innocent and who was the monster and had the capacity to kill exactly one of them, you'd just kill the monster. That phrase is for when there are two people where you can't tell which is the innocent and which is the monster or where you can either kill both or none, but not just one.

Do you really think anyone *wants* to kill innocents in ways that let monsters go free?

Cheeze, it appears to me that when someone uses a metaphor that does not precisely line up with your own expectations, you focus on your perceived problems with the metaphor rather than the matter which it is to represent. In fact, this is not the first thread where I've noticed that metaphors are sometimes sticking points with you.

I will try to avoid using metaphors in the future if you will try to ignore the ones you find faulty. You are free to ignore the point I was trying to make with them, too. In short, I don't want to spend this entire thread arguing poetry and semantics with you. Let's get back to the matter at hand.

No, I first want to dispute you accusing me of having a sticking point. It's not that it failed to line up precisely with my expectations, it's that if you follow up by saying "Killing an innocent doesn't stop the monster" it suggests you've missed the whole point of the maxim, and beyond any possible issue of 'semantics', that you've missed the whole point of what other people are trying to say.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe you have a sticking point of judging criticisms of instances where you misspeak and cause confusion as 'semantics' as a way of not dealing with them?

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that you're saying that a right is a binary thing and that if the man has rights under the constitution then it should be illegal to wiretap him just as it's illegal to kill him. Let's work with that, and if my assumption is wrong then you can back us up to this point and we'll try a different approach. Fair?

Pretty much: I was asking you how you would distinguish wiretapping from killing given both his liberty and property are protected by the Constitution in addition to his life.

There is merit to that statement. I suppose my problem is that I do not view the Constitution as a barrier or shell, that, once broken, offers no protection at all. I see wiretapping as a breach of his rights but a correctable one. It should be stopped but does not hold the same urgency as an assassination, as that is irrevocable. If someone's going to go wiretap him we need to stop that person but if they're going to kill him we need to stop that person right the f*** now. We can sort out the legal stuff later, once we're sure we aren't doing something we will regret, or something we should regret even if we don't. That is why I believe he should be taken into custody and tried rather than killed on sight. From what I know, which is admittedly not everything, I do not feel the situation merits the urgency or permanence of a bullet.

So your problem isn't that the government is violating the Constitution, your problem is the government is violating the Constitution *too much* and/or in ways that require immediate justice instead of non-urgent justice.

Okay, but do you see you've created a completely novel category of Constitutional protections and significantly redefined how we should think of our rights? Do you understand how that might not be immediately clear and how if you see the Constitution in some radically different way from every common view of it, the burden is on you to explain that up front?

Why are you blaming people for assuming you have an even mildly conventional view of the Constitution? Why is this coming out now and as opposed to your first response? Did I miss something where you made this view of yours clear?

Cheez - I am pretty much 100% with you on this one, but I can see where Lobster is coming from with his semantic criticism. Regardless of your intentions, sometimes you seem more hung up on arguing about how people argue than you are about the discussion at hand.

SallyNasty wrote:

Cheez - I am pretty much 100% with you on this one, but I can see where Lobster is coming from with his semantic criticism. Regardless of your intentions, sometimes you seem more hung up on arguing about how people argue than you are about the discussion at hand.

Thing is, how people argue has an effect on how the discussion at hand proceeds. It might seem that way, but take a deeper look and you'll find I'm usually trying to address some ambiguity or equivocation that is fouling up the discussion.

Unfortunately, the process of doing that often creates new ones, and in your arguments as well. What people are saying is that if we concentrate on that too much, the actual discussion dissolves into Derridan natterings. Are you sure you're questioning your own assumptions in the same way you encourage others to question theirs?

Robear wrote:

Unfortunately, the process of doing that often creates new ones, and in your arguments as well.

I'm not sure I'm ready to accept your opinions of me Robear, considering your behavior in a previous thread towards me.

What people are saying is that if we concentrate on that too much, the actual discussion dissolves into Derridan natterings.

Well that's the rub: do I concentrate on it too much? If you look back at this thread, you'll notice I didn't hang Lobster on making an emotional argument, even though that's what his words--the semantics--indicated. Instead, I tried to imagine a way for that argument to be a non-emotional one, and addressed it as such because that's way more constructive.

I'd say I go out of the way to avoid allowing the discussion to dissolve into nattering.

Are you sure you're questioning your own assumptions in the same way you encourage others to question theirs?

What do you think? ;- D

edit: in fact, if you read back, you'll notice I did so just recently: I didn't jump on Lobster for confusing a maxim with a metaphor--I just used the right word and continued on.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too.

Why though? One Supreme Court case and all those "extra-judicial" powers could be gone just like those powers to put you in jail for telling people to resist the draft were gone. Putting someone in jail for that is not being on the brink--that's pretty far over the cliff I would say.

Can't go to the Supreme Court, "it's a matter of national security and discussing it outside of a select few individuals would put our nation at risk."

Now do you see the problem?

No, because the court can disagree and reject that argument.

At least until a new executive order trumps that. Because unless I've missed something, since 2001 we've had numerous executive orders trump Constitutional provisions for the legislative and judicial branches. There's no consistent, clear message on what is or isn't allowed in executive orders anymore.

Farscry wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This has been going on for so long and the "extra-judicial" powers of the president just keep piling up, that I don't know if we return from this one.

Very good point, and the same worry I have held too.

Why though? One Supreme Court case and all those "extra-judicial" powers could be gone just like those powers to put you in jail for telling people to resist the draft were gone. Putting someone in jail for that is not being on the brink--that's pretty far over the cliff I would say.

Can't go to the Supreme Court, "it's a matter of national security and discussing it outside of a select few individuals would put our nation at risk."

Now do you see the problem?

No, because the court can disagree and reject that argument.

At least until a new executive order trumps that. Because unless I've missed something, since 2001 we've had numerous executive orders trump Constitutional provisions for the legislative and judicial branches. There's no consistent, clear message on what is or isn't allowed in executive orders anymore.

Okay, but why do you think that means we can't return from this brink like we have from the others (even though I think we went way over the brink before and nevertheless still managed to come back)?

I'm not sure I'm ready to accept your opinions of me Robear, considering your behavior in a previous thread towards me.

That's not an opinion of you, it's a suggestion that you consider the same point you're making to others. And if you feel you've been slighted, please pm me. I don't post to hurt people.

Robear wrote:
I'm not sure I'm ready to accept your opinions of me Robear, considering your behavior in a previous thread towards me.

That's not an opinion of you, it's a suggestion that you consider the same point you're making to others. And if you feel you've been slighted, please pm me. I don't post to hurt people.

It's an opinion on my arguments. And I'm not hurt or slighted, just wary of your opinion on my arguments. However, I feel this is the kind of conversation that gets the Powers That Be wondering whether a key or combination style lock is the best solution for the thread, and seeing as how (1) I do not wish to draw their attention much less their ire, and (2) I think it's a really interesting thread about an issue that's a lot deeper than it looks at first which I'd rather not see ended prematurely, that's about all I'm going to say on the topic of whether it is better that an ambiguous post go free than an innocent post be crucified on the tree of semantics.

The way these threads often go I'm not so sure I believe you when you say you're worried about the thread getting locked down. Either Lobster is trying to find a way to argue that indeed, he is correct about whether Maxim or Metaphor is the correct word or he's given up. My money is on the latter.

I've given up.

It's an opinion on my arguments. And I'm not hurt or slighted, just wary of your opinion on my arguments. However, I feel this is the kind of conversation that gets the Powers That Be wondering whether a key or combination style lock is the best solution for the thread, and seeing as how (1) I do not wish to draw their attention much less their ire, and (2) I think it's a really interesting thread about an issue that's a lot deeper than it looks at first which I'd rather not see ended prematurely, that's about all I'm going to say on the topic of whether it is better that an ambiguous post go free than an innocent post be crucified on the tree of semantics.
Unfortunately, the process of doing that often creates new ones, and in your arguments as well. What people are saying is that if we concentrate on that too much, the actual discussion dissolves into Derridan natterings.

Let's not have a Cheeze pile-on here, guys. He is a prolific poster and a great addition to P&C.

That said, Cheeze - maybe you can see that most people are more worried about discussing the actual thread topic than making sure every sentence is absolutely clear,precise, and unambiguous. Remember, this is an internet forum not a judged debate - I think for the most part we all understand what the other person is trying to say:)

Really people, every post about this--including this one, unfortunately, but I can't do anything about that--increases the likelihood of the thread getting locked down, so go have this conversation somewhere else please? And preferably somewhere neither I nor Powers That Be have to deal with it?

I can prove that this strategy is necessary using 6 points.

Point 1: This is wrong.
Point 2: Rationalizing this obvious wrong makes us evil.
Point 3: Anyone that fights evil is obviously doing good. (for proof, check our rationalizations in point 2! It can't be evil if we're doing it to fight evil, right?)
Point 3: Fighting us (goodies doing evil) makes the terrorists (evils normally doing evil) good.
Point 5: Thus we have successfully converted the terrorists (evil) into good guys (evils doing good deeds).
Point 6: That means we win the war against the terrorists.

For the record, I am with Robear on this one.

Robear wrote:

When the process is limited to a very few instances, and is subject to oversight with legal consequences, then I'm willing to trust that it'll be done right, or that people will be held responsible eventually.

Can't say it better than that except maybe lamenting that the 'being held responsible' will never happen.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Okay, but why do you think that means we can't return from this brink like we have from the others (even though I think we went way over the brink before and nevertheless still managed to come back)?

That's a very very valid question. And honestly, I would have had the same worry the previous times.

I hope that we come back from the brink again this time. I fear that we won't (I'm very specific about using the word fear rather than expect!). It's worth worrying about, because if no one worried and talked about it, we definitely wouldn't ever see a problem and hit the brakes.

Does anyone really believe Obama is better at hiding things than Bush?