The Bright Lines of Cleveland

Just an overflow thread for a discussion that wandered a bit off topic, to keep another thread on track.

Malor wrote:

If police can just shoot you, because they think you're a bad guy, that's extrajudicial killing.

No. That's extrajudicial murder.

Calling this 'self-defense' is a baldfaced lie.

I'm not: I'm just trying to make a point about how you can append this word "extrajudicial" to any killing--even one in self-defense--that occurs outside of the criminal justice system.

We tortured in Guantanamo -- the fact that the torture was in Cuba, and not the US, is not the important part, the line that was crossed. It was the torture, not the location.

I agree. However, torture is not killing. Even if the enemy is on the steps of the White House and Congress has declared war, the President does not get to torture. He does, however, get to kill.

Otherwise, all they have to do is ship you to Guantanamo, and shoot you there.

How did they manage to ship me over the border to Guantanamo without breaking the law in the first place?

If I'm an agent of the US government, on US business, then I should be just as bound by US law anywhere in the world.

This is a really interesting question, Malor, that I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure where I stand. I brought this up in the original thread about this guy, but the discussion didn't go that way.

Does the President need to get a court order to wiretap someone in a foreign country? That's the question I come back to. Does spy work overseas have to pass the same Constitutional muster that we would require of law enforcement in the U.S.?

It's easy to say yes when we're talking about a killing. It's a lot harder to say the same when it's something less severe. Then again, we don't get to play fast and loose with the Constitution like that right, only saying it protects you when someone's trying to kill you but not when they're trying to invade your privacy?

I'm not: I'm just trying to make a point about how you can append this word "extrajudicial" to any killing--even one in self-defense--that occurs outside of the criminal justice system.

You're doing that to dilute the impact of 'extrajudicial killings', but that doesn't work. It has horrible implications, and it should. Don't try to dodge what's happening here; we have a President decreeing that people must die without being able to contest the charges in court, or even to examine the evidence why.

This is utterly, absolutely anti-American. It spits in the faces of all those people who died precisely to make sure that that couldn't happen here. It's explicit in the Constitution, because of the many abuses of the governments that came before ours, that anyone charged of a crime is entitled to confront his her or accusers and examine the evidence against them. It is in clear and unarguable language. Yet, the Executive is now ignoring that part of the Constitution completely.

Our social framework as designed with this most basic of all ideas in mind: that everyone, from the lowest to the highest, was bound by the same system of rules. It doesn't matter who you are or how much power you wield, you are constrained by the Constitution and the laws of the land. But with these changes, the Executive is now claiming that you are bound by the laws, but he isn't. The Constitution only applies to you, not to him, and it is for that reason that I say that the Constitution died with Al-Alwaki.

The torn remnants of the social contract are now chains that bind you, while your masters can freely ignore them. To kill off one guy we don't like, we sacrificed the fundamental ideal that held us together and made us better than other countries, that all men are equal before the law.

Malor wrote:
I'm not: I'm just trying to make a point about how you can append this word "extrajudicial" to any killing--even one in self-defense--that occurs outside of the criminal justice system.

You're doing that to dilute the impact of 'extrajudicial killings', but that doesn't work. It has horrible implications, and it should. Don't try to dodge what's happening here; we have a President decreeing that people must die without being able to contest the charges in court, or even to examine the evidence why.

This is utterly, absolutely anti-American. It spits in the faces of all those people who died precisely to make sure that that couldn't happen here. It's explicit in the Constitution, because of the many abuses of the governments that came before ours, that anyone charged of a crime is entitled to confront his her or accusers and examine the evidence against them. It is in clear and unarguable language. Yet, the Executive is now ignoring that part of the Constitution completely.

Our social framework as designed with this most basic of all ideas in mind: that everyone, from the lowest to the highest, was bound by the same system of rules. It doesn't matter who you are or how much power you wield, you are constrained by the Constitution and the laws of the land. But with these changes, the Executive is now claiming that you are bound by the laws, but he isn't. The Constitution only applies to you, not to him, and it is for that reason that I say that the Constitution died with Al-Alwaki.

The torn remnants of the social contract are now chains that bind you, while your masters can freely ignore them. To kill off one guy we don't like, we sacrificed the fundamental ideal that held us together and made us better than other countries, that all men are equal before the law.

Call me crazy, but I see a bit of a difference between "some guy we don't like" and someone who was actively calling for people to kill Americans, and praising them as heroes whenever someone did.

Call me crazy, but I see a bit of a difference between "some guy we don't like" and someone who was actively calling for people to kill Americans, and praising them as heroes whenever someone did.

So it's okay to kill people with opinions you don't care for? Without a trial?

What if someone doesn't like how you talk, filthy liberal?

Malor wrote:
I'm not: I'm just trying to make a point about how you can append this word "extrajudicial" to any killing--even one in self-defense--that occurs outside of the criminal justice system.

You're doing that to dilute the impact of 'extrajudicial killings', but that doesn't work. It has horrible implications, and it should.

Yes, I *am* doing that to dilute the impact of 'extrajudicial killings' and you can say it doesn't work, but you know it does--you just don't *like* that it works. Appending the word 'extrajudicial' sounds awesome until we actually check what the word means: it means a judge didn't sign off on it, that it was imposed without trial.

Don't try to dodge what's happening here; we have a President decreeing that people must die without being able to contest the charges in court,

Great, but that has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. I'm making the argument that this was a valid military operation. We're not going to get anywhere if we keep mixing two different arguments together.

or even to examine the evidence why.

This is utterly, absolutely anti-American. It spits in the faces of all those people who died precisely to make sure that that couldn't happen here. It's explicit in the Constitution, because of the many abuses of the governments that came before ours, that anyone charged of a crime is entitled to confront his her or accusers and examine the evidence against them. It is in clear and unarguable language. Yet, the Executive is now ignoring that part of the Constitution completely. (emphasis added)

Our social framework as designed with this most basic of all ideas in mind: that everyone, from the lowest to the highest, was bound by the same system of rules. It doesn't matter who you are or how much power you wield, you are constrained by the Constitution and the laws of the land. But with these changes, the Executive is now claiming that you are bound by the laws, but he isn't. The Constitution only applies to you, not to him, and it is for that reason that I say that the Constitution died with Al-Alwaki.

The torn remnants of the social contract are now chains that bind you, while your masters can freely ignore them. To kill off one guy we don't like, we sacrificed the fundamental ideal that held us together and made us better than other countries, that all men are equal before the law.

If you're here to make that argument, you're about a decade too late.

and you can say it doesn't work, but you know it does--you just don't *like* that it works. Appending the word 'extrajudicial' sounds awesome until we actually check what the word means: it means a judge didn't sign off on it, that it was imposed without trial.

You are just nattering on and on and on about this, and you just keep reinforcing the original point, that the President is now ordering killings without judicial involvement, and that this is profoundly anti-American, anti-liberty, and anti-rule of law. Government agents can defend themselves if necessary, but otherwise cannot kill people without judicial oversight.

Extrajudicial killings, if they aren't absolutely necessary to save someone's life in the immediate vicinity, are evil. They are the definition of evil. They contravene the rule of law.

I'm making the argument that this was a valid military operation.

This was not a battlefield. There's no proof that they were even armed, and they certainly weren't engaged with any government agents that needed to defend themselves.

And you've swallowed the idea entirely that terrorism can be beaten with military action, that 'war' can even be applicable against an idea.

You need to regurgitate that, because it's going to make you sick.

In two words: wars end.

Malor wrote:
Call me crazy, but I see a bit of a difference between "some guy we don't like" and someone who was actively calling for people to kill Americans, and praising them as heroes whenever someone did.

So it's okay to kill people with opinions you don't care for? Without a trial?

What if someone doesn't like how you talk, filthy liberal?

If I'm encouraging people to kill other people based solely on their nationality on the same level that he was, the person I am now would be okay with it.

Malor wrote:
and you can say it doesn't work, but you know it does--you just don't *like* that it works. Appending the word 'extrajudicial' sounds awesome until we actually check what the word means: it means a judge didn't sign off on it, that it was imposed without trial.

You are just nattering on and on and on about this, and you just keep reinforcing the original point, that the President is now ordering killings without judicial involvement, and that this is profoundly anti-American, anti-liberty, and anti-rule of law. Government agents can defend themselves if necessary, but otherwise cannot kill people without judicial oversight.

Extrajudicial killings, if they aren't absolutely necessary to save someone's life in the immediate vicinity, are evil. They are the definition of evil. They contravene the rule of law.

According to that logic anything but a war of self-defense is evil and unlawful.

I'm making the argument that this was a valid military operation.

This was not a battlefield. There's no proof that they were even armed, and they certainly weren't engaged with any government agents that needed to defend themselves.

Then make *that* argument, and stop with the speeches. I've poked around trying to find where Congress authorized this, but I haven't had much luck. Bring me some sources--bathed and perfumed, if you please--and show me where Obama went beyond what he was authorized by Congress to do, or show me where Congress went wrong and declared something beyond war, something they had no power to declare.

And you've swallowed the idea entirely that terrorism can be beaten with military action, that 'war' can even be applicable against an idea.

I have?

-and show me where Obama went beyond what he was authorized by Congress to do,

Congress was never granted the power to authorize extrajudicial killings of American citizens, either. They cannot override the Constitution. Punishment for violation of laws requires that the accused be able to confront his or her accuser and examine the evidence. No law can supersede that.

This is to prevent 'tyranny of the majority' scenarios. The brightest line of all is that neither Congress nor the President has the power to just kill you without proving their case first, with a few extremely specific and limited exceptions.

That's the entire foundation of our democracy, and we're tossing it out the window for some random schmoe.

If I'm encouraging people to kill other people based solely on their nationality on the same level that he was, the person I am now would be okay with it.

Then you believe it's okay to kill people based on their opinion. You'd better hope that nobody comes into power with that same attitude that finds your opinions repellent.

Another one of our supposedly bedrock principles is that we punish actions, not speech. There's a couple of exceptions, but it's hard to construe a web page as either shouting fire in a theater or inciting to riot.

Malor wrote:
If I'm encouraging people to kill other people based solely on their nationality on the same level that he was, the person I am now would be okay with it.

Then you believe it's okay to kill people based on their opinion. You'd better hope that nobody comes into power with that same attitude that finds your opinions repellent.

Another one of our supposedly bedrock principles is that we punish actions, not speech. There's a couple of exceptions, but it's hard to construe a web page as either shouting fire in a theater or inciting to riot.

"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim"

"Nidal Hassan is a hero.... The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam..... Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right—rather the duty—to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.... May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance, and steadfastness, and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen"

"To the American people ... Obama has promised that his administration will be one of transparency, but he has not fulfilled his promise. His administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation, in order to cushion the reaction of the American public.

Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk, the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al-Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation."

From his own lips, he claims to have been involved in helping Nidal Hasan plan his attack. Is incitement to murder not a form of speech that deserves punishment?

No. I don't care what his opinions are. All I care about is actions.

What if he's right? If we suppress opinions we don't like, we're bound to suppress the truth at least some of the time.

The laws that supposedly protected that man, and no longer did, also supposedly protected you, and no longer do.

Further, it's worth pointing out that he's only talking about attacks on soldiers, not on civilians, so that's not even terrorism.

Stengah wrote:
Malor wrote:
If I'm encouraging people to kill other people based solely on their nationality on the same level that he was, the person I am now would be okay with it.

Then you believe it's okay to kill people based on their opinion. You'd better hope that nobody comes into power with that same attitude that finds your opinions repellent.

Another one of our supposedly bedrock principles is that we punish actions, not speech. There's a couple of exceptions, but it's hard to construe a web page as either shouting fire in a theater or inciting to riot.

"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim"

"Nidal Hassan is a hero.... The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam..... Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right—rather the duty—to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.... May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance, and steadfastness, and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen"

"To the American people ... Obama has promised that his administration will be one of transparency, but he has not fulfilled his promise. His administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation, in order to cushion the reaction of the American public.

Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk, the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al-Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation."

From his own lips, he claims to have been involved in helping Nidal Hasan plan his attack. Is incitement to murder not a form of speech that deserves punishment?

Agreed with one modification. It wasn't about punishment. It was about stopping his continued action against the interests and safety of the United States of America. Had it been possible to apprehend him without substantial risk to American lives, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been headbagged and rendered to a navy brig outside of Atlanta, GA. But it wasn't possible. As a result, he got 18 pounds of metal augmented blast fragmentation care of the American taxpayer.

Do you really want to live in a society where you have to be careful about what you say, lest you be punished or killed for it?

Had it been possible to apprehend him without substantial risk to American lives, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been headbagged and rendered to a navy brig outside of Atlanta, GA.

Absolute bullsh*t. They had bin Laden and could easily have extracted him, but he would have said VERY embarassing things, so they iced him.

I wonder if Al-Alwaki had some information about American corruption?

Oh, and:

It wasn't about punishment.

That can be used for ANYTHING. "He was doing X, so we had to stop him." And it doesn't matter what X was, or even if the person was doing X, it's all justified. It's not punishment, but he's still dead. Or in prison without a trial, or being tortured.

Being killed is punishment, no matter what rhetorical games you might play to pretend it isn't.

And, again, I don't even see any evidence that the man is actually a terrorist. He's applauding attacks on soldiers, not on civilians. There's no proof he attacked anyone at all.

He just cheered for the wrong side, so they killed him.

Malor wrote:

No. I don't care what his opinions are. All I care about is actions.

What if he's right? If we suppress opinions we don't like, we're bound to suppress the truth at least some of the time.

The laws that supposedly protected that man, and no longer did, also supposedly protected you, and no longer do.

Further, it's worth pointing out that he's only talking about attacks on soldiers, not on civilians, so that's not even terrorism.

Since when is claiming you helped plan an attack on an army base an opinion?
If he's RIGHT? If he's right that it's every Muslim's duty to attack and kill Americans?

Malor wrote:
Had it been possible to apprehend him without substantial risk to American lives, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been headbagged and rendered to a navy brig outside of Atlanta, GA.

Absolute bullsh*t. They had bin Laden and could easily have extracted him, but he would have said VERY embarassing things, so they iced him.

I wonder if Al-Alwaki had some information about American corruption?

Seriously? This is what you're going with? This is really venturing pretty far into the territory of fashionable metallic headwear.

It wasn't about punishment.

That can be used for ANYTHING. "He was doing X, so we had to stop him." And it doesn't matter what X was, or even if the person was doing X, it's all justified. It's not punishment, but he's still dead. Or in prison without a trial, or being tortured.

Being killed is punishment, no matter what rhetorical games you might play to pretend it isn't.

When someone is presenting material harm to the safety of Americans and takes steps including the threat of violence to resist apprehension, they kind of do it to themselves. As Malcolm Reynolds would put it "I didn't murder you. You murdered yourself. I just held the bullet for a while.".

Malor wrote:
Had it been possible to apprehend him without substantial risk to American lives, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been headbagged and rendered to a navy brig outside of Atlanta, GA.

Absolute bullsh*t. They had bin Laden and could easily have extracted him, but he would have said VERY embarassing things, so they iced him.

Are you referencing the illuminati holiday theory here, or do you have some other evidence/first hand knowledge that shows your theory to be true?

Malor wrote:
-and show me where Obama went beyond what he was authorized by Congress to do,

Congress was never granted the power to authorize extrajudicial killings of American citizens, either.

Yes they were--it's called *war*

They cannot override the Constitution.

Yeah, that's why we gave them the power to declare it in the Constitution.

Punishment for violation of laws

Oh, we're back to this again...

It's not war. It never was war. Wars end.

We've been told repeatedly that the War on Terror will never be over. So this amounts to a permanent suspension of the Constitution. That piece of paper is now a tool to chain you, one which your masters are free to ignore.

The fundamental pillar of America, that everyone is equal before the law, is gone, preempted by a state of war that will never end.

This is exactly what Orwell predicted. That was a boot, stamping on a face, and you're cheering.

Peeks in thread.. rolls eyes..leaves.

Malor wrote:

It's not war. It never was war.

Great, then there's your solution: impeach Obama for going to war when he was not constitutionally empowered to do so. It's that simple.

Again: wars end. If a war is forever, it's not a war. It's a way of life.

Malor wrote:

Again: wars end. If a war is forever, it's not a war. It's a way of life.

So at what point in the timeline does it cease to be a war?

bandit0013:

It was never really a war to begin with. It was a rhetorical/political ploy used by your government to institute measures that increased their power over the citizenry. It still is.

So at what point in the timeline does it cease to be a war?

If there was any time it was ever going to happen, it would have been when bin Laden was killed.

We've gotten the original target, but the police state continues unchecked.

I mean, it's a pretty neat rhetorical set of tricks:

  • Have something really terrible happen... you can even arrange the terrible thing yourself, a la the Reichstag fire.
  • Declare that you are now in a war against terrible things, and will be forever.
  • Declare the people who did that terrible thing non-persons.
  • Declare anyone vaguely associated with them non-persons.
  • Ensure that the determination of non-personhood is not judicial in nature.
  • Assert that no law governs your treatment of non-persons.

    * Note, this is the point at which the Constitution becomes meaningless. If someone is a non-person as soon as you say they are, without court oversight, and that, because you are in a state of war, non-persons have no rights, then from that point on, there are no more Constitutional rights. There are only revocable privileges. All it takes is a stroke of a pen to unperson someone, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to fight this determination, even if you're completely wrong.

    And, because being wrong is embarrassing, if you ARE wrong, you don't have that old annoying problem of your targets being able to prove it. Now you can just imprison them forever or kill them outright, so those pesky mistakes don't get out and the natives don't get restless about how stupid and corrupt you may be. What they don't know won't hurt you, after all.

    Plus, better still, you can coerce confessions from people with torture, and then use those confessions to prove what a huge menacing problem the unpersons are, so your security apparatus gets more funding.

  • Expand the definition of non-persons to cover other lawbreakers, so that you can stop activities like drug smuggling without those pesky regulations or court oversight.
  • If people start getting restless, expand the definition of non-persons enough to shut out opposing viewpoints and strong criticism; with the ability to make anyone into an unperson, and anyone who associates with them in any way an unperson, you can silence anyone, and then quietly kill them if they stay annoying.

    It is very easy to manufacture evidence when you don't have to prove any of it in court. It's even better when you don't even have to show it to the person you're accusing. It's best of ALL if you can hold the law itself secret, so that they:

    • Can't know what they did wrong;
    • Can't examine the evidence that they did something wrong;
    • Don't have the right to use the court system to confront you about your accusations.

    This is f*cking perfect if you want to run things. If someone's annoying enough, pass a law in secret and throw them in jail when they violate the law they aren't even allowed to know.

    (This is REAL, by the way. Americans can be fined or imprisoned for violating laws that they are not allowed to know, and can be imprisoned or even outright killed based on evidence they are not allowed to see.)

  • Get as corrupt as you like, because you have no oversight, and can silence critics freely.
  • Keep the military happy, and you will be in charge for a long, long time.

Sure, the people will be miserable, but if you actually cared about the welfare of the people, you wouldn't have even gotten to step #2.

How is this meaningfully different from Syria or Iran?

So when will you respond to my points instead of making up hyperbolic conspiracy theories? By his own words, he was involved in the Ft. Hood shooting. He has openly called for the killing of Americans and has publicly praised those that have attempted to do so. He has publicly called for all Muslims to look at those that have as heroes and encouraged them to live up to their examples. Is there some prerequisite for being a terrorist that requires you to do the killing with your own hand before you qualify for the title? Isn't giving the order or helping to plan the killing enough?