Yawn at the constant use of slippery slope assumptions and fallacies, and false equivalencies. It's just like with the libertarians. You regulate one thing and its, gee, tomorrow the government will be regulating everything in our lives to the point where we'll have government monitors standing over us every time we take a piss.
- wolf
Didn't this panel of people essentially comprise a quick and speedy trial? They had all the evidence they needed. Al-Awlaki was a self-professed terrorist and a global threat. He sentenced himself to death. Under the protective principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the killing is authorized.
The slippery slope has already been achieved in this case.
We literally have a secret panel that decides if a us citizen should be murdered without trial or due process. There is no legal authority for either the secret panel or the actions taken. There is also no legal oversight or restrictions on who, how, and why this panel chooses. Otoh, there is very clear law (the so called supreme law of the land) that states this panels actions, along with the presidents approval, are in fact illegal.
If you want to argue that we need legislation that gives them the ability to revoke someone's citizenship, along with clear procedure and judicial review, to handle situations like this than I would agree with you. However I will never agree that the President should or does have the sole authority to suspend the US Constitution, selectively or not, with absolutely zero oversight or legal authority. That is truly what you are currently arguing.
Our entire system of government is built upon checks and balances yet you think the President has the authority to suspend the Constitution without those checks and balances?
Government makes statements to the public about thousands of things over time. You can assume whatever you like. Anyone can lie at any time, about anything. Myself, I look at the circumstances and draw the most logical inference. Take Iraq and the WMD's, for example. Not only was there a motive to lie in that case, to justify the war, but when I saw the Bush admin cutting the UN inspection short after it issued its interim report, it looked awfully suspicious. I see no indicia here of dishonesty. There is nothing inherently suspicious about not releasing the evidence. I'd be surprised if they did. I'd be surprised if any law enforcement agency released information about an ongoing investigation involving more than one person. The fact that paranoid people will assume that no such evidence exists is a tradeoff for not endangering an ongoing investigation.
You can assume the government lies about everything all the time. You can assume that the BLS is lying to underestimate unemployment numbers to help out the POTUS politically. You can assume the Bush admin perpetrated 9/11. You can assume OBL isn't actually dead or that he died years ago. Why believe the government? You can assume anything you want if it suits you. One thing is certain, however, your statement "there is no evidence of his guilt" is dishonest. The truth is, you just don't know and you're assuming it, and you're confusing your opinion with fact.
Do I "know" there is evidence? No, epistemologically speaking, I can't "know" something unless I perceive it with my own senses. However, I'm not the one who has claimed knowledge and certainty here. You are.
- wolf
How about you get back to me when the FBI starts using Predator drones to take out suspected criminals on US soil and we can talk.
Until then my opinion of the scum that was terminated will remain the same.
Didn't this panel of people essentially comprise a quick and speedy trial? They had all the evidence they needed.
Your opinion doesn't mean shit. The only thing that matters is the law.
You got any legal proof?
Just because your opinion is that rapists deserve to die doesn't mean you can go and kill them all, or let the police do it. They still have to get a fair trial. It's called the "law". Have you ever heard of it?
Is that too hard to understand? Perhaps take your HS government class again to learn?
How about you get back to me when the FBI starts using Predator drones to take out suspected criminals on US soil and we can talk.
Until then my opinion of the scum that was terminated will remain the same.
Who presented the evidence?
Did the accused have a chance to present evidence in their defense?
Allowing one side in a trial to present the evidence, will almost always result in a guilty verdict. Isn't this one of the things the founding fathers fought for? For the people to have the right to a fair trial, a speedy trial, a public trial, and the right to offer evidence in their defense?
Ahh, so you are only concerned about the Federal Government recognizing US citizens constitutional rights when they are actually in the United States?
Then, can we presume that you think the Bush administration should be arrested and charged with false imprisonment (and perhaps other charges) for all the folks being held in Guantanamo who still haven't had "their day in court," or have been denied access to lawyers?
Cognitive dissonance for the win?
You are not even making sense. You admit the government lies, but only when they have a motive, but since you don't see a motive in this case, they ust be telling the truth? LOL, what?
BTW, I am not assuming anything. All those things I posted were either admitted as lies my the government later, or shown to be lies by others with real evidence. And then you need to throw out the straw-man fantasies about OBL and 9/11 to try and make yourself feel superior? I didn't mention any of those crackpots, you did...trying to derail the thread. Typical BS attack when you can't argue facts.
In a court case, when you show the witness lied about a ton of things, people usually don't believe them about anything, because they have lied so often you cannot trust anything they say. I guess you do, since you arbitrarily pick and choose (that is an amazing mental ability, is that something all neocons have, kinda like everyone that uses "faith based" evidence, instead of real evidence?) . So despite all those rather important lies the government made, you still take their word for everything. That is stupidity.
So you have any proof the government didn't lie? I mean proof, not your dreams. Anon sources say the evidence is patchy. Even under the blanket of anonymous reporting, no one will say "slam dunk". I wonder why? But hey, the gov never lies, and never does anything wrong, right? I guess you will be voting for Obama, since he said the economy is better, and he wouldn't lie, right? LOL.
I've already pointed out many documented factual cases where they did lie, so it isn't like they are credible anymore. A documented history of lying shows that we should not trust the government blindly, and should insist on proof.
I guess this whole concept of laws is a big bother to you, so you just ignore them when you feel they get in the way?
I'm sorry but you're being incredibly obtuse. Do I have, what, proof that the government "didn't lie?" What is your proof that they did? YOU stated, without qualification, that NO evidence exists. I never stated the contra without qualification.
Oh right, you have examples of the U.S. government lying about things in the past. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, right. Yeah you're right, we should assume, because the U.S. government has not told the truth every time in this past, that it always lies unless proven otherwise. That means, of course, there is no reason to believe that ANYONE they claim to be a terrorist is actually a terrorist. Even when they present evidence, we can presume that they manufactured and/or manipulated it, right?
I think you need to more clearly define your basic epistemology here. Do we always assume the government lies about everything, all the time, unless we can verify what they're saying with our own 5 senses? If they present evidence, to what extent should be assume that it has been fabricated and/or manipulated? I'm not accusing you of adopting particular conspiracy theories. I just want to know how you determine when you'll believe/trust anything the government says versus when you won't.
My own position is that I do not believe as a general rule that the U.S. government systemically and consistently lies. I don't believe showing 3 or 10 examples proves the sort of pattern you allege because the government makes 100's of assertions every day, in various forms, from presidential speeches to a statistics released by regulatory agencies. However, I believe they are quite capable of lying so when a strong suspicion arises, I accept it. Otherwise, I assume, by default, that they are telling the truth unless I have good reason to suspect otherwise. There is no other sane epistemology for a citizen of this country who cannot personally verify this information to adopt. The alternatives are to selectively distrust information while accepting others, based on ideology, which is what I believe you are doing, or else accepting blanket paranoia, that the government is our enemy, in which case: welcome to the world of Prison Planet and the FEMA camps, enjoy your stay.
- wolf
Next time around don't vote for those who put this panel together. If I ever get around to voting, I'll be sure to make my vote nullify your vote
Moonbeam, I find your comments on this topic largely irrational, a sort of frothing fury, sometimes not even making any sense.
A point by point response to that type of commentary seems useless.
But a straw man is when you create a false version of your opponent's argument that's a lot weaker than his real argument, and argue against it, winning.
Instead of fighting a man, you fight a straw man and say you won.
Poster after poster here is unable to understand the problems with this process, and instead of responding to them, simply says "but this is a bad guy!"
In their simple view it seems you either 'love Al Queda' or 'love this new process'.
Glad to see you admit you don't care about the rule of law.
Then, can we presume that you think the Bush administration should be arrested and charged with false imprisonment (and perhaps other charges) for all the folks being held in Guantanamo who still haven't had "their day in court," or have been denied access to lawyers?
Due process?
He was due and we processed him, whats the problem?
Due process?
He was due and we processed him, whats the problem?