politicartoons | Exclusive!!!!

Allegedly.
The similarity is that in both cases, we have only the killer's word that the victim was in any way suspicious.

Oh please; you were in the military and you know there's constant SIGINT on all that, more video footage then you would find in a 50-year-old peeping tom's collection. You're just ticked off because you don't get a look at the classified intel and you can't make the government show it to you.

No, I don't know all that. All I have is the government's word that there's a single shred of evidence implicating al-Awlaki in anything.

But you're right about one thing: I am ticked off that this alleged intel was not unclassified and shown to the public before al-Awlaki was killed in our name. Very, very ticked off. And rightfully so.

No, I don't know all that. All I have is the government's word that there's a single shred of evidence implicating al-Awlaki in anything.

If it bothers you so much, reactivate your security clearance and get a government job with the NSA. Then release it all to the public. Me, I don't play armchair general.

But you're right about one thing: I am ticked off that this alleged intel was not unclassified and shown to the public before al-Awlaki was killed in our name. Very, very ticked off. And rightfully so.

Yes, I know, you don't believe in national security and classified information. I do. If they're going to make that public, I feel they might as well make our intercontinental nuclear armaments open to the entire internet to fire at will wherever they like. If you're going to unclassify one thing for your reasons, then they should unclassify EVERYTHING. All or nothing.

Don't be absurd. I can't just "reactivate my security clearance." And even if I could, you know what I'd have access to? Same thing I had access to before: the pulse frequencies of IR jamming pods. Nothing else.

"If they're going to make [their justification for killing someone] public, I feel they might as well make our intercontinental nuclear armaments open to the entire internet to fire at will . . ."

That may win the prize for the most insanely hyperbolic statement I've ever seen in this comm.

Don't be absurd. I can't just "reactivate my security clearance." And even if I could, you know what I'd have access to? Same thing I had access to before: the pulse frequencies of IR jamming pods. Nothing else

Get upgraded so you can get a job for the NSA analyzing video footage then. Don't bitch to me about how you don't get to see classified material. My sympathy is nil.

That may win the prize for the most insanely hyperbolic statement I've ever seen in this comm.

I consider all classified material to be equivalent.

This is not about satisfying myself that al-Awlaki was guilty. It's about the principle that the evidence should be made public before the government takes a life.

I don't recall seeing where enemy combatants/foreign soldiers engaged in acts of war against the USA are guaranteed a public trial or court-martial with all trial records and evidence open to the public. But hey. You can certainly ask.

You're reasoning in very small circles.

The point is to demonstrate that he was an enemy combatant.

You have failed to explain the need of any government to prove that to your satisfaction.

It shouldn't need to be explained. It's the entire reason we have such a concept as "due process" in the first place.

And it's been explained to you previously how the law does not expect due process to apply to people we're at war with. Don't worry; if the peace talks we're holding with Al Qaeda leaders end up with a treaty, you'll find all those prisoners of war in Gitmo released.

It hasn't been established that he was at war with us.

Al Qaeda is at war with us, or so they have declared.
All members of Al Qaeda are thus considered to be "at war".
Just like in your Marines, it's not just the grunts who are soldiers, but also the cooks and other support personnel.

It has not been established that al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda, or in any way supported it. All we have is Obama's word on that.

Not to mention his 16-year-old son, also a US citizen, whom we went back and killed a couple weeks later.

Right, we haven't been looking at al-Awlaki and his connections since the mid-90s. Sure. It was just a whim of Obama's.

And once again, you justify your argument with blind faith in what the government says it knows.

Dude, you're a known paranoiac. The British were the first ones to monitor him back in the 1990s. He's been on the wanted list since 9/11. The problem is that you're so blinded by your own belief system that you refuse to accept objective data that contradicts it.

Tell you what; I'll follow your line of reasoning if you can provide objective, verified evidence and data that the US government (and other governments) were wrong on al-Awalaki. Gather a preponderance of evidence that outweighs what we know from the past 17 years or so, and I'll sign on board.

No, and stop deflecting. The standard for killing people is not a preponderance of evidence. It's an absence of reasonable doubt. And you cannot claim an absence of reasonable doubt when there is zero evidence of a person's guilt. "What we know from the past 17 years or so" amounts to absolutely nothing as long as it remains classified.

Query: why do you keep insisting on civilian legal procedures to apply against enemy soldiers engaged in battle? Is this why you were bounced from the Marines, you demanded that before you charge that hill you see the evidence and have a court-martial? I mean, shit, we didn't even do what you suggest with Americans caught fighting with SS units in Europe.

"What we know from the past 17 years or so" amounts to absolutely nothing as long as it remains classified.

Y'know, the funny thing about that is that if you brought it to a court, the court would admit the classified evidence, seal it from public disclosure, and make its decision based off it, with no member of the public ever hearing or seeing it.

Short version: I do not believe your premise that classified information has to be made public for you to pass judgment on whether the government acted correctly or not in a war activity against an enemy soldier verified as such by the government in question.

Because it hasn't been established that al-Awlaki was an enemy soldier, or anything like it.

So you don't have any problem at all with a government acting as judge, jury, and executioner with absolutely no public oversight? Public oversight is precisely what gives governments that kind of authority.

Because it hasn't been established that al-Awlaki was an enemy soldier, or anything like it.

According to you. You keep forgetting that part.

So you don't have any problem at all with a government acting as judge, jury, and executioner with absolutely no public oversight?

In matters of war and national security? Nope. In fact, I wish we had the Official Secrets Act that they use in Britain and that the press was subject to D-notices.

Public oversight is precisely what gives governments that kind of authority.

No, monopoly of force does that.

(no subject)

madscience.livejournal.com - 2012-03-26 05:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

farchivist.livejournal.com - 2012-03-26 05:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

madscience.livejournal.com - 2012-03-26 15:16 (UTC) - Expand

And another thing... not taking the government at its word doesn't make me a "known paranoiac". It means I'm observant of history and current events. I know the lies our government told to justify its treatment of Native Americans, blacks, and Asians, and to justify our many wars. I know the lies the Germans told to justify their treatment of Jews. I know the lies the Israelis tell to justify their treatment of Palestinians. I could go on and on. The point is, governments lie routinely. They lie more often than they tell the truth.

In short... if you believe that the public should just accept the government's word for why it killed someone, you have to be either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

Edited 2012-03-25 19:55 (UTC)

I don't recall it written anywhere, even in the Constitution, that your government is required to tell you the "truth" (if such an amorphous thing actually exists) or seek your approval for what they do, so long as it has been deemed within the bounds of the law. You seem to have a lot of opinions about what government should be like. You're welcome to them.

There you go again, basing your concept of reality on what's "written". That's a very sick world view.

I base my concept of objective reality on physical measured data.
Everything that is subjective, like what you think a government should be like, is just shit you make up.
Now if you can tell me that a government is supposed to have an average of 75 Truthrons and that the USA has only 32 and you can show me how you measured that, we'll talk.