Exclusive!!!!

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

This is an exclusive. A look at George Zimmerman's journal...

Comments

[madscience.livejournal.com]

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

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

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.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

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.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Not just according to me. According to everyone wise enough not to automatically accept the completely unsubstantiated claims of their governments.

Do you believe that governments derive their just powers from something other than the consent of the governed?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Do you believe that governments derive their just powers from something other than the consent of the governed?

1) "Just" is in the eye of the beholder.
2) Their powers are only "just" if they are "just" in your opinion.
3) The power of government does not require consent of the governed; see history for details. What it does require, historically, is monopoly of force. I'll be happy to point you to the requisite political science texts dealing with the subject.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

3) That's a descriptive statement. I'm asking you for a prescriptive one, i.e., your opinion about how a government is supposed to work.

Or do you actually equate how things historically have been with how they ought to be?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

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.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

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

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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.