User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 29

  1. #11
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    But this time with strange calm from liberals.
    Obama must be magical? Perhaps that well-considered Nobel peace prize calmed them down a bit.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #12
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Obama should be impeached for this.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #13
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Just like DB said, the continuation of the horrendous practices carried out by the Bush Administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by INA View Post
    But this time with strange calm from liberals.
    Obama must be magical? Perhaps that well-considered Nobel peace prize calmed them down a bit.
    I believe this paper said that Americans, who aren't in American soil, are liable to getting hurt outside of American soil. No due process is required and yada yada. I do have a professor that says that they are incorrect in their assumption.

    It brings a can of worms when the administration justifies doing such a thing.

  4. #14
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    So basically the US government can lethally target an American citizen when "(1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force," and (4) the American citizen is outside the United States in a foreign country?

    Are the "four fundamental principles of the laws of war... blah blah blah" referring to these?

    http://williamhgloverjd.wordpress.co...he-law-of-war/

    1. Principle of Military Necessity or Military Objective: This principle states that attacks may be made only against those targets which are valid military objectives. The definition of military objective is found in Article 52(2) of Protocol I: Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. ..

    2. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering or Humanity – “It is especially forbidden . . . to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” (HR, art. 23e.) This concept also extends to unnecessary destruction of property. Combatants may not use arms that are per se calculated to cause unnecessary suffering ...

    3. Principle of Proportionality - The anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. (FM 27-10, para. 41, change 1.)...

    4. Principle of Discrimination or Distinction. This principle requires that combatants be distinguished from non-combatants and that military objectives be distinguished from protected property or protected places. Parties to a conflict shall direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. (GP I, Art. 48) GP I prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.” Under Article 51, paragraph 4, these are attacks that: are “not directed against a specific military objective”...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So basically the US government can lethally target an American citizen when "(1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force," and (4) the American citizen is outside the United States in a foreign country?

    Are the "four fundamental principles of the laws of war... blah blah blah" referring to these?

    http://williamhgloverjd.wordpress.co...he-law-of-war/
    In this instance the administration's definition of "imminent" is whatever the hell they want it to be.

    I would imagine the conversation in the media regarding this subject would be slightly different with a Republican in the W.H.

  6. #16
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    It's taken long enough for this stuff to get some serious attention. The left was more or less not going to touch their guy and the right seemed to have trouble deciding whether or not this cowboy crap would counteract the Carter-style mantle they've been trying to saddle him with. Ended up letting him fly under the radar for quite some time. Or that's the impression I've been getting. I don't even want to think about how many non-American civilians we've blown up at this point. If we weren't the world's 800 lb gorilla we'd probably be getting more noise about war crimes.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  7. #17
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    In this instance the administration's definition of "imminent" is whatever the hell they want it to be.
    Well, yes -- the paper specifically says that these are just guiding principles, and there is not a quantified definition. This is typically for a "strategy" white paper.

    The principles do definitely lock down a scenario for when this behavior is permissible, so it comes down to whether it is unethical at any time for the state to (in effect) assassinate an American citizen who is fraternizing with a terrorist organization in their home country. It doesn't really apply (at this time) to people on US soil. [If I am reading this correctly... I haven't really gotten thorough feedback on whether I understood things accurately.] So let's at least agree on the area of effect here.

    And it also revolves around whether you trust the boneheads in charge to make a wise decision, make an uninformed decision, or else even perhaps exploit the system for their own personal interests. (ha)

    Bush is being brought up in this thread as well, with Obama being considered to be building on Bush's policies. Obviously 9/11 changed people's perceptions of "ethical" in ways we had not considered previously. It probably sounds trite to compare it to a TV show like "The Walking Dead" -- but the basic principles are the same: If the threat is palpable enough and people's survival is at risk, what level of evidence / scenario do you need to justify doing things that you would not typically indulge in, including ending another human being's life? What is a "high enough" threat? What does "imminent" mean, specifically?

    It's pretty obvious they don't want their hands tied if they think someone's going to blow up another 3000 US citizens, just because of how a word has been over-quantified -- not only would they fail to protect citizens, but then they would also be criticized by the same group of critics for "not acting swiftly enough." It's kind of a crap shoot in any direction you look, isn't it?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #18
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    It's disturbing and disappointing. We continue our aggressive foreign policy and maintan our 9/11 era paranoia guarding against imminent threats in every shadow. It will continue to drain our revenue, destabilizing our diplomatic position, and grant unreasonable powers to defense and intelligence agencies.

    Unfortunately, I can't address the problem by voting for a Republican, can I?

    There are two kinds of problems in America, those that only Democrats will fix and those that no politician will fix. This one is of the latter kind.

    So do you want brown lumps with grey sauce or grey lumps with brown sauce?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There are two kinds of problems in America, those that only Democrats will fix and those that no politician will fix. This one is of the latter kind.
    So the Republicans will fix nothing in your estimation?

    You're ridiculous.

  10. #20
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So the Republicans will fix nothing in your estimation?

    You're ridiculous.
    That's absolutely my estimation. I would love for the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs, and I'd like them to be replaced by something more meaningful than the Democrats.

    On the specific topic of this thread, I really don't know what reason you'd have to think the Republicans would be better. Some other topics are more complex.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zone
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 12:12 AM
  2. White spots on nails.
    By angell_m in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 09:10 AM
  3. English Paper on Myers Briggs
    By raz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 11:34 PM
  4. Paper on transphobia
    By prplchknz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-14-2008, 05:33 PM
  5. Paper on Globalization
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 10:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO