Political Randomness

[noxiousdog]

The Border patrol is not the military,

What difference does that make? They are both federal agencies and would be acting under the direct order of the president.

you (in theory), are neither aiding, nor abetting or acting in direct collusion with a stated and "sworn" enemy.

But how do you know? There's no oversight. Only the president's circle is making that decision. There's no review process.

First, can a US citizen forfeit their legal rights by joining an opposing force. Say, a defector becomes a general in an opposing army. Does the sniper team need Judicial approval?

Wouldn't you like that settled BEFORE the president starts continues killing citizens?

Second, is the us of more precise targeting of an opposing force change the legal application war time exercises.

heh. war time.

[Isgrimnur]

The Senate now has a record number of black senators: 2

The usually pin-drop-quiet Senate gallery erupted in applause Thursday after William “Mo” Cowan was sworn in as the newest senator from Massachusetts.
...
Cowan was quickly congratulated by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chamber’s only other African American senator, who was also appointed by his state’s governor after a vacancy. The two men shared a handshake, and a hug, in a rare moment in the chamber where diversity has trailed that of the nation.

Never before has the Senate had two blacks serving at the same time, according to the Senate Historical Office.

[Rip]

I don't have any problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with no due process. The records are sealed. No judge has to ok the strike. There's zero oversight.

Do judges approve of every combat action taken in Afghanistan or Iran before it?

I'll play your game. What would be the problem with the border patrol shooting me if I was coming back from Mexico?

The Border patrol is not the military, you (in theory), are neither aiding, nor abetting or acting in direct collusion with a stated and "sworn" enemy.

I think there are two questions here.

First, can a US citizen forfeit their legal rights by joining an opposing force. Say, a defector becomes a general in an opposing army. Does the sniper team need Judicial approval?

Second, is the us of more precise targeting of an opposing force change the legal application war time exercises.

Who says he isn't? There is no defined level of proof required. I'm going to call them and say he is sneaking down there to get a hold of some of those assualt weapons we sold the cartels so he can come back and use them for a "terrorist attack". Now let's get that damn missle warmed up.


Do snaiper teams have list of names of who they can shoot? What if the sniper team sees the guy hoding a lap full of children? Does he fire? Can a predator do this?

Well it should at least put Israel in a good postion to defend all the execution via missle strike they will be doing in the opening of a conflict. Hell the US did it why shouldn't they. SO wjat they were surrounded by civilians. So were the ones the US blew up.

We are sometimes careless in thinking through what doors we open for other by our actions.

[LawBeefaroni]

Do snaiper teams have list of names of who they can shoot? What if the sniper team sees the guy hoding a lap full of children? Does he fire? Can a predator do this?

Sometimes.

Bryant was one of them, and he remembers one incident very clearly when a Predator drone was circling in a figure-eight pattern in the sky above Afghanistan, more than 10,000 kilometers (6,250 miles) away. There was a flat-roofed house made of mud, with a shed used to hold goats in the crosshairs, as Bryant recalls. When he received the order to fire, he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact.

"These moments are like in slow motion," he says today. Images taken with an infrared camera attached to the drone appeared on his monitor, transmitted by satellite, with a two-to-five-second time delay.

With seven seconds left to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds. Bryant felt as if he had to count each individual pixel on the monitor. Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says.

Second zero was the moment in which Bryant's digital world collided with the real one in a village between Baghlan and Mazar-e-Sharif.

Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

[Rip]

You can bet your ass when I snipe shoots something he knows whether is was a kid, a dog, or their target.

[Combustible Lemur]

You can bet your ass when I snipe shoots something he knows whether is was a kid, a dog, or their target.

Does an F18 pilot?

I think I am honing in on the actual grievance. Killing civilians in War, bad but intrinsic. Individual targeting in "war" time, okay under specific and reviewable circumstances, not okay with collateral damage. Killing with drones, only okay when in conjunction with ground troops. Knowingly killing American citizens okay if associated with a broader strategic operation, but not okay if said citizen is only acting in conjunction but not in immediate combat presence of other enemy "combatants"

Modern reduction of bureaucratic military or judicial oversite due to more precision resources. I.E. Drones are allowing an increasingly small group of people to execute more and more specific death into the field. Which, when an American citizen may or may not be in cahoots and is in the field of engagement (read modern reality means anywhere anytime) that operational decision needs to be shared in a larger over site network.

So in general, the members here do see a fundamental need to shift how the execution of military action, at least in the insurgency and terror wars, is conducted.

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
Again, active combat vs. preventative. But, is it the drones or the methodology?

[Combustible Lemur]

You can bet your ass when I snipe shoots something he knows whether is was a kid, a dog, or their target.

Also, is the isnipe going to be verizon compatible?

[Rip]

You can bet your ass when I snipe shoots something he knows whether is was a kid, a dog, or their target.

Also, is the isnipe going to be verizon compatible?

Not sure just downloaded the app, but yes I am on Verizon. Something seems to be interferring with the controls on the predator app though.

[Kraken]

The Senate now has a record number of black senators: 2

Both of them are temporary appointees, so there's an "affirmative action" aspect that's discomforting. Cowan got the job on the condition that he not run for reelection...I wonder if the other fellow also has an expiration date.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Second, is the us of more precise targeting of an opposing force change the legal application war time exercises.

There's ample evidence that drones are nowhere near as precise as you seem to imply, as Lawbeef's above article, and the NYT article I posted on the previous page of the thread, both illustrate. If you remain unconvinced, have a butcher's at this study from researchers at NYU and Stanford.

Courtesy of Reason.com:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false.

Those are the understated opening words of a disturbing, though unsurprising, nine-month study of the Obama administration’s official, yet unacknowledged, remote-controlled bombing campaign in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan, near Afghanistan. The report, “Living Under Drones,” is a joint effort by the New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic and Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic.

…

Regarding Pakistani civilians, the report states,

While civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the U.S. government, there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.… It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of U.S. efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562–3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474–881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228–1,362 individuals.

The report goes on,

U.S. drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.

It’s even worse than it sounds:

The U.S. practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups.

[GreenGoo]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

Somebody record this for posterity.

As for my personal position, I'm with ND.

[Combustible Lemur]

Interesting article that discusses the drone topic.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

I'd hardly describe Reason, or researchers at NYU and Stanford as "the right", but perhaps anyone right of Trotsky = "the right" to the likes of GreenGoo.

[GreenGoo]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

I'd hardly describe Reason, or researchers at NYU and Stanford as "the right", but perhaps anyone right of Trotsky = "the right" to the likes of GreenGoo.

I'm talking about you, quoting the article. Or is it that you oppose the article's findings?

[Anonymous Bosch]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

I'd hardly describe Reason, or researchers at NYU and Stanford as "the right", but perhaps anyone right of Trotsky = "the right" to the likes of GreenGoo.

I'm talking about you, quoting the article. Or is it that you oppose the article's findings?

And how, pray tell, do I speak for "the right?"?

[GreenGoo]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

I'd hardly describe Reason, or researchers at NYU and Stanford as "the right", but perhaps anyone right of Trotsky = "the right" to the likes of GreenGoo.

I'm talking about you, quoting the article. Or is it that you oppose the article's findings?

And how, pray tell, do I speak for "the right?"?

No need to bring god into everything. Rightie.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It's heartwarming to hear the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians.

I'd hardly describe Reason, or researchers at NYU and Stanford as "the right", but perhaps anyone right of Trotsky = "the right" to the likes of GreenGoo.

I'm talking about you, quoting the article. Or is it that you oppose the article's findings?

And how, pray tell, do I speak for "the right?"?

No need to bring god into everything. Rightie.

…which still does not explain how my post citing a study from researchers at NYU and Stanford and a piece from Reason.com in any way equates to "the right expressing concern about Pakistani civilians".

[GreenGoo]

K. Sorry if I offended your rightwing sensibilities by assuming you had some concern for pakistani civilians.

[Anonymous Bosch]

K. Sorry if I offended your rightwing sensibilities by assuming you had some concern for pakistani civilians.

GreenGoo, I know you think you're being funny, but you're just throwing out a sloppy ad hom bullshit accusation, and repeating it will not make it any less fallacious. I say sloppy, because you've offered nothing to back up your "right wing" accusations, and even if I were the right-wingiest right-winger from a parallel right-wing universe, it would not alter the validity of what I originally posted in any way at all.

[GreenGoo]

I guess I'd have to say who gives a fuck to that.

[LordMortis]

So much for hard core libertarianism:

http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-call ... ronpaulcom" target="_blank

[El Guapo]

American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

WASHINGTON—Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process. “On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil. “I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.” While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/americ ... -go,31207/" target="_blank

[AWS260]

If anyone's in the mood to continue the "bullying" discussion started in the Boy Scouts thread, feel free to go here:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/13/bully ... -nor-less/

[Kurth]

If anyone's in the mood to continue the "bullying" discussion started in the Boy Scouts thread, feel free to go here:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/13/bully ... -nor-less/

What a great post. Spot on.

[Exodor]

I think I'm with most Obama voters in that I'm pretty disgusted with his policy regarding drone strikes on American citizens.

Now I feel even worse - Cheney has come out in support of the program.

“I think it’s a good program and I don’t disagree with the basic policy that the Obama administration is pursuing now in that regards,"

I feel ill.

[Rip]

[Kraken]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

[Rip]

Nor do I. For me it is the reaction to it that is priceless.

[Combustible Lemur]

What's weird about the reaction is that this says far more about his production crew than him. That there wasn't a glass of water just out of frame within his reach is stupid and careless. When the team saw his lick fest, there should have been an intern on his back with a glass held up so that Rubio wouldn't even need to move. Didn't someone put him in front of all those lights and cameras for a dry run? I suppose that performance was pretty dry...

[Anonymous Bosch]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

Stagecraft trumps all else in the world of cable TV news channels with airtimes that must be filled with 24 hours of repetitious banality.

[Kraken]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

Stagecraft trumps all else in the world of cable TV news channels with airtimes that must be filled with 24 hours of repetitious banality.

The scandal, as explained by my newspaper, is twofold: First, that bottled water is environmentally incorrect, and second, that he chose Poland Spring, which is owned by the megacorp Nestle. Basically, he drank conservative Republican water.

[noxiousdog]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

Stagecraft trumps all else in the world of cable TV news channels with airtimes that must be filled with 24 hours of repetitious banality.

The scandal, as explained by my newspaper, is twofold: First, that bottled water is environmentally incorrect, and second, that he chose Poland Spring, which is owned by the megacorp Nestle. Basically, he drank conservative Republican water.

Oh, good Lord.

I thought it was just the silliness of the situation. Major speech and you're headed for a water bottle.

[El Guapo]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

Stagecraft trumps all else in the world of cable TV news channels with airtimes that must be filled with 24 hours of repetitious banality.

The scandal, as explained by my newspaper, is twofold: First, that bottled water is environmentally incorrect, and second, that he chose Poland Spring, which is owned by the megacorp Nestle. Basically, he drank conservative Republican water.

Really? I hadn't heard anyone say that before.

It's just that he looks a bit awkward reaching down in the middle of his prime time speech to the country while trying to maintain eye contact with the camera. His handlers definitely screwed that up (although putting "career ender?" as the caption below is laughably hyperbolic).

[Isgrimnur]

Nestlé is Swiss. They're neutral.

[LordMortis]

Nestlé is Swiss. They're neutral.

Neutral my ass.

http://blog.mlive.com/muskegon_chronicl ... ottle.html" target="_blank

I couldn't find the more more recent articles about the people down river and how low and polluted their water tables are becoming over Nestle's bottling in our state. There's been a lot of shit storminess in the last two decades over Nestle water bottling in Michigan. Given the national Republican stance of "environmental protection", I'd say Nestle as a corporation, would fall squarely on the republican side of things. Of course republicans in this state are more traditionally republican and they're actually much stronger conservationists than are the democrats... Or perhaps they were more conservationist until we were polluted by national political myopia and got the current governor.

[Isgrimnur]

T'was a joke based on the Swiss propensity for not becoming involved in geoconflict rather than a serious statement about their actions.

[Kraken]

I saw that video clip but I don't understand why it became a sudden internet sensation. The guy took an awkward sip of water...so what? Is it just that he looked unpolished? I don't get the funny or the embarrassment or whatever I'm supposed to see.

Stagecraft trumps all else in the world of cable TV news channels with airtimes that must be filled with 24 hours of repetitious banality.

The scandal, as explained by my newspaper, is twofold: First, that bottled water is environmentally incorrect, and second, that he chose Poland Spring, which is owned by the megacorp Nestle. Basically, he drank conservative Republican water.

Really? I hadn't heard anyone say that before.

It's just that he looks a bit awkward reaching down in the middle of his prime time speech to the country while trying to maintain eye contact with the camera. His handlers definitely screwed that up (although putting "career ender?" as the caption below is laughably hyperbolic).

The Globe's editorial writer was just being cute by finding meaning where there is none. And, of course, the Globe never passes up an opportunity to tweak a Republican.

[Zarathud]

There's been a lot of shit storminess in the last two decades over Nestle water bottling in Michigan.

So that's not really chocolate milk they're selling anymore, just Michigan water?

[Smoove_B]

We're one step closer to making it a felony for a woman to expose her nipple in North Carolina.

The state House Judiciary Committee C approved House Bill 34, which makes it a Class H felony to purposefully expose "private parts" for the "purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire."

[Isgrimnur]

Seems perfectly consistent with:

elder abuse
arson
bomb hoaxes
attempted overthrow of the government.