Octopus Overlords

I'm tired of not having a general thread where I can dump topics that might be short-form or drive-by items that I don't feel would support their own thread, so I'm creating one.

First up: First Amendment doesn't apply to fraud (still):

Defendant Raphael Golb, who was sentenced to six months, is the son of historian Norman Golb. The younger Golb, unhappy with scholastic attacks on his father’s research, faked e-mails of his father’s vocal rivals, sent them to New York University and University of California, Los Angeles administrators, faculty and even some students. One of those impersonating e-mails portrayed a rival scholar as admitting “plagiarism” in his own work.

But the appeals court found Tuesday that the younger Golb’s First Amendment rights were not breached.
...
The court added: “The statutes criminalized the act of impersonation and its unlawful intent, not the content of speech falsely imputed to the victims.”
...
Ron Kuby, the defendant’s attorney, said he would appeal the decision to New York’s top court. He said he client was prosecuted under New York fraud statutes that were written before the internet was born.

“They are saying anybody who writes under an assumed name on the internet can be prosecuted, if they decide to prosecute,” Kuby said in a telephone interview. “That’s an abomination of the First Amendment.”

So you're arguing about the age of the statutes, when your defense hinges on an attempt to use an even older document? Genius.

Wouldn't impersonating require you to pretend to be someone else who already exists?

I'm not impersonating GreenGoo. I am GreenGoo. Too.

Seems like a reasonable distinction, but this is way out of my territory.

From what I gather, defense is trying to state that falsifying e-mails under a known person's name is equivalent to writing under a pseudonym. It appears to me to be a completely specious argument, but IANAFL.

I think it would be like me falsifying a PM from GreenGoo, then saying that I was using a pseudonym when you complained that I was committing fraud at your expense.

Absolutely, that's what I took away from your quoted blurb too.

I no get:

How is this an internet issue at all? Do we not already have laws for when I attempt to defame someone by impersonating them in written communication?

Isgrimnur wrote:From what I gather, defense is trying to state that falsifying e-mails under a known person's name is equivalent to writing under a pseudonym. It appears to me to be a completely specious argument, but IANAFL.

I think it would be like me falsifying a PM from GreenGoo, then saying that I was using a pseudonym when you complained that I was committing fraud at your expense.

Seems pretty clear to me.

"The statutes criminalized the act of impersonation and its unlawful intent, not the content of speech falsely imputed to the victims.”

He's free to say whatever he wants but he's not free to impersonate someone to commit unlawful acts.

Holman wrote:I no get:

How is this an internet issue at all? Do we not already have laws for when I attempt to defame someone by impersonating them in written communication?

I think that would be forgery (or some fancy legal term maybe). It's not speech. At least assuming we're talking about letters, which are similar to emails. And mail fraud if you mailed the letters, I suppose.

If you tried to do it in a newspaper or something, however, I'm sure there are well established laws.

I can't wait till we get another Republican president. Now that they can kill with impunity forget about torture. Dead men don't need no lawyers. They will be dropping terrorist leaders like they were popcorn chicken.

Rip wrote:They will be dropping terrorist leaders like they were popcorn chicken.

I'm having problems with this metaphor.

I can't tell if I'm supposed to envision them downing bite-sized terrorist leaders or hellfiring batches of popcorn chicken.

Rip wrote:I can't wait till we get another Republican president. Now that they can kill with impunity forget about torture. Dead men don't need no lawyers. They will be dropping terrorist leaders like they were popcorn chicken.

Heh. Well, it's not like your justice system doesn't already do that. It leaps from incarceration directly to death, skipping the torture part.

I'm not defending the memo, but I'm not sure what should or would happen in a pitched battle between the US army and another fighting force that contains american nationals on foreign soil. What's the army supposed to do in that case?

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:I can't wait till we get another Republican president. Now that they can kill with impunity forget about torture. Dead men don't need no lawyers. They will be dropping terrorist leaders like they were popcorn chicken.

Heh. Well, it's not like your justice system doesn't already do that. It leaps from incarceration directly to death, skipping the torture part.

I'm not defending the memo, but I'm not sure what should or would happen in a pitched battle between the US army and another fighting force that contains american nationals on foreign soil. What's the army supposed to do in that case?

That's definitely not the same situation. The army clearly has a legal basis for killing battlefield combatants - it killed a whole lot of Americans on U.S. soil during the Civil War, for one. The troubling issue is that it's killing U.S. citizens who aren't battlefield combatants (though of course there's debate over whether they are some form of 'combatant' or not).

As a practical matter I don't have a major issue with the assassination of the American Al Qaeda leader in Yemen (assuming that the reported facts of the matter are accurate). It seems reasonable to conclude that he posed a threat to the U.S., that law enforcement means (i.e. extradition / working with Yemeni police) were highly unlikely to be successful given the status of the Yemeni government, and that a military invasion to apprehend him was wholly impractical; as such, it was either a targeted strike or letting him go.

That said, the limits of this are very troubling. Could the government legally shoot a U.S. citizen on the streets of Paris if they believed them to be a member of Al Qaeda? What if there's a 20% chance of apprehending him working with police, versus a 60% chance of success via shooting him on the streets?

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:I can't wait till we get another Republican president. Now that they can kill with impunity forget about torture. Dead men don't need no lawyers. They will be dropping terrorist leaders like they were popcorn chicken.

Heh. Well, it's not like your justice system doesn't already do that. It leaps from incarceration directly to death, skipping the torture part.

I'm not defending the memo, but I'm not sure what should or would happen in a pitched battle between the US army and another fighting force that contains american nationals on foreign soil. What's the army supposed to do in that case?

There is a big difference between engaging a force including them in battle and specifically targetting them with missles aimed at killing them not any strategic objective. You can kill them just don't capture and interrogate them.

Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

It's not that blurry. When targets are named people it becomes assassination. When you're assassinating citizens, you're supposed to abide by due process. It's disturbing when "due process" means "trust us."

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

Not much, when we start running bombing missions in countries we aren't at war with to kill specific persons let me know.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

Not much, when we start running bombing missions in countries we aren't at war with to kill specific persons let me know.

1986 called...

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

You invaded a country to kill Mr. So-and-So. He just happened to not be American.

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

You invaded a country to kill Mr. So-and-So. He just happened to not be American.

Yes. That makes a difference.

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

You invaded a country to kill Mr. So-and-So. He just happened to not be American.

Yes. That makes a difference.

Does it makes a difference if the American takes up arms next to Mr. so and so? Assassination makes me uncomfortable as well. Along with the militarization of our domestic police force. But I find it hard to find more precise killings of fewer people with less resources not an improvement over more conventional ground operations. Assuming we are at "war" with terror.

And I understand the practical difference between an all out war and targeted assasination. But, if we are going to consider Terror attacks an act of war by the terror entities (afghanistan) and we don't want to invade every country that harbors said terrorists (Yemen), is the suggestion that we make all terror a criminal jurisdiction rather than military? If so, does our military have the legal status to act as an arm of domestic law enforcement.

I feel like there is a lot of hand wringing of shit or get off the pot. The slippery slope is ugly and worrisome, but the ambiguity and lack of will to either act all out or decouple the military entirely from individual terror execution seems to be pissing everybody off.

I blame homeland security.

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

You invaded a country to kill Mr. So-and-So. He just happened to not be American.

Yes. That makes a difference.

Ah. But that's not the difference they are referring to. They are talking about battlefield versus daylight assassination on the streets of Paris.

My point is more of a question. Is it ok to start a war to go after one person, and if it is, why not just drop a drone on his head and keep it short and cheap? Further and more inline with the topic and your concerns, is it ok to start a war to go after an American?

GreenGoo wrote:why not just drop a drone on his head and keep it short and cheap?

Are drone strikes cheap? I'd think that the price of the missile and the operating costs of the aircraft make that a pretty pricey hit. Cheaper than invading a country, sure, but sometimes I wonder if taking out these insurgents is worth the cost.

Guess I should just trust my government's judgment on that, huh?

Unit cost of a Hellfire missile is $68,000. The Predators that deliver them are $4 million a piece. And, of course, we get to reuse them multiple times.

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:why not just drop a drone on his head and keep it short and cheap?

Are drone strikes cheap? I'd think that the price of the missile and the operating costs of the aircraft make that a pretty pricey hit. Cheaper than invading a country, sure, but sometimes I wonder if taking out these insurgents is worth the cost.

Guess I should just trust my government's judgment on that, huh?

Hell, no you shouldn't trust your government. That doesn't necessarily mean they came to the wrong conclusion on this particular topic.

Isgrimnur wrote:Unit cost of a Hellfire missile is $68,000. The Predators that deliver them are $4 million a piece. And, of course, we get to reuse them multiple times.

Oh, well that's about an order of magnitude less than I thought those missiles cost. No worries then.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Again, not supporting the memo, but what is the difference between flying a manned aircraft and bombing a suspected encampment and sending a drone into a stronghold/safe house/somethingsomething of a suspected military/terrorist target?

I don't have any answers, and I would normally prefer due process at all times, but the line between military action and political assassination is blurring and I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The distinction is not manned aircrafnt vs. drone, the distinction is between battlefield vs. non-battlefield. Also between killing "enemy forces" vs. killing "Mr. So-and-So."

You invaded a country to kill Mr. So-and-So. He just happened to not be American.

Yes. That makes a difference.

Does it makes a difference if the American takes up arms next to Mr. so and so? Assassination makes me uncomfortable as well. Along with the militarization of our domestic police force. But I find it hard to find more precise killings of fewer people with less resources not an improvement over more conventional ground operations. Assuming we are at "war" with terror.

And I understand the practical difference between an all out war and targeted assasination. But, if we are going to consider Terror attacks an act of war by the terror entities (afghanistan) and we don't want to invade every country that harbors said terrorists (Yemen), is the suggestion that we make all terror a criminal jurisdiction rather than military? If so, does our military have the legal status to act as an arm of domestic law enforcement.

I feel like there is a lot of hand wringing of shit or get off the pot. The slippery slope is ugly and worrisome, but the ambiguity and lack of will to either act all out or decouple the military entirely from individual terror execution seems to be pissing everybody off.

I blame homeland security.

SO when Iran starts blowing up Jewish "terrorists" as declared by the UN around the US what is the difference. Other than that is them this is us?

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:why not just drop a drone on his head and keep it short and cheap?

Are drone strikes cheap? I'd think that the price of the missile and the operating costs of the aircraft make that a pretty pricey hit. Cheaper than invading a country, sure, but sometimes I wonder if taking out these insurgents is worth the cost.

Guess I should just trust my government's judgment on that, huh?

Or cheaper than a rendition extraction. If the only difference is killing -vs- interrogating them wouldn't it just be cheaper to chuck them out of the plane than launcing drone strikes? I think in realitiy the difference is it takes a lot of politicking to get a rendition on someone and hold them fo rinterrogation without a lot a law issues. Whereas you can just chuck an explosive at them without due process, actually entering a foriegn country and by the time anyone knows about it the event is already over so like the killing of an ambassador or selling guns to mexican drug cartels you can just say. "What does it matter now?"

Rip wrote:
SO when Iran starts blowing up Jewish "terrorists" as declared by the UN around the US what is the difference. Other than that is them this is us?

I think that's a fair question. I would argue that reality about the nature of the two countries interactions with the rest of the world would pan out which country was the more "justified?" Of the two. But look at that question another way. Had Iran successfully launched stuxnet against us, people would have died somewhere because of it. But we probably wouldn't have invaded them.

I think your second statement is closer to the reality in that the public hasn't become accustomed to robotic warfare yet. Robots and the terror war have created this strange situation where what would have previously just been clandestine operations are now part of semi open warfare. Its a weird world where in a supposed war, an active and participating traitor among the enemy has defense because we don't have boots on the ground in front of him.

Han shot first.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:why not just drop a drone on his head and keep it short and cheap?

Are drone strikes cheap? I'd think that the price of the missile and the operating costs of the aircraft make that a pretty pricey hit. Cheaper than invading a country, sure, but sometimes I wonder if taking out these insurgents is worth the cost.

Guess I should just trust my government's judgment on that, huh?

Well in our 2 option discussion, yeah, they are hella cheap.

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.

What's the proper term for the US government using fear of firey death without due process to intimidate American Citizens in order to fight, ironically, terrorism?

Nationally beneficial veil of trepidity?


Freedom Fear?

noxiousdog wrote: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?

LawBeefaroni wrote:What's the proper term for the US government using fear of firey death without due process to intimidate American Citizens in order to fight, ironically, terrorism?

Nationally beneficial veil of trepidity?


Freedom Fear?

Isn't the penalty for treason death?

200+ years later Benedict Arnold is still synonymous with traitor.

I suppose you could say it's fear of hellfire missiles keeping people form joining terrorists. I like to think it's a desire not to join a terrorist organization.

Although fear of a swat team kicking in my front door, shooting my dogs, and assaulting my family does weigh in on not buying pot.


*caveat- I think there must be oversite, I don't know that it should be domestic judiciary. Unless we open up all military actions to the domestic judicial system.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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?

No, and there are no instances that I'm aware of where American citizens were targeted for killing in a "combat action" in Afghanistan or Iran. There may have been American citizens killed but not as the mission objective.

Can you not see the difference between "the mission is to patrol this area and clear any insurgents" or "the mission is to destroy this Al Queda stronghold" and "the mission is to kill this man, an American citizen"?

Combustible Lemur wrote:
Isn't the penalty for treason death?

200+ years later Benedict Arnold is still synonymous with traitor.

I suppose you could say it's fear of hellfire missiles keeping people form joining terrorists. I like to think it's a desire not to join a terrorist organization.

Although fear of a swat team kicking in my front door, shooting my dogs, and assaulting my family does weigh in on not buying pot.

The penalty for being tried and convicted of treason can be death, yes. There is no codified penalty for suspicison of treason.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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?

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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?

Nothing as long as they don't hit any Mexicans sneaking across in the crossfire. Cause they deserve due process and you don't....apparently.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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?

Therein lies the rub. Situations like the one described below by the NYT, do not seem comparable to every combat action taken in Iraq or Afghanistan:

NYT wrote:SANA, Yemen — Late last August, a 40-year-old cleric named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber stood up to deliver a speech denouncing Al Qaeda in a village mosque in far eastern Yemen.

It was a brave gesture by a father of seven who commanded great respect in the community, and it did not go unnoticed. Two days later, three members of Al Qaeda came to the mosque in the tiny village of Khashamir after 9 p.m., saying they merely wanted to talk. Mr. Jaber agreed to meet them, bringing his cousin Waleed Abdullah, a police officer, for protection.

As the five men stood arguing by a cluster of palm trees, a volley of remotely operated American missiles shot down from the night sky and incinerated them all, along with a camel that was tied up nearby.

The killing of Mr. Jaber, just the kind of leader most crucial to American efforts to eradicate Al Qaeda, was a reminder of the inherent hazards of the quasi-secret campaign of targeted killings that the United States is waging against suspected militants not just in Yemen but also in Pakistan and Somalia. Individual strikes by the Predator and Reaper drones are almost never discussed publicly by Obama administration officials.

But, as long as we remain in a perpetual state of war, the government will continue to brush off such antiquated notions as the need to obtain any legal authorization from either the judicial or legislative branches of the federal government in assessing who it wants to bomb.

Rip wrote: Nothing as long as they don't hit any Mexicans sneaking across in the crossfire. Cause they deserve due process and you don't....apparently.

Thus the big push for citizenship for illegals. Instant viable targets.

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: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.

I'm fine with the answer to both questions being yes. The problem is that the memo shows that no proof is needed for this. The suspicion, by apparently anyone in the upper levels of government, of involvement is all that is needed and that doesn't hold up under any rules, rules of war or domestic judicial.