Thiago Cardozo's page

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And the Paypal 14 case seems to be coming to a close...

...? What does this have to do with the topic? Put it in government folly.

The topic: AP press scandal -- one in a long line of sketchy Obama moves against whistleblowers and leaks, perhaps best exmplified by the persecution of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- Paypal 14 on charges for doing internet-y stuff against Paypal in solidarity with Wikileaks.

I mean, jeez, it's not entirely off-topic. Did you know that that case was still in court? I didn't.

I think you got on the 4:15 to Conspiracy Land, but okay.

He mentioned three cases, all related in some way to the 'press freedom' theme (AP, WL, Paypal4). Where is the "conspiracy"?

More on Obama persecution of journalists, now DOJ going after Fox News Washington correspondent

BigNorseWolf wrote:

V= pi r^2 H

100= pi* r^2* H

31.83=r^2 h

Excel values of H, get r, calculate surface areas, look at lowest surface area and i get

h=6mm
R= 2.3mm

I could add decimals in for more precision, but i'd imagine there's an upper limit

I don't know how to set the problem up in calculus. Its been a while.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mentioned above.

me wrote:

If [the waitress] I has algebra skills, she can figure out that she makes [formula] dollars and can even set this up as a cell calculation in a good spreadsheet, so she need only type the numbers in and see which one gives her the most money. She's solving as many problems but they're easier to solve if you have the skills and more amenable to computational support.

Basically, you're solving this problem over and over again, until you get an answer you like to a degree of precision you're happy with.

If you know calculus, you can solve the general form of the problem once and get an exact answer. (As Syssyl pointed out, the height is twice the radius.) This also helps if the company wants to make not only 100ml containers, but also 50ml, 200ml, and 500ml, because the same setup and formula generalizes.

It's also important to point out that small imprecisions can lead to large amounts of wasted material in large scale processes. And that this is one of the simplest problems calculus can help you with.

I Kee hearing that with respect to math in general.

And yet, there are a number of people (who are not mathematicians or math teachers) who swear these topics are interesting and important.Usually, these people either managed to learn the topics by themselves or had the luck of having good teachers.

Being a good teacher is really hard, specially for such an abstract topic as mathematics. I think that better prepared teachers (with the correct career incentives) would be a huge step in the direction of changing this perception.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Man, that must have been a terrible Calculus class. It's starting to become clear to me that these views some people have on the subject is mostly due to awful Calculus teachers.

Two of them.

Can you give me a calculus I word problem?

Sure, from the top of my head:

A company is designing aluminum packages for one of its products. Each package should be able to contain 100mL of product and must have the shape of a cylinder. What should be the dimensions of the package in order to use the least amount possible of aluminum per unit?

Orfamay Quest wrote:

The main argument for calculus in general education is procedural thinking, i.e. how to figure out an effective step by step process for doing things

Its main argument bites because it does not in fact do this. It becomes a mindless exercise in translating one set of numbers by multiplying exponents by coefficients and dropping an exponent , or mindlessly plugging equations into that annoying to read f of the g of the f of the x and then trying to multiply them out without an error. There's no thinking going on there, its just a conscientiousness test.

Quote:

Calculus can provide that, and in most universities today so can statistics and in many cases a computer programming course. In some universities, even algebra will work. The important thing, though, is to demonstrate the ability to deal rationally and procedurally with hard data.

I have never seen data in a calculus class or a calculus textbook.

Man, that must have been a terrible Calculus class. It's starting to become clear to me that these views some people have on the subject are mostly due to awful Calculus teachers.

I could not, for the life of me, conduct my research without Calculus. As Kirth aptly pointed out, it is extremely useful in allowing one to predict the behavior of systems in regards to change. The impression most people get from it probably originates from the way it is taught.

Comrade Cardozo, if you're out there:

About a month late, but 2 of the 3 anarchists suffering from Living under Obama's Presidency have been released.

Free Maddy Pfeiffer!

These are great news. The unwholesome persecution of political activists has been pretty ruthless. Good that once in a while something like this happens.

Veterans returning medals at NATO summit

Obama working towards a surveillance society

Bradley Manning and the Ministry of Love.

Dear Costumer Service,

For some reason, I never received the books contained in the above order. It should contain the AP#62 and the Artifacts and Legends Pathfinder Campaign Setting Book. My AP#63 just arrived and I started to worry something might have gone wrong.

Is there anything that can be done to solve this?

Thanks!

LazarX wrote:

Unless you've got actual evidence that Obama, or Bush for that matter is putting people on a kill list solely for the crime of making comedically idiotic internet posts, that's a strawman question not worthy of a serious response. As far as I know, Anklebiter has not been engaged in activities that would qualify listing him as an enemy combatant.

You miss the point entirely. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE NEEDED. A signature strike targets people who look like they might be up to no good. Its basically the same as the NYPDs stop and frisk, except instead of stopping and frisking, they bomb and then bomb some more when medics show up.

Allegedly, of course, since the whole thing is done in secret and doesnt officially exist.

Yeah, it is confirmed. LazarX has no idea what Signature Strikes are.

It's not just that I don't think Obama will do it. It's that I don't really think the tools are being put in place the way some claim. Legally, military authority doesn't transfer over to civilian law that simply. And as far as PR goes, the use of...

Are you aware of the NDAA and the journalists suit against it? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm only asking if you read about it in some degree of detail? This has a bearing on this kind of stuff, though not any implication towards drone strikes, of course.

Also note that I point out stuff not only in the realm of legality but also on the realm of morality. Of course I'm risking a lot here in terms of argumentation, because you and I might not share the same values. But by what you have written so far, I'd guess many of these things worry you as well. The legality of them has nothing to do with that, in the end.

equality for all races, religions and gender orientations...except for Muslims and arabs

First, since all of this is not being done under criminal law all of the constitutional objections about due process and similar things are really not relevant. They are being done as military operations. That may raise different constitutional questions, but not the ones usually brought up.

Second, I agree with you. I think the entire War on Terror was a bad approach from the start.
I really only get into these drone arguments when someone blurs the line into "ohmigod Obama's going to send drones to kill you!!!" rhetoric. Then I try to bring out the difference and wind up seeming like I'm defending the policy far more than I want to.

Concerning the constitution: I understand what you're saying. But the problem I have with this is you cannot call something which is not a war a war just to be exempt of the difficulties associated with legal issues. Imagine if the same logic is applied to the "War on Drugs".

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't think Obama is going to do anything of the sort either. But don't you agree that by establishing secret criteria for strikes, using drones in domestic security, punishing people who try to keep the government's actions accountable, all the tools are being put into place for that? It doesn't matter that Obama is not going to do anything of the sort, personally. He's giving a big step in the direction of furnishing the tools for someone down the road doing just that. And it doesn't even need to get there. It is already pretty bad without the doomsday scenario.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Gee, its almost like there should be some sort of public trial laid out, maybe even with actual evidence, before the execution is carried out to clear up any of those things that make the question harder, huh?

And now we're back to the can't get a hold of him problem.

Obviously the best solution is for the local authorities to arrest him, the US to present sufficient evidence for extradition and to try him in the US. I'm not disputing that. I don't think Obama would either, judging from his actions.

The hard question is what to do when that isn't possible. Your answer appears to be: Nothing.

The thing is, the constitution does not say it is valid unless it becomes difficult to follow it, in which case you ignore it. It is valid. That's the end of it. That works the same with morality. Moral codes are not about expedience.

Sometimes people act and think as if they were confronting the hordes of Baator, with enemies which attack them out of pure malice. One way to make life safer for americans in the long run is to stop playing bully. On the other hand, terrifying entire populations with flying killer robots appears to be the recipe for an eternal conflict with shadowy enemies.

LazarX wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!

You don't judge modern conflicts in the measure of the old. There aren't any neat borders, and our enemies frequently take shelter amidst innocents. I will definitely prefer a selective strike over carpet bombing a town full of noncombatants to get at the people we need to get at.

The signature case of this whole thread is about the killing of a man who was an active traitor to this country, who was participating in activities dedicated to killing our soldiers and our civilians. What part of treason in a martial exercise do you not get in this case? The advocates of this shining example of innocent American citizenry have been raising up strawmen fears by trying to extend the application of this principle to a universal threat. It has not been a credible argument,nor even a rational one.

Do you know what a signature strike is?

Edit-as for the bit about Anwar al-Alaki, prove it. Our very own Comrade Anklebiter actively talks about killing US citizens via worker's revolutions. Should he be killed?

I'm starting to think that LazarX has no idea about what are signature strikes, since his mention of a specific named target directly contradicts the nature of signature strikes.

I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!
* I think. I, like you, dont really know what the criteria is.

You, and those who try to give those hurt medical aid, or go to your funeral. There is that as well.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Your argument stands only if one of the candidates nudges things towards a positive end even if slightly, while the other doesn't. In the case where both lead to a net negative for society, with the difference being in the relative declivity of the fall, you are wrong, unless your final goal is just to slow the descent for as long as you can.

Of course, it may not be clear that Obama fits in the second scenario. That is why we're discussing. Some of us feel that Obama does amount to a net loss for society, as does Romney. Of course, enshrining the two-party system once more does not help leaving this. If candidates start losing the run for 3rd parties repeatedly, they might learn that their platforms do not consist of temporary or non-important issues.

As I've explained, I do feel that Obama has moved us in a net positive direction - certainly from where we were four years ago - and will continue to do so in his second term. Furthermore, the argument still holds up even if both candidates are a net negative, as long as one of them is significantly less of a net negative than the other. Vote presently for the better of the two candidates, and, if you feel like both were terrible, fight for election reform in the intervening four years. That's the only way any change will happen, and it's one hell of an uphill fight.

I understand that you feel that in relation to Obama, Scott. What I'm trying to point out to you is that if, for some people, Obama is really terrible and represents only a slight difference from Romney in what matters to them, they might be willing to try what they can to get a long term gain. They might be willing, for instance, to accept a small increase of "worse" in the next years in order to try once again to educate the democratic party about what is important to them, while at the same time working for election reform (something which is also blocked by the core of the democratic party, by the way).

Of course you might vehemently disagree that Romney and Obama are so near one another, and we might be wrong, after all. That is why this discussion is important. But you have to understand that, for people who don't see the gains of re-electing Obama to be as great as they seem to you, voting third party is a legitimate choice. This means, the focus should be on convincing people Obama is not so bad as they think instead of trying to point out that "your strategy sucks".

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

meatrace wrote:

If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.

There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.

The point of war is that you kill people. Especially when those people are looking to kill you or your people. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda or the Taliban deserve some sort of pass on their activities?

First of all this "War on Terror" stuff is absurd. You make war against nations and you prosecute individuals and gangs. But let's forget that for a while and go with the idea that you're at "war" against terror, same as "war" on drugs. I'll concede you even that, for the absurdity of these "signature strikes" does not depend on this discussion.

No, that is not what I think. What I think is that if your criteria for killing people is secret, you can kill whoever you like without need for consequences or review. At this point you basically have to blindly trust the guy who is wielding that power. And EVEN if you do, which I guess is a stupid stance to take, someone else will get that same power eventually. It's the secrecy and the falseness in play here. Have you actually seen how the WH is counting "militants" killed as in opposition to civilians? And you agree with that crap?

And what I don't want is that at some point in the future, other countries decide they can play the same game and start sending drones to kill "terrorists" in the middle of civilian populations.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

meatrace wrote:

If it were indefensible you couldn't defend it.

To wit: perhaps explaining the reason, in itself, would constitute a breach of national security.

Or, perhaps, it would be embarrassing and paint the administration in a bad light. It might uncover war crimes. But we can't tell, since it is secret, right? ;)

It was never a secret on NPR; this is one of those questions where it sounds like I want you to embarrass yourself, but I'm really asking: On which network was that reported as a secret?

I know they reported the existence of the "signature strikes". But I was completely unaware that the criteria had been reported, since people trying to get information about them failed completely. Is this true?

If it were indefensible you couldn't defend it.

To wit: perhaps explaining the reason, in itself, would constitute a breach of national security.

Or, perhaps, it would be embarrassing and paint the administration in a bad light. It might uncover war crimes. But we can't tell, since it is secret, right? ;)

If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.

There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.

Hazy profile? I take it that wearing the uniform of Al Qaeda, wielding the arms of Al Qaeda, attending their camps and taking an actual position in Al Qaeda still defines it as a "hazy profile"?

Are you privy to the secret criteria for the signature strikes? Because no one knows, since, you know, they are secret. These are based on "patterns of suspicious behaviour". If you don't think this is hazy, well there's nothing I can say to convince you. You might be mistaking the signature strikes for those strikes against people which the government at least knows the name.

houstonderek wrote:

meatrace wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

It's a "they both suck major amounts of ass and suck Wall Street and Pentagon unmentionables, and will murder more" claim. Shades are irrelevant to me.

by that measure why vote for anyone? Neither Gary Johnson or Jill stein are going to dismantle the military.

I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

Dude, I have a kill list. But you show your own stripes: you're not an absolutist when it comes to candidates you've already decided you like for other reasons. Guaranteed under any president's watch people will die by the hands of American forces. So, yes, it's all shades of grey.

Yeah, but (hopefully) you don't have the power to act on it and you don't use public money to conduct the assassinations while at the same time refusing to give any concrete explanation of how the names are put into it.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

Ah yes, we're back to the "Obama is going to send drones to blow you up in your nice suburban home" bull.

Are you telling me that he hasnt had US citizens killed? Are you telling me that he didnt sign indefinite detention into law? Or are you just mad cause your supporting the guy who supports those things?

Again, he didn't send drones against the paper boy next door. Who he had killed was a treasonous man who dedicated himself to Al Quaida aiding and abetting killers of our soldiers and civilians like the paper boy next door.

If you declare war against our country, if you aid and abet and take up the uniform of soldiers or terrorists who kill our people, then you're a legitimate target, even if your official citizenry is American.

Let us talk about "signature strikes", then. How about, "you fit some hazy profile, though we have no idea who you're" strikes?

And indefinite detention? Without review?

Edited for tone :p

When you go through Comrade Knife's link, make sure and favorite my post about my friend Omar!

I think it's one of my most-favorited posts.

Yeah, that story is great. Your parents are awesome. And yes, the number of fans has grown.

Right. But he did sign into law the NDAA (of which section 1021 isnt an appropriation, so doesnt expire after 2 years) which expands the indefinite detention provision to include not just Al-quaida, but "associated forces". Further, it includes not just people who belong to these groups, (whether directly or not) but anyone who "substantively supports" them. Now here's the rub: tell me who is included in those terms. If I invite Anwar al-Alaki over for dinner, does that qualify me? If so, order up some fresh, no-trial, no-lawyer detention for ol' Dubya.

Recently a group of journalists and activists asked for an injuction of this section, since they felt that it was having a chilling effect on their work. The justice presiding it asked for the government to explain whether the provision could be applied to any of the people involved in the suit and it responded it could not "confirm or deny". It could not explain what it means to "offer support for associated forces" for its meaning was secret. The justice decided for the injunction. The government fought back and won.

Note, this is that part of the NDAA that Obama faked concern and was "sorry" that it ended up included in the NDAA. And he fought tooth and nail to keep it there.

Bull. Obama is not normalizing assassinating or disappearing people off the streets of America. Regardless of the texts of the laws or executive orders in question, the moment that starts happening the s$+$ hits the fan.

That and Romney will be far worse on all of this. And assuaging your conscience with protest votes won't change a damn thing.

No he is not, I agree. What we do know is that Obama is normalizing persecution of critics of its government, a culture of secrecy which is unprecedent, and the secret interpretation of laws. That will be his legacy.

Though Romney's positions might be worse than Obama's I doubt his ability to implement them in quite the efficient way Obama has done it. Bush was only able to start this process because of the tragedy of 9/11, which weakened the opposition to his policies. Romney does not have nearly the same political leverage. The problem is Obama does not need one. There is no opposition to his policies in this regard. In fact republicans cannot even find differences in ideology to explore in this election. So, he basically can do whatever he wants, even if he wants a little less than Romney.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

I'd rather be locked up forever without charges and/or assassinated by an administration that supports gay marriage than one that doesn't. In fact, I prefer the former to the latter by a large margin even if that's the only thing that distinguishes them.

The thing is, the world doesn't end in the next four years. A republican will eventually come back to power, will have all those practices normalized by Obama and all this power nicely put into place by him at his disposal. And he might, if he so desires, make life a living hell for all those he despises. In other words, all the accomplishments attained by the gay movement can only endure in a society respectful of its civil liberties. This tradeoff is a false one.

Obama administration fighting in courts for the right to block challenges to wiretapping program

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.

Maybe the reason for this is that Democrat politicians are slow to learn. Note that Obama was elected by saying he would act precisely on these things. He did not go center-right to win the election. He said stuff people wanted to hear, then acted as a center-right politician (at least in regards to the issues we are discussing).

If democrats are consistently beaten due to a larger support to third parties, and when they act the opposite of their campaign promises, they might end up noticing that these are important issues. If Obama ended up taking a hit because he basically went against a considerable part of his original platform, it could show the party that they should take better care next time. Maybe they need to lose more than once or twice to learn, who knows?

Of course this leaves you in a tough spot because you have to live at least four years under the heel of Romney, the plutocrat. Well, there's one bright side to this: democrats are usually more effective in opposing this stuff than Republicans. The thing is, there is no way you can prevent a Republican president from taking charge ever again, so you might as well try to solve your civil liberties issues before it becomes impossible to.

Most of Obama's actions are not new. What has no precedent, in most cases, is how much he was allowed to expand and entrench these policies.

The abuse of drones, which we were previously discussing, is just an example of that. As I pointed out a number of times now:

- the scale of persecution of vulnerable critics of his policies by means of the espionage act and by exploiting border control have no precedents;

- the general indefinite detention provisions he included in the NDAA, and fought to keep even after Judge Forrester issued an injunction against them has no precedents;

these are on Obama.

Reason #3: Obama's Foreign Policy Is An Example of How It Should Be Done

Ok, you completely lost me here in #3

Questioning and harassment of people for their political views

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.

Nine pages of the same crew saying the same things as always.

But isn't it true of all forums about politics?

The problem is not that he did not do enough to stop Bush's odious policies. The problem is that he maintained them and expanded on them in a very efficient and powerful fashion.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I mostly just get a kick out of most of the Obama supporters pretending that he doesnt do the things that he actually does. (thejeff and bugleyman excluded). Look at how they all manage to respond to Andrew R, but give em anything of substance, and I swear I could hear crickets chirping over my laptop.

I have no illusions about Obama. He's center left. I didn't expect a revolution when I voted for him, though I dare say I had the audacity to hope. He has been a marked improvement over GWB, and Romney would be a return to failed policies like supply side economics and slashing earned benefits.

The center is so skewed towards the right in the US that you might say that. Obama sounds like a right wing for me and people abroad, I'd dare say.

I usually stay out of political threads, but I wanted to mention this here:

A CNN op-ed from July was titled Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes. Written by Peter Bergen (CNN's National Security Analyst) and Jennifer Rowland (who works at the nonpartisan New America Foundation) the article talks about how recent data found that in the last year or so, drone strikes have killed very few civilians.

Another such piece, from September (where Megaun Braun, a Rhodes Scholar at St. John's College, replaces Jennifer Rowland) titled Drone is Obama's Weapon of Choice, follows up on this.

Hi Alzrius, welcome to the discussion! The New American Foundation reports differ greatly from those of other sources, like, for example. those from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, although most see a drop in casualties. A more recent investigation, conducted by The Stanford University and the NYU puts this data in scrutiny, and concludes that it is unreliable and is partly based on the government criteria for counting "militants".

As the US government has consistently undercounted casualties in its other war efforts, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is actually expected.

I'd like to take the time here to thank thejeff for disagreeing with parts of my argument and worries in a completely civil way, and actually engaging in the discussion. A rare thing.

On topic: persecution of American filmmaker by DHS

We don't know what? That they're mostly used on military targets?

Are you suggesting the US is deliberately targeting Pakistani villages they know have no connections to the Taliban or other militia groups?

I'm suggesting that they just don't care, that the flimsiest evidence can be a reason for a strike. I'm saying that I believe that the mentality of "it is cheap, so, just to be sure..." is dominating the decisions here. The number of AQ heads severed is, apparently, big, but the number of strikes has increased instead of decreasing. Why?

Yes, they get it wrong. Probably far too often. Yes, they cover it up by claiming anyone who possibly could have been was a militant. They've done that for years, whether the attack was by drone, air strike or ground forces.

My point is, the drone strikes in Pakistan are part of a "real war". The one in Afghanistan. It's spilled over the border into the tribal areas, as wars do. Are you arguing we should allow a safe haven in Pakistan? I've asked that several times and gotten no answer. Tactically, strategically, that's a horrible idea. Politically, maybe it would be worth it.

And, of course, civilians bear the brunt of it. Because that's what happens in wars. Especially asymmetric ones.

I'd say leave the place, bear the brunt for a while, defend the homeland without looking like a scary warmonger in the process. No one is going to go after the US just because. It might take sometime, but it probably would be for the best.

Guy Humual wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.

Well, they largely are. Despite the high profile assassinations, almost all of the use in Pakistan, for example, is attempts to target militants based in Pakistan and attacking into Afghanistan. Not on high value, kill list targets.

Now the intelligence they're operating on might be bad and civilian targets do get hit. Which sucks and is why you should avoid wars. The intent is military targets.

But assuming we're not going to just leave Afghanistan, what's the alternative? Allow the Taliban and other groups a safe haven if they cross the border? Invade Pakistan? Conventional bombing?

If you think Afghanistan is a lost cause, the answer is easy. The other easy answer is don't go there in the first place, but that's a little hard to do now.

Unless by "military targets" you only mean conventional uniformed forces, in which case it's kind of pointless, since no one can stand up to us in conventional warfare long enough for drones to matter. If they're smart, they'll take off the uniforms and try asymmetric warfare because it works.

But the fact is we don't know that, because there is no access to any information concerning the strikes. It is all deemed secret due to "security reasons".

Just an example, one of the few bits of information that the government has revealed concerning the strikes has to do with how they count civilian losses. It is like this: if you're male and young and you're in a "strike zone", you're a militant. I'm not making this up. It was the explanation offered by the government in a NYT article. Since this is not a "conventional war", the attacks are made when the president declares that someone is a militant, an accusation against which there is no defense, no review and no oversight.

I agree that using drones is expedient and cheap, if killing is your objective. Real war is much worse than a few drone strikes, that's for sure, but there's a thing: entering a real war carries huge political and economical costs with it, in such a way that they can sometimes be avoided because of it. The practically of drones creates an incentive for its banalization. Their use in civilians is just the first manifestation of it.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

A recent report I had already posted before has presented data strongly suggesting that the drones are severely crippling any support for the US in regions where they occur, and are actually helping in AQ recruiting efforts.

The drone strikes are not being used to take out specific people. They have been called by the government "signature strikes" and they are directed towards targets which "fit a pattern consistent with a militant", whatever that means. Someone who is in a death list does not know and cannot present evidence of his innocence. The US has also been known to use the "double tap" procedure, where a second strike is made when people come to help those who were hurt or killed. Oh, and attacking funerals of targets as well. Put yourself in the position of the guys living in this place. Obama is like Zeus to them, who can rain death on them from the skies and there is nothing they can do about it. Do you guys really think this is going to help, in any way, improving security in the US?

No. I don't. I think they are in general a bad idea. Like I generally think war is a bad idea. Not that I think drones are especially bad. It wouldn't be better if the same people were being killed by more conventional airstrikes.

Though the more targeted ones, like the ones targeting American citizens that are always brought up, can have value. I'd much rather kill terrorist leaders than any random militant. It has far more effect.

I get irritated in these discussions by two related things. One is the confusion between civilian and military process. "present(ing) evidence of his innocence" is a civilian peacetime thing. It has no place in wartime. That's because war sucks. That's why we should avoid it.
But talking about people killed in the war effort as not having due process or...

Concerning the second reason you get irritated, I have to say that irritates me as well. It sounds like an american life is worth more than another. But I get why people use it. It's because people expect that their country has an extra care with their own citizens, and that it will take every care not to bring an end to one of its citizens without great restrain and accountability.

As for the civilian and military process. The confusion is here because the US chose to redefine what it means by war. So, of course these confusions will arise. The problem is the civilians in a country which is not at war with another country have an expectation that they'll not be bombed to death for no reason. The US unilaterally decides who is engaged in this "war" and kills them.

For instance, imagine that China decided that there is a "dangerous terrorist" in a city in the US. Let us pretend China has declared "War on Terror", this nonsensical thing, but let us pretend, nonetheless. Do you think the US would be A-OK if China decided to blow-up some dude in the streets with a drone, killing people around (collateral damage)? Would the US congratulate China on its successful "War on Terror" and its "casualty minimization"? In other words, would the US accept the argument that this is not a declaration of war on them but on "terror"? The reason this works for the US is because the militay might of the US is overpowering, not because it is right.

As for surveillance in the US, the illegal wiretapping which started with Bush has been expanded and protected under Obama. The infiltration of OWS and Muslim communities in NY is shameful. Whistleblowers are persecuted for exposing incompetence and illegal acts. And nothing concerning this stuff is a topic on the election raceas apparently it is all bipartisan consensus now. It's really sad.

A recent report I had already posted before has presented data strongly suggesting that the drones are severely crippling any support for the US in regions where they occur, and are actually helping in AQ recruiting efforts.

The drone strikes are not being used to take out specific people. They have been called by the government "signature strikes" and they are directed towards targets which "fit a pattern consistent with a militant", whatever that means. Someone who is in a death list does not know and cannot present evidence of his innocence. The US has also been known to use the "double tap" procedure, where a second strike is made when people come to help those who were hurt or killed. Oh, and attacking funerals of targets as well. Put yourself in the position of the guys living in this place. Obama is like Zeus to them, who can rain death on them from the skies and there is nothing they can do about it. Do you guys really think this is going to help, in any way, improving security in the US?

bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

They can't use it for justification for killing whomever they chose. They can use it for justification for killing people who take up arms against the US, which this citizen did.

Nope this citizen did not, as far as we know it. No one in the government has made the affirmation, nor offered any proof that he "took arms against the US". In fact, there have been some statements from the WH implying that the boy was not the intended target. Your government is killing people in your name and you are ASSUMING they are up to know good. I say you assume this because you cannot possibly know, since the criteria for entering the kill list is secret. Hell, the interpretation of the law used to justify the killings is being kept secret. Just look up for the WH spokesman squirming when Jake Tapper questioned him aout this.

Guy Humual wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off about the Obama administration. It's monstrous. They're blowing people up without trial, killing innocent bystanders, and the Republican party are naturally cool with that so there's no one outside of the news media to call them out on it. What's worse is that none of the major news networks thinks this is news. If the tables were turned there's no doubt in my mind this would be classified as terrorism.

For the most part I do like Obama, but this is truly horrific stuff. Something people should be ashamed of now rather then twenty years down the road.

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would...

Hmmm...no, Abdulrahman was not doing anything of the sort. No one has provided any information regarding his involvement in anything near this. You must be confusing him with his father. He was just a 16 year boy killed with death-by-flying-killer-robot as far as anyone knows.

"Gitmo north"

Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit vs. the DoJ