Scott Betts wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
The economy is functioning. It is not as strong as it has ever been, but nor is it the weakest it's been (and is, thankfully, now improving). More importantly, the United States is the hegemon. If it falls into decline so rapidly that we can go from the current situation to falling behind another country in the near future, what country is poised to take our place? There would have to be a country that is both an economic superpower, and whose economic strength is not inextricably reliant upon our own economic strength.
No such country exists.
This assumes that a hegemon can only be replaced by another hegemon.
No, it doesn't. Sissyl claimed that we'd see another "crow force its way to the top of the s%!*heap," which merely requires that another power supersede the United States as the strongest nation-state. There is no country that is in a position to fill that role. It would first require finding a country that is powerful. A number of those exist. It would then require finding such a country that wouldn't be devastated by the fall of the United States. No such country exists. Not really, no. All that is required is that that country be the least devastated when the US falls, and fall less that the US falls. That's the point behind the Ostragoth example; when Rome fell, it was not replaced by another hegemon but by a collection of non-hegemonic powers. Nevertheless, there was still a biggest-dog-in-the-pack, which in Western Europe would probably be the Ostragothic Kingdom.
If you want a suggestion as to which country is likely to be least devastated, Russia is a good candidate. It's a generally resource-rich country and so is likely to be more self-sufficient than most countries that rely on imports (e.g. Japan's need for oil, and for that matter, rice). It has a well-educated work force, a good industrial base, and most importantly generally trades at arms length with the United States (the USA isn't its list of top 5 import partners or export partners), instead trading with its immediate neighbors, the EU, China, Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey, and Japan. If the US were to collapse, the EU would be hit hard, but that's likely to be a market opportunity for Russia. They'd be able both to sell goods that the EU couldn't supply for itself, and take advantage of the depressed EU economy to buy labor cheaply.
There may come a day when the United States ceases to be the dominant world power, but that day is probably far off. It is very unlikely that we will see the United States lose its role on the international stage in our lifetimes, or even our children's lifetimes.
Quote: Also, it's hard to take seriously the sort of person who uses Rome as an analogue for the United States on the international stage. Yes, I'm probably the first person in the history of discourse to have used the phrase Pax Americana.
But since your argument seems to boil down to the idea that no one else is powerful enough to supply the US as sole hegemon, the fall of Rome is directly relevant. Yes, no one else was powerful enough to supplant Rome. Nevertheless, Rome still fell.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Orfamay Quest wrote: Yes, I'm probably the first person in the history of discourse to have used the phrase Pax Americana. Hee hee!
Quote: But since your argument seems to boil down to the idea that no one else is powerful enough to supply the US as sole hegemon, the fall of Rome is directly relevant. Yes, no one else was powerful enough to supplant Rome. Nevertheless, Rome still fell.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
[Whistles innocently]
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: California Uber Alles
Have no idea what motivated me to post that.
Don't ever post that crap again. ;)
Or better yet...
.
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
.
Electric Wizard wrote: .
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
.
That is absolutely stupid.
Freehold DM wrote: Ah... Okay.
For the record, I don't hate Snowden, but I remain skeptical of his story and his motives. Overall, i think he could have gone about this in a way that did not make him look like he had secrets to sell to foreign governments.
Snowden is an American Hero.
In the future, they will name High Schools after him.
.
Electric Wizard wrote: Freehold DM wrote: Ah... Okay.
For the record, I don't hate Snowden, but I remain skeptical of his story and his motives. Overall, i think he could have gone about this in a way that did not make him look like he had secrets to sell to foreign governments.
Snowden is an American Hero.
In the future, they will name High Schools after him.
.
Just like all those schools named after the cops, firemen, paramedics, civil rights lawyers, teachers, and military members that are heroes...right?
Maccabee wrote: Electric Wizard wrote: Freehold DM wrote: Ah... Okay.
For the record, I don't hate Snowden, but I remain skeptical of his story and his motives. Overall, i think he could have gone about this in a way that did not make him look like he had secrets to sell to foreign governments.
Snowden is an American Hero.
In the future, they will name High Schools after him.
.
Just like all those schools named after the cops, firemen, paramedics, civil rights lawyers, teachers, and military members that are heroes...right? Is that how you want it to work? Ok.
.
When I lived in Boston, almost every street intersection was named Sgt. Francis O'Connor Corner, or something like that.
I don't recall seeing many for paramedics, however. Teachers sometimes get auditoriums named after them and there are monuments with the names of dead soldiers everywhere. Can't think of any monuments to civil rights lawyers, although, of course you guys just celebrated Martin Luther King day (it's still Civil Rights Day here in New Hampshire and in Arizona.)
But I doubt there will be schools named after Snowden--and Manning, and Assange (provided, of course, those rape charges are bullshiznit, which I tend to believe, but could be wrong)--until after the Third American Revolution.
Vive le Galt!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
We tend to gloss over people doing illegal acts against the us government. Don't want to give people the impression that they're th egood guys because that makes the US the bad guy.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
cmastah wrote: I'm surprised there aren't more people like Snowden, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think most people are good or will strive to do what they think is right but it just seems like with that many people involved, then there'd be a good probability of finding SOMEONE who'd leak (actually, I thought you'd find more than one). There have been. The difference between them and Snowden is that they tried to go through the official channels when bringing up their complaints and were persecuted(and prosecuted) by the government for it. In fact, Snowden released his stuff the way he did specifically because of what happened to those people when they tried to go through the official channels.
Thomas Drake
William Binney
Both of them went to the DoD Inspector General to report NSA rights abuses and waste, and both have since been targeted by the FBI. Drake was actually indicted for having documents in his possession that were unclassified and should have been able to be freely distributed. The prosecutors argued that he "should have known that they were really classified" despite them being marked otherwise.
Also, if you really want the kicker about Drake and Binney, both worked on the NSA's data collection programs and their complaints were about what was known as the Trailblazer Project, which was the setup the NSA was implementing to collect all the data. If I remember right, it didn't have any safeguards in place to filter out data from US citizens on top of it being inefficient and blowing way past its budget. While a different project to do the same thing, ThinThread, did have those safeguards in place, was actually functional at the time that it was cancelled, and was well within its budget.
From what I understand, after the government decided to screw over Drake and Binney for filing complaints against Trailblazer, they wasted millions more on it before calling it defective and scrapping it. Then they brought in the stuff behind PRISM, which is mostly just ThinThread with the privacy safeguards removed. So, you know, Drake and Binney pointed out the problems, got dragged through the mud for it, and then a few years later the government says "Those guys were right. Let's use the thing they recommended, but we'll make a few changes to it because screw the 4th amendment."
So, you know, given the way they treat the people who actually do go through official channels, I can definitely see the majority of the US government wanting to hang the guy who goes outside them. And they definitely don't care about what the people they're supposed to serve think.
However, note that the both of these people are alive and well and share their story whenever asked. Even people convicted of selling secrets to the enemy are still alive, albeit in obscurity. How much prison time did either of the first two men see?
How much prison time did Snowden see? It still sounds like he made the better choice, all things considered.
It's not just about how much prison time. It's also about how much of what he wanted to leak made it out to the public.
Would we be in an entirely different place now if Drake and Binney had gone public about the problems with Trailblazer and about Thinthread instead of following procedure and getting screwed?
IIRC, most of that didn't come out until years after the fact.
Orfamay Quest wrote: How much prison time did Snowden see? It still sounds like he made the better choice, all things considered. ha! Okay I walked into that one.
Freehold DM wrote: However, note that the both of these people are alive and well and share their story whenever asked. Even people convicted of selling secrets to the enemy are still alive, albeit in obscurity. How much prison time did either of the first two men see? Considering that, by all reason, they never actually broke the law, being so much as threatened with prison time is crazy. As for the amount of prison time, neither served any, but Drake was put on probation as part of a plea agreement. For why Mr. Drake took the plea deal offered to him, I suspect it has to do with the fact that "national security" cases are so heavily biased in favor of the government that you have practically no chance to win them regardless of how right you are. It takes money to defend yourself, and the government can freeze or seize all of your assets as part of their "investigation." Then, when it comes to the discovery phase of the trial, they can seal any evidence they choose as "vital to national security" or "state secrets," making it fair game for prosecutorial use but illegal for the judge to share with the defense. Those two things alone are enough to halt any defense in its tracks. And they already proved their intent to do the former by relabeling previously unclassified documents as "classified" so that they could drag Drake through the mud.
Is it any wonder then that when presented with a plea agreement for a single misdemeanor, as opposed to an all-but-unwinnable fight against 10 felonies, he opted to take it? All too often this is the tactic of the government for anyone who dares to stand in their way, regardless of which side is right and which is wrong. In either case, both parties had armed raids by the FBI occur and actually had to take the government to court for the return of belongings that they seized. In Binney's, and the 3 other so called "co-conspirators', cases, they should have been returned immediately, since they were never charged with any crime.
And it's all because they followed the chain of command and reported what they saw was gross negligence and willful violations of the Constitution to their superiors. Just like what all of Snowden's detractors say he should have done.
thejeff wrote: IIRC, most of that didn't come out until years after the fact. This is true as well. It didn't come to light until 3 years after the initial complaint was filed with the DoD. And then it was only because Drake, who wasn't part of the initial complaint but who helped with the DoD's investigation into it, talked to the press since absolutely nothing was being done internally.
So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
How is "My complaint got swept under the rug and ignored, and American rights were violated en masse, until I went to the press." more of a reason to not go straight to the press? It just proves that the government doesn't care until something absolutely forces them to. Snowden cut their "we don't care" time down from 3 years to 0. And that's discounting the fact that by the time Drake went to the press the government could officially say "Oh, we're not doing that." without it technically being a lie. Because by 2005, when it actually hit the papers, they had already scrapped Trailblazer.
Anyway, who's to say there aren't plots in motion to kill, maim, or further discredit them? Just look at what the FBI is willing to do by taking a look at some of their actions through COINTELPRO. By the government's reasoning, Drake and Binney could be considered terrorists or dissidents and extrajudicially executed at any time. Kind of like Fred Hampton was. If someone like Mark Felt, the Associate Director of the FBI, was afraid to publicly announce who he was after unveiling the Watergate scandal, what makes you think that someone with few to no high-ranking connections is safe? If you think that programs like COINTELPRO are a thing of the past you'd be mistaken, since the FBI still teaches its agents that they have the power to suspend the law.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Betts wrote: Sissyl wrote: That is your judgement. I don't find it convincing. Certainly, high military spending doesn't necessarily equate to lowered influence, but without a functioning economy to back that up - no. And it's not just me saying this, is it? Keep comforting yourself, Scott. What will happen will happen. The economy is functioning. It is not as strong as it has ever been, but nor is it the weakest it's been (and is, thankfully, now improving). More importantly, the United States is the hegemon. If it falls into decline so rapidly that we can go from the current situation to falling behind another country in the near future, what country is poised to take our place? There would have to be a country that is both an economic superpower, and whose economic strength is not inextricably reliant upon our own economic strength.
No such country exists.
As Marx as long pointed out, economics is the primary driving force of history. It determines how countries relate to each other, decides who makes war on whom etc.
The idea that "no such country exists" is more rooted in the myth of "American Exceptional-ism" than logic. If the U.S. diminishes sufficiently in influence than another country .... or set of countries will fill in the vacuum. The most likely candidate at this time would be China, with it's growing economic muscle. I don't see Russia as a contender, because no matter how bad a shape you might think the U.S. is in, Russia is considerably worse.
Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
It's quite arguable that the only reason that Snowden avoided many of these fates was PRECISELY because of the actions he took, and more importantly,the publicity he generated in doing so. Keep in mind that his accomplice Bradley Manning, who hasn't had the benefit of publicity and liberty, has already been convicted of charges that will most likely mean he spends the rest of his days in prison. It got to the extent that we had the ludicrous irony of an American ambassador having to pledge publicly to the planet, that the United States would not torture or execute Snowden when trying to get the Russians to extradite him.
Also, there are no legal channels for blowing the whistle that Snowden did. Any form of disclosure of these documents, would have made him liable to arrest and prosecution.
LazarX wrote: As Marx as long pointed out, economics is the primary driving force of history. It determines how countries relate to each other, decides who makes war on whom etc.
The idea that "no such country exists" is more rooted in the myth of "American Exceptional-ism" than logic. If the U.S. diminishes sufficiently in influence than another country .... or set of countries will fill in the vacuum. The most likely candidate at this time would be China, with it's growing economic muscle. I don't see Russia as a contender, because no matter how bad a shape you might think the U.S. is in, Russia is considerably worse.
Please keep buying Paizo products and help the PRC build ghost cities to stabilize international capitalism, gwailos.
Vive le Bachuan!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
Except that those examples show that doing things through legal channels doesn't do anything. And still gets you in trouble with the law.
Which is essentially what I said earlier in the thread: If he goes through channels, it gets hushed up, he loses his access and any evidence he already had, he gets blacklisted and possibly winds up in jail anyway. Not so bad for him really. But no actual whistleblowing happens.
You might as well just be arguing "He should have stayed quiet".
LazarX wrote: Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
It's quite arguable that the only reason that Snowden avoided many of these fates was PRECISELY because of the actions he took, and more importantly,the publicity he generated in doing so. Keep in mind that his accomplice Bradley Manning, who hasn't had the benefit of publicity and liberty, has already been convicted of charges that will most likely mean he spends the rest of his days in prison. It got to the extent that we had the ludicrous irony of an American ambassador having to pledge publicly to the planet, that the United States would not torture or execute Snowden when trying to get the Russians to extradite him. Chelsea Mannning was not Snowden's accomplice. He was Assange's source. Completely separate cases.
Manning has had plenty of publicity, though no freedom. She took the other workable approach: Leak the data abroad, but stay behind to face trial. And to be imprisoned naked in extreme solitary for most of a year - before trial.
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
It's quite arguable that the only reason that Snowden avoided many of these fates was PRECISELY because of the actions he took, and more importantly,the publicity he generated in doing so. Keep in mind that his accomplice Bradley Manning, who hasn't had the benefit of publicity and liberty, has already been convicted of charges that will most likely mean he spends the rest of his days in prison. It got to the extent that we had the ludicrous irony of an American ambassador having to pledge publicly to the planet, that the United States would not torture or execute Snowden when trying to get the Russians to extradite him. Chelsea Mannning was not Snowden's accomplice. He was Assange's source. Completely separate cases.
Manning has had plenty of publicity, though no freedom. She took the other workable approach: Leak the data abroad, but stay behind to face trial. And to be imprisoned naked in extreme solitary for most of a year - before trial. And convicted of charges that could total more than a century behind bars. Not exactly a convincing argument for Freehold DM's approach.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
It's quite arguable that the only reason that Snowden avoided many of these fates was PRECISELY because of the actions he took, and more importantly,the publicity he generated in doing so. Keep in mind that his accomplice Bradley Manning, who hasn't had the benefit of publicity and liberty, has already been convicted of charges that will most likely mean he spends the rest of his days in prison. It got to the extent that we had the ludicrous irony of an American ambassador having to pledge publicly to the planet, that the United States would not torture or execute Snowden when trying to get the Russians to extradite him. Chelsea Mannning was not Snowden's accomplice. He was Assange's source. Completely separate cases.
Manning has had plenty of publicity, though no freedom. She took the other workable approach: Leak the data abroad, but stay behind to face trial. And to be imprisoned naked in extreme solitary for most of a year - before trial. And convicted of charges that could total more than a century behind bars. Not exactly a convincing argument for Freehold DM's approach. Well, she didn't actually take that approach. She smuggled the data out rather than just inform her boss and let him cover it up.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: The idea that "no such country exists" is more rooted in the myth of "American Exceptional-ism" than logic. No, it isn't. In fact, it's supported in no small part by this list. Hegemonic stability theory rests on the ability to project power, and carrier fleet groups are the most effective means of projecting power in the world.
I don't believe in broadly applied American exceptionalism. I do believe in the comically overwhelming strength of the American military.
Quote: If the U.S. diminishes sufficiently in influence than another country .... or set of countries will fill in the vacuum. Power vacuums do not work in a globalized economy like you think they do.
Quote: The most likely candidate at this time would be China, with it's growing economic muscle. A massive amount of China's economic strength is predicated on its ability to profit from the consumer needs of other developed countries. If the United States collapses so dramatically that China could conceivably compete, their ability to profit from the western world will evaporate.
Quote: I don't see Russia as a contender, because no matter how bad a shape you might think the U.S. is in, Russia is considerably worse. That's largely true. Almost no one thinks Russia stands a chance of usurping the United States' position.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Betts wrote:
No, it isn't. In fact, it's supported in no small part by this list. Hegemonic stability theory rests on the ability to project power, and carrier fleet groups are the most effective means of projecting power in the world.
I don't believe in broadly applied American exceptionalism. I do believe in the comically overwhelming strength of the American military.
In a world where nuclear or biological weapons can be carried by suitcase, or at the very least trucks, where countries can be brought to their knees by cyber-attack without a shot being fired, that school of thought is being rapidly shoved into obsolescence.
The U.S. doesn't have to go into total collapse, just a recedance in it' ability to throw it's weight around with impunity.
Scott Betts wrote: LazarX wrote: The idea that "no such country exists" is more rooted in the myth of "American Exceptional-ism" than logic. No, it isn't. In fact, it's supported in no small part by this list. Hegemonic stability theory rests on the ability to project power, and carrier fleet groups are the most effective means of projecting power in the world.
I don't believe in broadly applied American exceptionalism. I do believe in the comically overwhelming strength of the American military.
Quote: If the U.S. diminishes sufficiently in influence than another country .... or set of countries will fill in the vacuum. Power vacuums do not work in a globalized economy like you think they do.
Quote: The most likely candidate at this time would be China, with it's growing economic muscle. A massive amount of China's economic strength is predicated on its ability to profit from the consumer needs of other developed countries. If the United States collapses so dramatically that China could conceivably compete, their ability to profit from the western world will evaporate.
Quote: I don't see Russia as a contender, because no matter how bad a shape you might think the U.S. is in, Russia is considerably worse. That's largely true. Almost no one thinks Russia stands a chance of usurping the United States' position. If the US collapses there will be a new "Most powerful country in the world" by definition. There may be some debate* about who that is and they may well not hold the same hegemonic position the US does.
As you say, the US economy collapsing will do an awful lot of damage to the other major contenders.
*Debate is a euphemism here.
Scott Betts wrote: No, it isn't. In fact, it's supported in no small part by this list. Hegemonic stability theory rests on the ability to project power, and carrier fleet groups are the most effective means of projecting power in the world. For what it's worth, my old comrades used to keep a map of the world up in the editorial office of the Workers Vanguard that tracked, to the best of their ability, the movements of American aircraft carriers.
Down with US imperialism!
Vive le Galt!
.
Another item being glossed over is the true cost of the NSA's
recklessness. The cost may not be "just" tens or even hundreds of
billions of dollars in lost business, but the far more serious
loss of trust in Silicon Valley itself.
.
thejeff wrote: Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
Except that those examples show that doing things through legal channels doesn't do anything. And still gets you in trouble with the law.
Which is essentially what I said earlier in the thread: If he goes through channels, it gets hushed up, he loses his access and any evidence he already had, he gets blacklisted and possibly winds up in jail anyway. Not so bad for him really. But no actual whistleblowing happens.
You might as well just be arguing "He should have stayed quiet". thejeff, not saying he should have stayed quiet, just taking issue with how he went about talking, not even what he said.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
He did the only thing he could have done to get hiss message out. If you think about it, I am sure you will realize that too. If you don't take issue with said message, then read what came out and see what you think after having done so. Snowden knew the price, and was willing to pay it, he was not, however, willing to jeopardize the message. Any other route would have done so.
thejeff wrote: If the US collapses there will be a new "Most powerful country in the world" by definition. If the United States ceases to function as a country, sure. If it suffers dramatic economic trouble, though? Nah. It would take a tremendous shift in the global political arena for the United States to be in any danger of a total collapse, and anything less will just result in every other developed country feeling the hurt as well.
We're talking about the likelihood that the United States will not be top dog in the near future. I've asserted that likelihood to be very low.
It's like discussing health. Every single day you wake up, there is a pretty low risk of you dying that day. Until it comes true. Compare, if you will, the various predictions about the pristine health of Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Freehold DM wrote: thejeff wrote: Freehold DM wrote: So, no prison time, no bullets in the back of the head, no mysterious poisonings years after the fact. All things Snowden advocates say he ran away to avoid.
This is more of a reason to do things through legal channels, not less. He could have even included the two people mentioned above as parts of his plan.
Except that those examples show that doing things through legal channels doesn't do anything. And still gets you in trouble with the law.
Which is essentially what I said earlier in the thread: If he goes through channels, it gets hushed up, he loses his access and any evidence he already had, he gets blacklisted and possibly winds up in jail anyway. Not so bad for him really. But no actual whistleblowing happens.
You might as well just be arguing "He should have stayed quiet". thejeff, not saying he should have stayed quiet, just taking issue with how he went about talking, not even what he said. But your approach is "He should have gone through channels." So fine, he goes through channels, nothing happens, the outside world hears nothing at least for years and he loses all the evidence he might have released.
Sure, he's talked, but he might as well have stayed quiet since no one who might react could hear him.
What should he have done?
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Electric Wizard wrote: .
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
.
That is absolutely stupid. So, you can post your thoughts of killing your neighbors on the internet and not get in trouble?
Go ahead and try, I bet you $1000 you can't do it.
.
Electric Wizard wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Electric Wizard wrote: .
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
.
That is absolutely stupid. So, you can post your thoughts of killing your neighbors on the internet and not get in trouble?
Go ahead and try, I bet you $1000 you can't do it.
. I'm of the strong opinion that any form of demonstrated stupidity on this level SHOULD be grounds for revocation of clearance.
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Due process tends to be thrown out whenever its deemed convenient by authorities.
Authorities always find due process inconvenient.
And due process doesn't exist on the battlefield. Especially when you don't control the area well enough to simply capture people. Even when the battlefield is as undefined as the War on Terror. The root cause is choosing to pursue the War on Terror as war and rely primarily on military tactics rather than as a international police/criminal problem. All the other abuses flow from that.
Nor do I see any legal or moral difference in the US killing American citizens vs foreigners in such (or any other situations). Yet somehow the focus in these discussions is always on "He's killing Americans", with the implication that the next step is sending a drone through your window. That's stupid.
If you're in the US, you can be arrested and tried. If you're in another friendly country, you can be arrested, extradited and tried. The problem with doing that with the people on the "kill list" is that they're not in territory under are control or generally under any government's real control. They can't be arrested. 1. We are not at war with Yemen. The Al Awlaki hit took place in Yemen, a country the previous administration had no real problems snatch and grabbing whomever they had a Gitmo reservation for.
2. Al Awlaki was a non-combatant propagandist operating from a country far from the actual war zone. A country the previous administration had no problem snatching people from.
3. Al Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Living in a country the previous administration had no problems snatching people from. There was little to no reason he could not have been snatched and tried for treason.
4. Considering the explosion in military style units in police forces across the nation since the Eighties, and the increased use of "flashbang and kickdoor" tactics, the general disregard for much of anything like safety or legality concerns, and the amount of drone testing HPD and CBP are conducting around here, don't dismiss domestic drone use for crowd control (rubber bullets, tear gas) or sniper duties. They'll just cite "officer safety" or something to justify it.
Stop defending Obama. He has the NYT and Chris Matthews for that. ;-)
houstonderek wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Due process tends to be thrown out whenever its deemed convenient by authorities.
Authorities always find due process inconvenient.
And due process doesn't exist on the battlefield. Especially when you don't control the area well enough to simply capture people. Even when the battlefield is as undefined as the War on Terror. The root cause is choosing to pursue the War on Terror as war and rely primarily on military tactics rather than as a international police/criminal problem. All the other abuses flow from that.
Nor do I see any legal or moral difference in the US killing American citizens vs foreigners in such (or any other situations). Yet somehow the focus in these discussions is always on "He's killing Americans", with the implication that the next step is sending a drone through your window. That's stupid.
If you're in the US, you can be arrested and tried. If you're in another friendly country, you can be arrested, extradited and tried. The problem with doing that with the people on the "kill list" is that they're not in territory under are control or generally under any government's real control. They can't be arrested. 1. We are not at war with Yemen. The Al Awlaki hit took place in Yemen, a country the previous administration had no real problems snatch and grabbing whomever they had a Gitmo reservation for.
2. Al Awlaki was a non-combatant propagandist operating from a country far from the actual war zone. A country the previous administration had no problem snatching people from.
3. Al Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Living in a country the previous administration had no problems snatching people from. There was little to no reason he could not have been snatched and tried for treason.
4. Considering the explosion in military style units in police forces across the nation since the Eighties, and the increased use of "flashbang and kickdoor" tactics, the general disregard for much of anything like safety or... So sending military units into a country we're not at war with to kidnap people who aren't combatants is somehow much better than the drone strikes? Marginally, I suppose, though it puts US lives at risk and is a much bigger more complicated operation.
And did we actually "have no problems" snatching people from Yemen? I know there were/are many Yemen detainees in Guantanamo, but the first few I could find info on were captured elsewhere, mostly in Afghanistan.
There are also parts of Yemen that are under the Yemeni government's control and parts that are not. Since the Yemeni government is willing to cooperate, we might be able to snatch people from their territory, but not from the rest of the country.
But again, that's getting bogged down in details and making me sound like far more of an Obama defender than I really am.
The main two points of that post were: No legal/moral distinction in these cases between American citizens and foreigners. And it's not a precedent that lets him drone attack your nice suburban home.
Oh yeah, and root cause: War on terror instead of criminal/police matter. Whether it's drone strikes, snatch and grab raids or full scale invasions is a matter of tactics once you've decided to fight Terror like a War.
Down with the War on Terror!
Smash US Imperialism Through Workers Revolution!
Vive le Galt!
Glenn Greenwald AND Jeremy Schaill?!?
[Fanboy]Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee![/fanboy]
WATCH Edward Snowden speak at a digital security event on Nov 7th.
cmastah wrote: I'm surprised there aren't more people like Snowden, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think most people are good or will strive to do what they think is right but it just seems like with that many people involved, then there'd be a good probability of finding SOMEONE who'd leak (actually, I thought you'd find more than one). Have you read the Snowden Files? What he did requires the combination of signficiant skill, significant access, and a decent amount of luck. And have you already forgotten Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Grand Magus wrote: WATCH Edward Snowden speak at a digital security event on Nov 7th.
He was the featured speaker on a recent TED Talk.
Vod Canockers wrote: Scott Betts wrote: houstonderek wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Vod Canockers wrote: LazarX wrote: Expressions of personal sentiments are one thing. I wouldn't be surprised that they personally hate him, after all Snowden hit them all deeply where they live... the making and trading of secrets.
If any of these individuals were actually CAUGHT doing this, they're liable for prosecution.
BTW, Buzzfeed, you can't be anomynous and on the record, they're mutually exclusive.
Then why hasn't President Obama been charged with murder? He has ordered the killing of American citizens. There are laws governing killing. Not all killings are murder. If you think that Obama has broken any laws, you're welcome to write a U.S. attorney and make your views known. You're hilarious. And correct. Let's not pretend that government-sanctioned killing of its own citizens is new or even frowned upon in all instances. Legal government sanctioned killing involves a trial and conviction. President Obama gave the citizens he ordered killed neither. If you believe this then you should also want post-humus charges pressed against President Lincoln -- after all he knowingly and without trial had citizens of the USA killed by the military without trial. And the crimes the citizens supposedly committed are crimes only congress can judge.
Electric Wizard wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Electric Wizard wrote: .
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
.
That is absolutely stupid. So, you can post your thoughts of killing your neighbors on the internet and not get in trouble?
Go ahead and try, I bet you $1000 you can't do it.
. I'll let the Nuge answer for you:
Quote: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year. Quote: "We need to ride onto that battlefield and chop their heads off in November." Those are the easy off the cuff ones. SO yes, you can go around and threaten in the media and online to kill people without getting in trouble.
I'll take my payment in the form of Paizo products.
Abraham spalding wrote: Electric Wizard wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Electric Wizard wrote:
Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
That is absolutely stupid. So, you can post your thoughts of killing your neighbors on the internet and not get in trouble?
Go ahead and try, I bet you $1000 you can't do it.
I'll let the Nuge answer for you:
"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
"We need to ride onto that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."
Those are the easy off the cuff ones. SO yes, you can go around and threaten in the media and online to kill people without getting in trouble.
I'll take my payment in the form of Paizo products. .
The bet is you have to post your thoughts of killing your neighbors.
I understand though, you twisted the meaning of the bet to suite your needs. It's what FOX News does too.
.
|
