• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I couldn't say. White Christians don't kill thousands of people with suicide attacks or purposely bomb innocent people
Click to expand...

Is this why we cannot draw any conclusions about whether disproportionate police stop-and-frisks against blacks are fueled by racism? If only blacks did not commit so many crimes, then at least we could draw some reasonable inferences about the influence of race! Alas.

And you're also wrong, if "purposely" has any real meaning, i.e., reasonable foreseeability. I don't really think there's much difference between purposely targeting an innocent person and knowing with 100% confidence that your actions will kill innocent persons and doing it anyway. Do you want to make the argument that there is a meaningful difference? Because it could be fun to see you try.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
empty vessel said:
Is this why we cannot draw any conclusions about whether disproportionate police stop-and-frisks against blacks are fueled by racism? If only blacks did not commit so many crimes, then at least we could draw some reasonable inferences about the influence of race! Alas.

And you're also wrong, if "purposely" has any real meaning, i.e., reasonable foreseeability. I don't really think there's much difference between purposely targeting an innocent person and knowing with 100% confidence that your actions will kill innocent persons and doing it anyway. Do you want to make the argument that there is a meaningful difference? Because it could be fun to see you try.
Click to expand...

Blacks are responsible for a large percentage of crime in the US. Stop-and-frisk is largely based on that, although obviously racism plays a part as well.

I don't accept those parameters. Purposely targeting innocent people - say, by blowing yourself up in a restaurant - is worse than a targeted killing of a confirmed terrorist that accidentally leads to the death of innocent people; as in, a mission with little or no collateral damage possibility that ultimately results in collateral damage. I would say that is significantly different than say, Israel shooting a missile into a crowded restaurant to kill one target and accidentally killing a bunch of innocent people. That type of high risk attack is very hard to justify, and I certainly wouldn't try. Whereas I certainly would justify a drone strike on a confirmed, secluded terrorist camp. If afterwards it's learned an innocent mailman died in the attack alongside the terrorists, that's certainly unfortunate but does not equate to what terrorists organizations do in their own attacks.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
empty vessel said:
I don't really think there's much difference between purposely targeting an innocent person and knowing with 100% confidence that your actions will kill innocent persons and doing it anyway. Do you want to make the argument that there is a meaningful difference? Because it could be fun to see you try.
Click to expand...

You're insane to not see a difference. you really see no difference?

Good think the actual laws of war do.

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Click to expand...

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[10] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).
— Luis Moreno-Ocampo[
Click to expand...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Oblivion said:
Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy of
Estonia.
Click to expand...
If your best case for something is "Well look at Estonia" then you should know you are fucking wrong. I mean he could point to the UK, Ireland, Greece, Spain ... all countries doing austerity. But he knows they are all fucked. So he has to resort to country that most people have never heard of and the data doesn't even support the thesis. That's crazy.

That said . . . I don't think there are any easy solutions. The only places that seem to be doing well are the ones that are blessed with natural resources that are being exploited and China. And China may collapse from a Real Estate bubble or a slow-down because its customers can't afford to keep buying the products it produces.

Germany. Germany is one of the few countries that is doing well without natural resources or low-cost labor. Deutschland Uber Alles!

APKmetsfan said:
Question, isn't the CIA barred from action in the USA? So why is this holding up the CIA director? He can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Shhh. Don't try injecting logic into this.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
speculawyer said:
If your best case for something is "Well look at Estonia" then you should know you are fucking wrong. I mean he could point to the UK, Ireland, Greece, Spain ... all countries doing austerity. But he knows they are all fucked. So he has to resort to country that most people have never heard of and the data doesn't even support the thesis. That's crazy.
Click to expand...

That reminds me: remember when McCain was all over Ireland as a model of economic success?
 
Z

zargle

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Question, isn't the CIA barred from action in the USA? So why is this holding up the CIA director? He can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Piecake said:
Eh, I think it makes sense. Its symbolic. Paul is just doing it to bring attention to this issue and the time to do it is right now because people associate drone strikes and the CIA together.
Click to expand...

Well also because Brennan has been the head of the drone program and its key advocate. If you don't agree with the drone program you probably don't want Brennan running the CIA.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Technically Rand Paul agrees with the drone program.

He disagrees that there's a possibility that a drone should be used on US soil/citizens. Has no problem with them used on non-citizens.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Tamanon said:
Technically Rand Paul agrees with the drone program.

He disagrees that there's a possibility that a drone should be used on US soil/citizens. Has no problem with them used on non-citizens.
Click to expand...

And Holder answered his question.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-john-brennan-and-the-exploding-cafe-scenario/
“I rise today for the principle,” Paul declared as he kicked off his talkathon. “That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco, or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, is an abomination.”

Could they? Is it? In recent weeks Paul and others have asked Brennan, the Obama White House, and, most recently, Attorney General Eric Holder whether the president thinks he’d be allowed to do such a thing. No one has exactly ruled it out. In a letter to Paul on Tuesday, and in Senate testimony Wednesday, Holder gave the most detailed answers to date. While allowing that Obama has “no intention” to blow up an American within the 50 states, he could “conceivably have no choice” but to do so in an extreme emergency, akin to the September 11 or Pearl Harbor attacks.


That’s not good enough for Paul, who among other things is fixated on the idea that the president might strike a suspected terrorist who, unlike the aggressors on those two days of infamy, is not in the middle of a warlike act. A person sitting at “a cafe in San Francisco,” for instance.

In fact, the cafe scenario came up during Holder’s mostly unrelated Senate testimony earlier today, when Republican Ted Cruz asked Holder whether it would be legal to drone an American “sitting at a cafe.” Holder’s answer: “No.”

But that’s still not good enough for Paul, who just before 5pm conceded that Holder’s response to Cruz had come close to satisfying his concern. But Paul then added that he wants a “comprehensive” statement from Holder flatly declaring that “the drone program will not kill americans who are not involved in combat.”
Click to expand...
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Tamanon said:
Technically Rand Paul agrees with the drone program.

He disagrees that there's a possibility that a drone should be used on US soil/citizens. Has no problem with them used on non-citizens.
Click to expand...

THIS ISN'T TRUE. Why do people keep saying it. He has said many times during this filibuster he is against drone strikes on non-combatants without trial, whether US citizen or not.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Angry Fork said:
THIS ISN'T TRUE. Why do people keep saying it. He has said many times during this filibuster he is against drone strikes on non-combatants without trial, whether US citizen or not.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about drone strikes on non-combatants.

There is a debate about who is a combatant, sure. but the notion Obama is justifying attacks on random people is absurd. The administration has only talked about strikes on people that they have intelligence are targeting the US.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
el retorno said:
Nobody is talking about drone strikes on non-combatants.

There is a debate about who is a combatant, sure. but the notion Obama is justifying attacks on random people is absurd. The administration has only talked about strikes on people that they have intelligence are targeting the US.
Click to expand...

That isn't justification for murder and isn't an 'imminent' threat, anyone overseas can be killed while sleeping whether enemies of the US or not and using it on US citizens without trial has already been done/will continue to be done if there is no protest (never mind indefinite detention we've already skipped past that point now).

That's the entire point (besides the US citizen thing, which is being used to attract more attention either for moral reasons or opportunist just in order to shit on the president.) Either way is fine to me as long as it puts the spotlight on drones. I hate republicans but if the more libertarian ones can be used alongside leftists and socialists as a vessel to limit Obama's drone war that's fine with me, I can separate party from policy.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
R

RDreamer

Member
Oblivion said:
Anyway, so here's Bill O' trying to explain his little meltdown yesterday:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-ore...to-draw-attention-to-obamas-economic-madness/
Click to expand...


O’Reilly predicted the debt could hit $20 trillion when Obama leaves office in 2017. He described the president’s policies as “economic madness,” explaining “that’s the reason I raised my voice last night: to raise everybody’s attention.” He maintained that while Obama has consistently been concerned with raising taxes while not allowing any spending cuts.
Click to expand...

I dunno about you, but I think I'd call the irrational fear of a number the greater madness in all this.

Edit: And now I saw the original video... wow, what a sack of crap. And that lady there is a total idiot, too.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ClassyPenguin said:
While I applaud Rand's effort, I don't think it will do much.
Call me jaded.
Click to expand...

It already has. This may be the biggest "PR" loss of Obama's presidency since Scott Brown won/2010 elections. Twitter is going crazy, and people who don't even follow politics are learning about Holder's comments. Meanwhile Obama has yet to do a detailed interview on the drone policy and gets visibly agitated whenever anyone questions his civil liberties record. It's just a bad look.

But have no fear, Obama will give the world his March Madness picks in a few days
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
I'm sure Obama will be perfectly content with this being considered the biggest PR disaster of his presidency.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
PhoenixDark said:
It already has. This may be the biggest "PR" loss of Obama's presidency since Scott Brown won/2010 elections. Twitter is going crazy, and people who don't even follow politics are learning about Holder's comments. Meanwhile Obama has yet to do a detailed interview on the drone policy and gets visibly agitated whenever anyone questions his civil liberties record. It's just a bad look.

But have no fear, Obama will give the world his March Madness picks in a few days
Click to expand...
ice cold. This is dj quik level ether
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
If you're a simple man then why are you discussing budget proposals, complex politics and other complicated stuff?

O'Reilly has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't want to admit that he is wrong. His response to any answer that people give is to move the goal posts.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
I hope the filibuster gets reformed, but I hope this doesn't distract people. Making people stand up and talk is a GOOD thing, but if you don't end the sixty-vote requirement, NOTHING will change.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Dax01 said:
I hope the filibuster gets reformed, but I hope this doesn't distract people. Making people stand up and talk is a GOOD thing, but if you don't end the sixty-vote requirement, NOTHING will change.
Click to expand...
Senators aren't exactly young and spry, though. Having to stand and talk adds physical burden along with political visibility.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
el retorno said:
And Holder answered his question.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-john-brennan-and-the-exploding-cafe-scenario/
Click to expand...

I still have a problem with Holder's response. Obama having "no intention" isn't good enough. He should not have the power unless in the case of extraordinary circumstances. It shouldn't come down to him having no intention.
Hitokage said:
Senators aren't exactly young and spry, though. Having to stand and talk adds physical burden along with political visibility.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't change the sixty-vote requirement. A majority leader can outlast a filibuster, but if the sixty-vote requirement is still in place once one is done, nothing will pass.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Dax01 said:
Obama having "no intention" isn't good enough. He should not have the power unless in the case of extraordinary circumstances. It shouldn't come down to him having no intention.
Click to expand...

The problem is you're never going to get a firm answer because of that caveat you put in. Extraordinary circumstances.

Why have a legal document that has limits for yourself when you don't think you need them (because you have internal limits, aka no intention) you never know when things change and having an answer that say "no, never" limits you if circumstances change

If they have such a problem with it congress should be doing more to try to limit the president rather than demanding he self-police himself. Pass a law which gives certain outlines for him to follow.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
el retorno said:
The problem is you're not going to ever get a firm answer because of that caveat you put in. Extraordinary circumstances.
Click to expand...

Having the power to use drones only in extraordinary circumstances is different having no intention to use them. Does Obama have no intention to use missiles against the American public, or does not have the power to?
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Dax01 said:
But it doesn't change the sixty-vote requirement. A majority leader can outlast a filibuster, but if the sixty-vote requirement is still in place once one is done, nothing will pass.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm no expert on Senate rules and may be totally wrong, but my impression is the following:

It's sixty votes to force debate to end, slamming the door on a filibuster in progress even though a senator has the floor. Once the floor is ceded it can be brought to a vote without sixty votes. The problem is that procedures as they are now allow for an effortless and perpetual floor hold so the filibuster never ends unless forced.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Dax01 said:
Having the power to use drones only in extraordinary circumstances is different having no intention to use them. Does Obama have no intention to use missiles against the American public, or does not have the power to?
Click to expand...

His answer was he doesn't have the authority if there is law enforcement (pretty much the entire US) but things like 9/11 can always happen so he's not gonna say he never will.

How can he say he doesn't have the power if at the same time says there are exception when he does(extraordinary circumstances)?
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Dax01 said:
But it doesn't change the sixty-vote requirement. A majority leader can outlast a filibuster, but if the sixty-vote requirement is still in place once one is done, nothing will pass.
Click to expand...
It's still a lot better than the system that's in place now.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
pigeon said:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. CL made the suggestion that we're not technically attacking Yemen because the Yemeni president agreed to it. I'm not convinced that matters. If you're saying that we wouldn't bomb Yemen if it were as powerful as, say, Iran, obviously I agree, but I don't think it's relevant to the question of whether we've committed acts of war against Yemen!
Click to expand...

I guess my point is that these distinctions don't matter, really. I've never been one about technicalities.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Black Mamba said:
I guess my point is that these distinctions don't matter, really. I've never been one about technicalities.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, yes, international law is basically meaningless because America does whatever it wants, that's true, but I don't actually think that's a good basis for discussion. We should probably behave as though international law is a thing! Pretending that otherwise meaningless distinctions matter because we have agreed to call them laws is kind of the foundation of civilized society. The fact that America constantly acts like a Mongol horde with aircraft carriers doesn't really change that, I think.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
el retorno said:
His answer was he doesn't have the authority if there is law enforcement (pretty much the entire US) but things like 9/11 can always happen so he's not gonna say he never will.
Click to expand...
That's not what your source says.
How can he say he doesn't have the power if at the same time says there are exception when he does(extraordinary circumstances)?
Click to expand...
With the word "unless"? I think you're fudging something that doesn't need to be fudged.
Hitokage said:
Ok, I'm no expert on Senate rules and may be totally wrong, but my impression is the following:

It's sixty votes to force debate to end, slamming the door on a filibuster in progress even though a senator has the floor. Once the floor is ceded it can be brought to a vote without sixty votes. The problem is that procedures as they are now allow for an effortless and perpetual floor hold so the filibuster never ends unless forced.
Click to expand...
You still need sixty votes. That's why Bernstein doesn't like it.
Link said:
It's still a lot better than the system that's in place now.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't solve the problem.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
Oh my god...watch this video:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kirsten-...-colmes-bill-you-are-a-hundred-percent-wrong/

I know this isn't new, but holy shit, Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Powers should have stuck to chained CPI since it literally can't get more specific than that.

Of course Bill O sounds like a fucking troglodyte here, regardless.

Well, I mean, yes, international law is basically meaningless because America does whatever it wants, that's true, but I don't actually think that's a good basis for discussion. We should probably behave as though international law is a thing! Pretending that otherwise meaningless distinctions matter because we have agreed to call them laws is kind of the foundation of civilized society. The fact that America constantly acts like a Mongol horde with aircraft carriers doesn't really change that, I think.
Click to expand...

no, the foundation of society is the ability to enforce those laws.

You say "attacking a terrorist in yemen" is an act of war on yemen even if it's allowed by the Yemeni gov't. And maybe by technical definition it is, but what function does that serve?
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I asked this in the other thread

How is the drone issue any different than scrambling jets to take down the planes during 9/11?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
916
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
727
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom