You assert a right to be immune from reasonable searches and warrants.
You assert a right to habeas corpus.
You assert a right to full disclosure of classified information.
Some of you assert a right to other people’s vital organs.
Neither.
God, no. That would require you take more than a passing interest in the health and well being of someone who isn’t you. And we all know that’s just not your bag.
Nah, not “other people’s”. Just yours. Your organs. Give them to us.
I care about other people, but I’m not going to lose sleep over people who refuse to be helped.
Yep. We now have General Dyer posting among us.
Isn’t this the same poster who thinks children should be taken from their parents and raised with a uniform set of values by the state?
You exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution and an ignorance of the concept of privacy.
By the way, did you ever look into that Nazi policy whose 21st Century analogue you evidently support implementing?
I don’t recall advocating for the mass arrest of Republicans.
Yes.
Reasonable searches and warrants are not the subject of this discussion. Please try to keep up with the class.
That is not one of the options. If the NSA did not know about Heartbleed despite their massive budget and mandate to protect American cyberinfrastructure (as they claim), they are incompetent. If the NSA did know about Heartbleed and exploited it without warning the industry to fix it (as discovered by Bloomberg), they are nefarious.
Again, please try to keep up with the class.
I know this was a while back, but…
Agreed. Collateral damage does not equate with deliberate and willful murder. Airstrikes against military targets have never been off-limits. As far as I am concerned, I don’t care if we kill every single goddamned one of them until none are left. Allowing the enemy to have a sanctuary in Pakistan, and supporting the Pakistani government without confronting them for their crimes, is just about the hideous and corrupt thing the Obama (and Bush) administrations have done.
The opposing party has made the argument that it is unjust and disproportionate to wage wars whose death tolls outnumber those killed in the 9/11 attacks. As though we should, for some reason, stop when the death toll hits 3,000 because after that it’s just not worth it. I do not concur.
-
America is willing to sacrifice a disproportionate number of lives and resources in the pursuit of justice. Our enemies have mocked us for, as an example, spending huge amounts of resources to track down the Boston Bombers. What they fail to appreciate is that America considers that a worthy investment and we will continue to make sacrifices as long as necessary. I have devoted my entire adult life to this pursuit.
-
Killing 3,000 enemies is not a just or equitable retribution for the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans. I would prefer to see every single Islamic terrorist on earth, whether in Iran, Pakistan, or Somalia, die horribly. It does not matter whether this is 3,000, or 300,000, or 3 million. These people are Evil with capital “E” and deserve their deaths. The fact that they use children as human shields and drone-bait in an attempt to gain a PR victory only multiplies THEIR crimes, not ours.
-
Obama’s pursuit of peace has resulted in an America that is widely perceived as impotent. Regimes in South America actively court Islamic terrorists, Russia makes a mockery of the West, and the very idea of democracy in the Middle East has proven to be a farce. Making war and expanded spy powers are horrible things, but allowing these people to go unpunished is far more horrible indeed.
This is not the main argument by those who oppose drone strikes – the main argument is that it kills far too many people who shouldn’t be killed, in addition to the purposeful haziness and secrecy of the whole program. And collateral damage is not just a moral problem – for every innocent person we kill by mistake, we’re creating legitimate anger and hatred for America… how could we blame a man for hating America if America was careless enough to kill his innocent mother and father, for example?
I think this is a specious argument against a straw man, but it’s still wrong to kill innocent people, even if it’s by mistake. I don’t think we’re being careful enough. The fact that the drone programs are so mysterious makes it nearly impossible to know whether we are, or whether the program is being executed competently and with as little loss of innocent life as possible.
You might be willing to kill lots of children to kill a terrorist, but that doesn’t make it right. And how do we know which ones are the terrorists? When we kill lots of innocents, I think we might be creating as many terrorists as we’re killing.
This is complete bullshit. International opinion of America and of the President is far more positive now than it was under Bush, even if it’s dropped somewhat since the sky-high numbers at the beginning of his presidency.
Further, America is much, much stronger and safer now than it was under Bush (this is opinion, of course). Far fewer Americans are dying overseas. Bin Laden, finally, has been killed. The recent wars made us weaker and less safe, not stronger and safer.
Fortunately, as I noted, Smapti’s misunderstanding and ignorance are irrelevant to the larger picture; the advance of security technology and (more importantly) the increased interest in employing it in the wake of Snowden’s whistle-blowing will ultimately force the government back onto its leash. Putting a proper institutional choke collar with a few shock electrodes on that leash is desirable, but not essential.
Cite?
NM the cite; we have a confession.
The word you are looking for is unreasonable.
Do you even know what you’re talking about? The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Mein Führer! I can walk!
So America gets shit on for carelessly killing his innocent mother and father, but Al-Qaeda is heroic for willfully and deliberately killing over 3,000 innocent men, women, and children on September 11, alone?
It’s not to say that we should be allowed to kill people because they killed ours… that’s not my point. My point is that there is a moral amibvalence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan in which terrorist attacks on America are not just condoned but celebrated… and that was *BEFORE *our airstrikes began in their territory.
Further, I see a tremendous refusal to acknowledge the legitimate cause-and-effect process of why we are compelled to launch airstrikes in Pakistan. The Pakistani government and the people in these villages are actively supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Pakistan itself is engaged in a proxy war against America. Again, they were doing this before the airstrike campaign started. I am stunned and appalled that so many people refuse to acknowledge this fact. The reaction against the air campaign is a PR stunt to protect the Taliban and allow them to continue to operate in sanctuary… and just like in Vietnam, we cannot win the war while we allow the enemy a sanctuary and refuse to defeat them at the strategic level.
Our airstrike campaign in Pakistan is no more unethical than the strategic bombing campaigns in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Pakistan is an enemy nation. And frankly, I couldn’t care less what the people of Pakistan think any more than I would care about the opinions of the Soviet Union, Iran, or North Korea. They are evil, they need to be stopped, and America should be ashamed of hiring Presidents like Bush and Obama who actively finance and coddle our enemies.
And the truly sad thing is that for many years America just ignored the problem of Islamic terrorism and allowed them to do as they pleased. We didn’t launch wars after the bombings of the World Trade Center, USS Cole, or the 1985 murder of Robert Stethem. We treated it as a law enforcement problem and exercised great restraint. Apparently this accomplished nothing, because our restraint and apathy was rewarded with the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
America is the laughing stock of the world because our Presidents have turned us into farce. We led a halfass, illegal, immoral war in Iraq that sapped our resources and diverted our attention from the legitimate conflict in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has always been an even more halfassed effort than Iraq was, and it has likely cost us the conflict. Places like Pakistan, Russia, China, and Syria are permitted to commit atrocities and aggression because they know we are too weak and tired to do anything about it. Our Presidents, both Bush and Obama, deserve to be in jail for their stunning cowardice and ineptitude in leading these conflicts.
And bombing the shit out of Pakistan is just about the only thing in this whole process they’ve done right.
… Not to mention that we might kill some poor Pakistani’s mother and (Taliban) father, but does anybody give a shit about how many Americans are dead?
Is an American not allowed to feel legitimate anger and even rage because 3,000 American mothers and fathers are dead? And what are our military survivors expected to feel when their mothers or fathers are dead at the hands of a Pakistani?
How could Pakistan blame a man for hating Pakistan if Pakistan was cruel enough to willfully and deliberately kill his innocent mother and father?
But they don’t see that, or they don’t care, or they just refuse to admit it.
(… and by the way, they’ll take the $1.5 billion a year our government… which they hate… gives them.)
It’s kind of hard to feel bad for a country that shoots 14 year old girls in the head for the crime of going to school… but then gets mad at America when we try to do something about it.
I am perfectly okay with stopping the air campaign when Pakistan gets its shit together and confronts the Taliban. Until then, they are the enemy. And I don’t care about a single goddamned one of them.
…you do realize this is an international board, with thousands of non-US members?
Can you explain to me why non Americans should give a shit about American dead? And why should American innocent dead be more important than a Pakistani innocent dead?
Of course they’re not heroic! What kind of straw-man crap is this?
This has nothing to do with the morality of dronestrikes and collateral damage.
Still not getting it. I have no problem with killing terrorists. I didn’t when I served in the Navy and I don’t now. I have a problem with killing innocent people, and with a program of strikes that makes it very unclear how many innocents are dying.
None of this has anything to do with my point.
You’re just ranting on and on about nothing relevant to our disagreement.
It’s funny and sad to see this statement:
…immediately followed by this one:
So you’re angry when they shoot 14 year old girls in the head, but you “don’t care about a single goddamned one of them”? No wonder your arguments make no sense.