Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

MSNBC Startling Poll

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.
Tsar of DDO
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 7:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

And does this not presume guilty until proven innocent?
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 8:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 7:49:57 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

And does this not presume guilty until proven innocent?

The right to a trial by jury is one of those conventions of due process I mentioned... lol
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

I don't think it is too murky, though.
Treason/sedition is punishable by death, although a military trial is to be conducted to my understanding.

However, the issue is "war" vs. a single act. My attempting an assassination is over and done with, so a trial can be conducted. However, if I acted as a group and we are still actively attempting to overthrow the government (especially with force against the military), my trial would wait until hostilities are over. Of course, my capture is part of the hostility, so do I have the rights as others would, or can I be taken out by force?
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

I don't think it is too murky, though.
Treason/sedition is punishable by death, although a military trial is to be conducted to my understanding.

However, the issue is "war" vs. a single act. My attempting an assassination is over and done with, so a trial can be conducted. However, if I acted as a group and we are still actively attempting to overthrow the government (especially with force against the military), my trial would wait until hostilities are over. Of course, my capture is part of the hostility, so do I have the rights as others would, or can I be taken out by force?

The right to be held until the end of hostilities is something uniquely afforded to uniformed soldiers who operate within the laws of war. Saboteurs, conspirators of legally recognized enemies in war and guerrilla forces of non-recognized enemies in war (who are all by definition non-uniformed combatants) do not enjoy that right. The uniform is significant because it both delineates legal adversaries in war of sovereign (i.e. legitimate state actors in war), and distinguishes combatants from noncombatants in zones of belligerency. Where that line cannot be drawn between combatants or non combatants of any kind, the rights afforded to combatants (who are then necessarily unlawful) by war conventions do not apply. This also requires a legal declaration of war against an internationally recognized adversary (which non-uniformed combatants are not). Treason, though, is a crime contingent on legal status, such that only a citizen of a country may be declared a traitor, where prior allegiance is required to be charged of betrayal in that fashion. A US citizen (who is or is not a soldier -a uniformed combatant) may be charged with treason, and death is the punishment, but he may be also be deemed an immanent threat to the United States, its interests or its allies. But, where it is the case that capture and detention is unachievable, then and only then may he be killed by a drone strike -citizen or otherwise. This is the present doctrine of the Obama Administration, regarding drone strikes.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:03:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

I don't think it is too murky, though.
Treason/sedition is punishable by death, although a military trial is to be conducted to my understanding.

However, the issue is "war" vs. a single act. My attempting an assassination is over and done with, so a trial can be conducted. However, if I acted as a group and we are still actively attempting to overthrow the government (especially with force against the military), my trial would wait until hostilities are over. Of course, my capture is part of the hostility, so do I have the rights as others would, or can I be taken out by force?

The right to be held until the end of hostilities is something uniquely afforded to uniformed soldiers who operate within the laws of war. Saboteurs, conspirators of legally recognized enemies in war and guerrilla forces of non-recognized enemies in war (who are all by definition non-uniformed combatants) do not enjoy that right. The uniform is significant because it both delineates legal adversaries in war of sovereign (i.e. legitimate state actors in war), and distinguishes combatants from noncombatants in zones of belligerency. Where that line cannot be drawn between combatants or non combatants of any kind, the rights afforded to combatants (who are then necessarily unlawful) by war conventions do not apply. This also requires a legal declaration of war against an internationally recognized adversary (which non-uniformed combatants are not). Treason, though, is a crime contingent on legal status, such that only a citizen of a country may be declared a traitor, where prior allegiance is required to be charged of betrayal in that fashion. A US citizen (who is or is not a soldier -a uniformed combatant) may be charged with treason, and death is the punishment, but he may be also be deemed an immanent threat to the United States, its interests or its allies. But, where it is the case that capture and detention is unachievable, then and only then may he be killed by a drone strike -citizen or otherwise. This is the present doctrine of the Obama Administration, regarding drone strikes.

The thing to take note of here, which is implied, is that the emphasis is not on punishing the aggressor (whether he is a citizen or not, regardless of his status in belligerency). The emphasis is on neutralizing a security threat -which we know by the fact that drone strikes are only legally permissible where capture is not possible.
Tsar of DDO
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:29:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:49:57 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

And does this not presume guilty until proven innocent?

The right to a trial by jury is one of those conventions of due process I mentioned... lol

How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:29:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:49:57 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I don't know how the poll was conducted so I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, but I'm not surprised -and I'm one of those uneducated neanderthals too, I suppose. FYI, though, one sheds their constitutional rights in the moment that they take up arms against or consort with enemies of the United States -specifically terrorist organizations. That is not to say that the government looses its obligation to afford individuals due process (though this issue is still murky), but the benefits of citizenship and the due process provisions inherent to the US legal system should not be expected by one who conspires against the US. While I sincerely doubt that most Americans understand the legal nuances of the issue, I do think that most people understand the difference between an ally or enemy -which is again, why I'm not surprised by this.

And does this not presume guilty until proven innocent?

The right to a trial by jury is one of those conventions of due process I mentioned... lol

How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I think that in order to understand why 75% of Americans voted yes we would have to see what arguments that Ed used on his show and stuck in people's heads.... However, that would require watching MSNBC, which is something that I dont think anyone on here is prepared to do....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:31:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:20:05 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/25/2013 7:16:12 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I have always hated MSNBC and have viewed it as WAY more biased than fox news. Here is a startling poll from MSNBC:

"Do you agree with the policy of targeted killing of American citizens?"

75 PERCENT said "YES"

http://tv.msnbc.com...

WTF is wrong with those people? Haven't they ever heard of something called The Constitution of the United States of America? If not, now is a good time to read it or refresh your memory

http://www.heritage.org...

I think that in order to understand why 75% of Americans voted yes we would have to see what arguments that Ed used on his show and stuck in people's heads.... However, that would require watching MSNBC, which is something that I dont think anyone on here is prepared to do....

I turned on MSNBC last night, I was just stunned at how pathetic and biased they were. I had to turn it off as the statism just made me puke.

Seriously, if any liberal wants to trash fox news, MSNBC is FAR WORSE than Fox!
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:35:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've heard of the Constitution and some of its provisions. Here is a famous one:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Just because the Constitution says something does not mean it is good. That's a bad argument. People can have anti-Constitution opinions. I don't agree with the respondents of the poll, but your line of attack is pretty bad.

Also, Fox News makes people less educated about current events than people who don't watch the news at all.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:47:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:35:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I've heard of the Constitution and some of its provisions. Here is a famous one:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Just because the Constitution says something does not mean it is good. That's a bad argument. People can have anti-Constitution opinions. I don't agree with the respondents of the poll, but your line of attack is pretty bad.

Also, Fox News makes people less educated about current events than people who don't watch the news at all.

We've not yet ratified an amendment which changes the 4th - 8th amendments. However, with the 16th amendment, we did change the portion of the constitution about which you are referring.

al Alwaki's greatest crime was his fervent anti-US Government speech. He made no specific threat against America, and he posed no threat to the safety of Americans.

He MAY HAVE housed some members of al Qaeda, but since The US State Department is now openly funding and arming members of this organization, this hardly seems like a crime worthy of death without due process (the 8th Amendment is also at issue here).

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!! 1st this, then that...it always seems reasonable the first time your rights are dismantled...because it's not "your" rights, it's "that guy's rights"...and then you realize that guy's rights were your rights...but not until it's too late.

Lucas got most of the prequels wrong, but this one line was the one place he nailed it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:25:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:22:50 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I love how none of you double checked the poll. DoutingDave is wrong, 75% of people said NO to the question, not YES.

so, 25% said "YES"? - not as bad, but not without its issues.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you for voting!
No 74.23% (5,104 votes)

Yes 25.77% (1,772 votes)

Total Votes: 6,876
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:45:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:22:50 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I love how none of you double checked the poll. DoutingDave is wrong, 75% of people said NO to the question, not YES.

It's a "poll daddy" poll, which leaves the possibility open for change in time -meaning that while it could have said 75% when he made the original post, it reflects the opposite now. Or he could have just made a mistake... both are possibilities. Being a "poll daddy" poll, the results are hardly reliable. The issue of drone strikes, though, remains poignant.
Tsar of DDO
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"

...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:56:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"

...

Do you understand the meaning of the word "imminent"?
Tsar of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:45:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is frustrating. Drones are bad policy, especially for attacking within the USA.

People are unaware though. People support foreign aid (of which, I can personally verify, doesn't reach the poor, just subsidizes the rich people overseas), people support entitlements that will bankrupt us, et cetera.

I don't want to give off the impression that I'm right; I, just like everyone else, make errors. But still, attacking our fellow citizens is simply bad policy, I'm surprised by the result.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:48:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:45:12 PM, Contra wrote:
This is frustrating. Drones are bad policy, especially for attacking within the USA.

People are unaware though. People support foreign aid (of which, I can personally verify, doesn't reach the poor, just subsidizes the rich people overseas), people support entitlements that will bankrupt us, et cetera.

I don't want to give off the impression that I'm right; I, just like everyone else, make errors. But still, attacking our fellow citizens is simply bad policy, I'm surprised by the result.

Most people are more likely to be in favor of cutting foreign aid. However, foreign aid constitutes such a small part of the budget it doesn't matter much. The emeprical evidence for foreign aid improving economic development is bad. However, I think its pretty obvious that foreign aid really isn't use to benefit poorer countries, but is used as a political/military instrument. I think this is acceptable if the political and military instruments are used for good.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:48:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:45:12 PM, Contra wrote:
This is frustrating. Drones are bad policy, especially for attacking within the USA.

People are unaware though. People support foreign aid (of which, I can personally verify, doesn't reach the poor, just subsidizes the rich people overseas), people support entitlements that will bankrupt us, et cetera.

I don't want to give off the impression that I'm right; I, just like everyone else, make errors. But still, attacking our fellow citizens is simply bad policy, I'm surprised by the result.

Most people are more likely to be in favor of cutting foreign aid. However, foreign aid constitutes such a small part of the budget it doesn't matter much. The emeprical evidence for foreign aid improving economic development is bad. However, I think its pretty obvious that foreign aid really isn't use to benefit poorer countries, but is used as a political/military instrument.

You are fully correct, in my opinion.

I think this is acceptable if the political and military instruments are used for good.

I have a relative who lives overseas, he basically sees any of the aid in form of military weapons or just wealth transfers to the wealthy. The Muslim Brotherhood shouldn't have our F16 fighter jets, and we shouldn't export any of our cutting edge Abram's tanks.

We invested our land, labor, capital, and knowledge into these weapons, we should protect ourselves, and sell off our outdated tanks perhaps.

I think our foreign policy should be more focused on non intervention and free trade, rather than weapons deals. Maybe I'm naive. Why can't we try to get along with nations like Iran? Sure they hate us, but we could take the lead by trying to forge trade deals, respect their religion, get out of their backyard, and stop our foreign wars.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:04:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd have to know exactly what we get out of foreign aid deals. I'm not entirely sure myself. I like to think of foreign aid merely as a form of 'trade' rather then us actually giving stuff away. There's probably militarly application as well, but I also don't know what my current view on military policy is right now. International relations is much more difficult to assess then basic economics, since the empirical evidence is weak and its harder to measure outcomes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"ED SHOW" POLL: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE POLICY OF TARGETED KILLING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS?

No 74.2% (5,105 votes)

Yes 25.8% (1,775 votes)

Total Votes: 6,880
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:48:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:22:50 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I love how none of you double checked the poll. DoutingDave is wrong, 75% of people said NO to the question, not YES.

LOL.
What a great lesson.
Wait a minute, let me look this up 1st my self...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:50:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:48:46 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:22:50 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I love how none of you double checked the poll. DoutingDave is wrong, 75% of people said NO to the question, not YES.

LOL.
What a great lesson.
Wait a minute, let me look this up 1st my self...

Thank you for voting!
No 74.2% (5,106 votes)

Yes 25.8% (1,775 votes)

Total Votes: 6,881

Comments (82)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:36:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"

...

Do you understand the meaning of the word "imminent"?

I have cited how the Department of Justice defines it, so I don't see what the purpose of your question is.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:04:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:54:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:36:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"

...

Do you understand the meaning of the word "imminent"?

I have cited how the Department of Justice defines it, so I don't see what the purpose of your question is.

So what does "imminent" imply -as in what would you have to know before you could call something "imminent"?
Tsar of DDO
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:04:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:54:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:36:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 11:33:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:18:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:14:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
How exactly do we give a trial to someone who is the subject of a targeted killing? Unless I'm mistaken the controversy over targeted killings is that due process (particularly a trial) is pragmatically impossible.

So, the conventions of due process are out the door in war. That's the point. And read the post I made just before yours. The point isn't to "punish" the aggressor so much as it is to neutralize an imminent threat to the United States where doing so is both necessary and indispensable.

And yet such actions, as far as I've come to understand them, are not limited to wartime.

Furthermore a recent memo released by the DoJ states "The condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,"

...

Do you understand the meaning of the word "imminent"?

I have cited how the Department of Justice defines it, so I don't see what the purpose of your question is.

So what does "imminent" imply -as in what would you have to know before you could call something "imminent"?

The justice department defines it as not requiring clear evidence that it will happen in the near future. However the dictionary, and conventional understanding of "imminent" is precisely the opposite, that imminent implies that it is liable to happen soon or at any moment. Their definition is completely counter-intuitive.

This I think is an example of how definitions are manipulated to suit political agendas.