Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Assassinations

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:36:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.economist.com...

I don't so much mind assassinations of people who are the heads of organizations which we're at war with, but I'd like to see some kind of judicial procedure to sign off on such orders.

If the admin can reasonably show to the court that the target is a manager of an organization we're at war with (or just a regular old bloodthirsty terrorist), then they'd be fair game for a targeted (like the kind in the article) assassination.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:40:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:36:09 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I don't so much mind assassinations of people who are the heads of organizations which we're at war with

Though I don't know that Israel is officially at war with Hamas... I guess they could claim they're just taking out a terrorist d-bag though..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:45:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Making it a judicial matter isn't helpful. It will tie it up quite a lot of bureaucracy, not to mention you'll be spreading the order out to more and more people, increasing the chances of the mark knowing whats coming for him/her.

The idea of accountability in such a matter is important, no doubt, but to leave it to the courts is going much too far. Such targeted assassinations are military matters, and it should stay within the military, and remain with the heads and generals of the various organizations and branches. You could do something like, making the order of assassination dependent upon the agreed vote of all or some Joint Chiefs of Staff, but lets keep the awe-inspiring deductive reasoning of the courts out of it for now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:46:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:40:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Though I don't know that Israel is officially at war with Hamas... I guess they could claim they're just taking out a terrorist d-bag though..

Israel is officially "at war" with Hamas, though who declared war first, I don't know.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:51:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:45:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
Making it a judicial matter isn't helpful. It will tie it up quite a lot of bureaucracy, not to mention you'll be spreading the order out to more and more people, increasing the chances of the mark knowing whats coming for him/her.

The idea of accountability in such a matter is important, no doubt, but to leave it to the courts is going much too far. Such targeted assassinations are military matters, and it should stay within the military, and remain with the heads and generals of the various organizations and branches. You could do something like, making the order of assassination dependent upon the agreed vote of all or some Joint Chiefs of Staff, but lets keep the awe-inspiring deductive reasoning of the courts out of it for now.

mmm.. a 'secret' court??
...just like, run it past a judge right quick??

what really worries me is near the end of the article, when they talk of how Obama signed an order to go after an American dude in Yemen who's a terrorist.

Now Americans (rather selfish I know) are supposed to have rights, and if this dude is truly a terrorist Dbag, or a leader in some organization we're at war with, then I'd say he's fair game, BUT the idea is that that's supposed to be proven before his "rights" are laid to the side.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:53:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think we have done similiar things in the past. I will get back to you, but I'm sure the CIA assassinated, or assisted at least, in the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem. I will check to see if I am mixing this up with something else. As for judicial review, not sure the judicial branch has that power as such an attempt must surely be an executive order. Not sure I know a feasible way of pulling off a judicial review.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:56:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:53:58 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I think we have done similiar things in the past. I will get back to you, but I'm sure the CIA assassinated, or assisted at least, in the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem. I will check to see if I am mixing this up with something else.

Yeah, I'm sure we have.

As for judicial review, not sure the judicial branch has that power as such an attempt must surely be an executive order.

I would think if the person's an American citizen some kind of case would have to be presented to a court.

Not sure I know a feasible way of pulling off a judicial review.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:02:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:56:51 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/18/2010 9:53:58 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
As for judicial review, not sure the judicial branch has that power as such an attempt must surely be an executive order.

I would think if the person's an American citizen some kind of case would have to be presented to a court.

What?! This is America god damn it! If we want to assassinate someone, we should have the God given right to do so without the evil government sticking its nose in it!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:02:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:51:42 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mmm.. a 'secret' court??
...just like, run it past a judge right quick??

what really worries me is near the end of the article, when they talk of how Obama signed an order to go after an American dude in Yemen who's a terrorist.

Now Americans (rather selfish I know) are supposed to have rights, and if this dude is truly a terrorist Dbag, or a leader in some organization we're at war with, then I'd say he's fair game, BUT the idea is that that's supposed to be proven before his "rights" are laid to the side.

Well, that I understand. It is a major concern, because if you're off ordering assassinations for people that are not apart of the organizations you're "at war" with, for lack of a better term, the question of the legality and rights really comes into question.

But, when you also have a "secret court," you're really only running into the same problem. The fact is that a court held in secret would need a judge that could not be held accountable for his ruling, and the same goes with simply running it by a judge quickly. It isn't the same as, say, obtaining a warrant, because those judges can be held accountable by their peers as well as the system itself. With a judge or court acting in secret, you'd need that accountability taken away.

Now, with the Joint Chiefs, or whatever the equivalent is in whichever country, you do have a good level of accountability, because by placing such a request at their feet, you make them responsible for the consequences, good or bad. It adds that level of accountability that I think is important, especially in cases where maybe the legality of the assassination is treading a fuzzy line.

As for whether or not they'd make such a decision what maybe treads over legal lines, I think all these Chiefs know the limits of what they can and cannot do on paper. They'd tread carefully.

But, mind you, I do only suggest this because I assume the Joint Chiefs have some form of accountability within their system, so when they make stupid decisions, someone kicks them out or whatever. I might be wrong about that, in which case, running it by a judge would be best. But, you still have to be careful about accountability and all this.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:07:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If legitimate, internationally recognised leaders can be strung up amidst the jeers of foreign mercenaries, and if national armies are renamed insurgents and terrorists, then the whole legality of things becomes rather blurred.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:23:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Somebody should assassinate Kim Jong-Il, lol. :D

There's a lot of people that should be assassinated in the world.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:25:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:23:05 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Somebody should assassinate Kim Jong-Il, lol. :D

There's a lot of people that should be assassinated in the world.

Like Kim Jong-Il. That would be the heartache of the Korean people too since they practically view him as a God. I suppose they don't know any different though.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 11:22:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:45:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
Making it a judicial matter isn't helpful. It will tie it up quite a lot of bureaucracy
A bureaucracy and a judge are two different things. Not that I'm saying we should have to have judicial signoffs necessarily (I also don't think it's a terrible idea-- we need it for a freaking wiretap, why not an assassination?), but a judge is one guy who is by definition answerable to no one for a particular decision, not a lengthy chain of command that each has to let stuff through. The military or intelligence agency submitting the plans can far more accurately be described as a bureaucracy than some judge for assassination warrants.

Basically, it really comes down to the confidence you have in our legal system to not be pumped full of useless bleeding hearts. Ideally, judicial signoffs are warranted, but if the judiciary is corrupted, by compassion or other means, I don't blame people for not seeking them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:06:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 11:22:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Basically, it really comes down to the confidence you have in our legal system to not be pumped full of useless bleeding hearts. Ideally, judicial signoffs are warranted, but if the judiciary is corrupted, by compassion or other means, I don't blame people for not seeking them.

Corrupted by "compassion"? Surely you jest - that is not any form of corruption that I am aware of. And if you do so choose to discriminate judicially against those with "compassion," I call into question your integrity, "President" Rahl.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:12:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 12:06:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/18/2010 11:22:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Basically, it really comes down to the confidence you have in our legal system to not be pumped full of useless bleeding hearts. Ideally, judicial signoffs are warranted, but if the judiciary is corrupted, by compassion or other means, I don't blame people for not seeking them.

Corrupted by "compassion"? Surely you jest - that is not any form of corruption that I am aware of. And if you do so choose to discriminate judicially against those with "compassion," I call into question your integrity, "President" Rahl.

I believe what he is talking about is letting "feelings" alter ones decisions, rather then cold logic. But he could better tell you what he means.

I do however, question that the "Judge" would be a single person. Since what happens when a Judge doesn't say what people want them to say? They go to a higher court, or with elected judges, they may out the judges decisions in an attempt to get a new judge in the next election cycle.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:43:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net...

Too bad it didn't happen 6 years earlier.

Not that I'm one to advocate violence, but, one government bureaucrat vs. 620,000 people...well, you know...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 1:36:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 12:43:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Too bad it didn't happen 6 years earlier.

Condoning murder, I see? For shame.

Not that I'm one to advocate violence, but, one government bureaucrat vs. 620,000 people...well, you know...

It wasn't just one bureaucrat. That would make it despotism. It was many bureaucrats, plus elitist Northerners, plus the enlisted men that fought for their various reasons, etc. Lincoln wasn't a one-man army/country, you know.

In fact, if you wanted to really stop everything that occurred, it would have been better to have wiped out the entire northern population. That is the only way to have been entirely sure that the southerners would have had their freedom.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 3:38:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe what he is talking about is letting "feelings" alter ones decisions, rather then cold logic. But he could better tell you what he means.
You got it.

Since what happens when a Judge doesn't say what people want them to say? They go to a higher court
Which is moot in light of the warrant having been granted and the kill order having been carried out. The point is to get hasty accountability for the kill. The judge can be accountable later I presume.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 3:38:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since what happens when a Judge doesn't say what people want them to say? They go to a higher court
Which is moot in light of the warrant having been granted and the kill order having been carried out. The point is to get hasty accountability for the kill. The judge can be accountable later I presume.

but lets say a judge looks at the evidence and says "no." The people that want to do the hit, then may try to use that "no" as political fodder to get the voters to remove the judge (since we know that politics isn't exactly about 100% honesty). Bam! They now have leverage that they can use to try to pressure judges to do what they want, which is a corruption of the system. Especially if they get a judge that fears them and will sign whatever they want him to.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 4:15:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 4:03:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 3:38:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since what happens when a Judge doesn't say what people want them to say? They go to a higher court
Which is moot in light of the warrant having been granted and the kill order having been carried out. The point is to get hasty accountability for the kill. The judge can be accountable later I presume.

but lets say a judge looks at the evidence and says "no." The people that want to do the hit, then may try to use that "no" as political fodder to get the voters to remove the judge (since we know that politics isn't exactly about 100% honesty).
Since when are federal judges elected or state governments involved in assassinations?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 5:16:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.

Wikipedia says it's Socialism. Go figure
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 5:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 5:16:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.

Wikipedia says it's Socialism. Go figure

Well it's not in the strictest sense of the word.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:19:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 5:21:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:16:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.

Wikipedia says it's Socialism. Go figure

Well it's not in the strictest sense of the word.
What sense is that exactly? Note: Socialists probably don't all agree on that account.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:23:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:19:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:21:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:16:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.

Wikipedia says it's Socialism. Go figure

Well it's not in the strictest sense of the word.
What sense is that exactly? Note: Socialists probably don't all agree on that account.

Mainly because there are different groups within the broad term "socialism" much like there are different groups within the term "libertarianism"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:37:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:23:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 9:19:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:21:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:16:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 5:12:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 12:20:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:08:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm a hypocritical socialist

O?

I'm not sure exactly how hating Kim Jong-Il and Juche is being hypocritical. Juche isn't socialism, but practically a monarchy.

Wikipedia says it's Socialism. Go figure

Well it's not in the strictest sense of the word.
What sense is that exactly? Note: Socialists probably don't all agree on that account.

Mainly because there are different groups within the broad term "socialism" much like there are different groups within the term "libertarianism"
Which doesn't tell us which group she subscribes to and who her definition would exclude as a false claimant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.