Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2011, 02:05 PM   #16
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
I'm on mike's side here.

If they can hit him at an executive's whim they can hit me too. And you.

09-30-2011, 02:06 PM   #17
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Do you really think they just pulled his name out of a hat?

.
No, but instead of giving some kind of proof of his guilt, they just said that anything of the kind was a "state secret". Sorry if it makes me puke.

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I believe you are making the mistake that a lot of people make. The purpose of "due process" is to, with a high degree of certainty, make sure that innocent people are not punished for something that they didn't do. It's purpose is not to ensure that the guilty are given every possible opportunity to get away with their crimes..
Again, don't you see your logic is circular? "Guilty are given every possible opportunity"? That's the point - to show that so and so is guilty, not let one person decide that it is so.
09-30-2011, 02:14 PM   #18
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
the U.S. Government is trying to kill him primarily because of his constitutionally-protected speech in advocating the justifiability and necessity of violence.
Another common misconception is that the right to free speech absolute. The classic exception example is shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Another might be standing on the sidewalk outside the White House, and shouting at the gathering crowd that they should storm the front door and kill the president. Maybe next time you're on an airplane say something like, "I hope I remembered to take the bomb out of my suitcase before I checked it through". My guess is that despite the perceived protection of the First Amendment, if you try it, you won't make it home for supper that night.

Last edited by Parallax; 09-30-2011 at 02:20 PM.
09-30-2011, 02:19 PM   #19
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
Sorry, what the hell does this have to do with anything?



Except I'd like to see, you know, some kind of proof that they indeed are "intent on unlawfully killing me, or other innocents". You know, something like ... due process? Something a little more that just assertions by a couple of government officials? How about tomorrow the govt decides that Jim aka Parallax is a terrorist. You know, maybe a case of mistaken identity or some other screw up, who cares? Let's kill Parallax, right?
Gene, couldn't there be trial in absentia?
Trial in absentia on our soil would be more clearly unconstitutional than an act of war on foreign soil. Jim's point is right on--our laws don't apply in Yemen.

You can talk about the morality of this act. That is fair game, and I am somewhat conflicted about that as well. However, if you talk about its legality, it would need to be under some law other than ours.

His targeting has been public knowledge for about 18months, and it sounds like there is a good deal of information known to members of the intelligence community. U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

09-30-2011, 02:20 PM   #20
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Constitutional protections do not extend beyond U.S Borders, nor is the right to free speech absolute. The classic exception example is shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Another might be standing on the sidewalk outside the White House, and shouting at the gathering crowd that they should storm the front door and kill the president. My guess is that despite the perceived protection of the First Amendment, if you try it, you won't make it home for supper that night.
So, Jim, you're OK with killing a person - doesn't matter if her or she is a US Citizen - simply because they advocate destruction of America? Wow, you'd have to kill a lot of people...
09-30-2011, 02:29 PM   #21
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Trial in absentia on our soil would be more clearly unconstitutional than an act of war on foreign soil. Jim's point is right on--our laws don't apply in Yemen.
But what if the US announced that there is going to be a fair trial and let him appear, but he chose to waive the right? From the Wikipedia article:
QuoteQuote:
A voluntary waiver of the right to be present requires true freedom of choice. A trial court may infer that a defendant's absence from trial is voluntary and constitutes a waiver if a defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, the right to be present, and had received a warning that the proceeding would take place in their absence if they failed to appear. The courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. State v. Whitley, 85 P.3d 116 (2004)

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
His targeting has been public knowledge for about 18months, and it sounds like there is a good deal of information known to members of the intelligence community. U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com
Yeah, I know this article. Read it at the time. Note that this:
QuoteQuote:
“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”
is about the extent of publicly available evidence of his guilt. Literally, an assertion by an anonymous American official (why do they need to maintain anonymity in such cases is truly something I don't understand - it's not like they're whistleblowers or anything.) No more or less concrete evidence was ever presented to the public.
09-30-2011, 02:29 PM   #22
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
A conspiracy includes speech, but speech does not protect a conspiracy to commit a violent act. This person claimed responsibility on behalf of Al Qaeda for the Hasan killings at Ft. Hood, after having corresponded with Hasan prior to the killings. He has as much as admitted his involvement in a conspiracy to kill. He even alleged after the incident that the refusal to release his emails was an attempt to cover up Al Qaeda's (his) involvement in the killings:

QuoteQuote:
Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.



Last edited by GeneV; 09-30-2011 at 02:35 PM.
09-30-2011, 02:35 PM   #23
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
But what if the US announced that there is going to be a fair trial and let him appear, but he chose to waive the right? From the Wikipedia article:
There is a danger in using the Wiki as a legal source, but it is essentially correct in stating that the only time there has been an exception to the requirement of a trial with the defendant present is when the defendant escapes or absconds after the trial begins. It is fundamental to an American trial on American soil that the Defendant be apprehended and brought before the tribunal. A trial without the defendant is no trial in the legal sense. I suppose they could present to a Grand Jury and get an indictment, but that is about as far as it could go.
09-30-2011, 02:41 PM   #24
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I suppose they could present to a Grand Jury and get an indictment, but that is about as far as it could go.
Well, this is not something to sneeze at either. I understand they'd have to present some evidence - a little more concrete than "we know this guy is bad" - for the Grand Jury to indict him, which would go a long way to establishing a modicum of due process. At least there'd be some more or less independent review of at least part of the evidence (I hope). I'd take that over just killing a person.
09-30-2011, 02:44 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
So, Jim, you're OK with killing a person - doesn't matter if her or she is a US Citizen - simply because they advocate destruction of America? Wow, you'd have to kill a lot of people...
That would be over simplifying. Clearly there are other conditions - e.g. actions that actually carried out some destruction, demonstrating actual effectiveness of the advocacy. Clearly, there's no call to kill every crank out there, only ones who have essentially declared war and carried out terrorist acts or are about to. But the evidence should be untainted by politicians - e.g. this won't cover the Iraq war under falsified or selective intelligence.
09-30-2011, 02:52 PM   #26
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
That would be over simplifying. Clearly there are other conditions - e.g. actions that actually carried out some destruction, demonstrating actual effectiveness of the advocacy. Clearly, there's no call to kill every crank out there, only ones who have essentially declared war and carried out terrorist acts or are about to. But the evidence should be untainted by politicians - e.g. this won't cover the Iraq war under falsified or selective intelligence.
But note that Jim was saying that free speech could still get you killed. Not "actions that actually carried out some destruction, demonstrating actual effectiveness of the advocacy" etc - because of those there was no good evidence presented to the public - but free speech.
09-30-2011, 02:57 PM   #27
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
But note that Jim was saying that free speech could still get you killed. Not "actions that actually carried out some destruction,
Please don't put words in my mouth.
What I said was:
1. The protections of the U.S. Constitution do to extend to foreign soil.
2. Free speech is not absolute, even where it is a constitutional guarantee.
09-30-2011, 03:05 PM   #28
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
2. Free speech is not absolute, even where it is a constitutional guarantee.
But it is! As long as you can not convincingly show that the exercise of free speech led to a concrete outcome or was a conspiracy, this exercise is protected. I can stand and shout "death to America" or "death to the President" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" all I want and nobody can touch me (maybe for disruptance of public order if I am too loud) You'd need a bit more to justify a killing of a person. This is all that is asked for - show some credible evidence of guilt.
09-30-2011, 03:07 PM   #29
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
Well, this is not something to sneeze at either. I understand they'd have to present some evidence - a little more concrete than "we know this guy is bad" - for the Grand Jury to indict him, which would go a long way to establishing a modicum of due process. At least there'd be some more or less independent review of at least part of the evidence (I hope). I'd take that over just killing a person.
This type of thing is usually presented to a select congressional committee on which Jane Harman (who was interviewed in the NYT article) sits. I suspect (though secrecy would prevent proving) that the evidence they are presented is more thorough than what is presented most of the time to the Grand Jury. In this case, the target was going out of his way to claim responsibility for terrorist acts.

This situation is far from ideal, but I can't think of a good procedure to do it better.
09-30-2011, 03:12 PM   #30
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
But it is! As long as you can not convincingly show that the exercise of free speech led to a concrete outcome or was a conspiracy,
Let me Google that for you.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Deadly tonadoes hit Massachusetts charliezap Post Your Photos! 11 06-03-2011 06:15 AM
Landscape Fall colors hit New Haven rm2 Post Your Photos! 2 10-22-2010 12:24 AM
Hit the beach, hard tay_diggs Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 07-27-2010 12:43 AM
Up in NY and a small case of LBA hit me 41ants Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 05-26-2010 12:54 PM
KX- a sales hit- colours are popular lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 12-25-2009 05:31 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top