Once again, The Onion manages to nail an issue...

[HYHYBT]

Terrorism is too vague. If you want a real declared war, and especially if you want to invoke special wartime-only exceptions, declare an entity, not a concept, as the enemy.

[mikoyan29]

Terrorism is too vague. If you want a real declared war, and especially if you want to invoke special wartime-only exceptions, declare an entity, not a concept, as the enemy.

And I agree with you, that's why I'm on the fence about this.

[Greenday]

Terrorism is too vague. If you want a real declared war, and especially if you want to invoke special wartime-only exceptions, declare an entity, not a concept, as the enemy.

Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. etc. There's multiple groups we can easily name.

[Duelist925]

Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. etc. There's multiple groups we can easily name.

Then one should be named. Hell, name all of them. But put in a name, and not something as vague and nebulous as "terrorism".

[s_stabeler]

Greenday, what people have a problem with is that the government is demanding the right to excecute somebody without any form of acountability, they just have to claim X was a terrorist. This is risking Godwin's law, but Weimar Germany had a clause whereby the President could rule by decree. It was intended as a method for resolving issues caused by hung parlaiments, but it was used as the legal justification for the Nazi's actions. (they passed a law that said the Reichschancellor could do the same thing, and made absolutely sure to renew it) People do not trust governments to do the right thing in the absence of accountability, and arguably should not. (look at the UK, and it's expenses scandal. Recently, MPs have been complaining that it's unfair they can't fiddle their expenses anymore) Yes, I do believe that if possible, a terrorist should be arrested.

[protege]

I've done so; none of the incidents you listed were unknown to me. In return, I suggest you read a book on risk and statistics. For an outlay of less than a million dollars and a couple of dozen lives, the nutjob Bin-Laden caused more economic damage to the US than the whole cold war. He got your leaders messing their pants at the very thought of him. Despite a well-deserved death by high-velocity lead poisoning, he was astoundingly successful in his stated goals.

In that regard, bin Laden...was a fucking genius. Think about it, not only did he take out several thousand US citizens...but he wrecked our economy, bankrupted our airlines, stirred up plenty of fear and paranoia, caused the start of two wars (yeah, I know that the intelligence on the second was shaky--run with me on this, OK?), and the effects are *still* being felt. The flawed "no-fly" list, the TSA "touchy-feely" shit, for example. Throw in the fact that I see more and more bills being proposed about how our rights are being squeezed--anyone see the bit about mandatory searches of gun owners' homes in Seattle; the possibility of drones being used here; the possibility of Americans being held (and executed) without trial, etc.

Then there's the whole "just because you know someone that's shady doesn't mean you are" argument. For example, one of my former neighbors has some connections to organized crime. He got busted years ago for his involvement in a drug scheme, that apparently sent their wares through the postal system. He was able to get off by turning on the people who worked for him.

With that said, he and his family have been to my parents' place quite a few times over the years. Should my parents and I be held and/or executed without trial because of his shady past? We've never talked about his "business" and never participated in it. Should our fates depend on rumors?

That's the problem I have with this. There's a huge difference in taking out some asshole in battle, or someone that's been proven to have unsavory connections. But, to do that on rumors? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Things like this are *exactly* (and I know I've just violated Godwin's Law) how the Nazis operated. To them, a "trial" consisted of rumors, with the "sentence" being the victim dragged out of their house and sent off in a boxcar. Do we really want that sort of thing to happen here?

I sure as hell don't!

[Greenday]

That's the problem I have with this. There's a huge difference in taking out some asshole in battle, or someone that's been proven to have unsavory connections. But, to do that on rumors?

Get back to me when the government starts assassinating people based on rumors. I'll be waiting.

[HYHYBT]

Get back to me when the government starts assassinating people based on rumors. I'll be waiting.

Unless the government is required to hold a genuine, honestly run, innocent-until-proven-to-a-jury-of-your-peers trial, there is no reason to trust that they will always make absolutely certain of guilt. None at all beyond wishful thinking.

The burden of proof is on the government to show evidence that someone is guilty. Always. Not on the public or anyone else to show that it's only rumor or less.

[Greenday]

The burden of proof is on the government to show evidence that someone is guilty. Always.

Absolutely. They just don't have to make any of it public.

[wolfie]

Absolutely. They just don't have to make any of it public.

In other words "You can trust us - we're the good guys". If they can say "We have incontrovertable evidence that person X is a terrorist, but due to national security reasons we can't release it", how can anyone judge whether or not they have the evidence? Remember the "eyewitness" accounts of babies being thrown out of incubators (gulf war 1) where the "witness" wasn't even in Kuwait at the time? Remember the proof of WMD (justification for gulf war 2)?

If the government were to announce that they had incontrovertable evidence that the sun rises in the east, I'd check with other sources before believing them.

[Duelist925]

Absolutely. They just don't have to make any of it public.

That defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of having proof in the first place.

"Proof" is something that can be shown that "proves" whatever the claim being made it. If you cannot or do not show your proof, YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

[Greenday]

That defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of having proof in the first place.

"Proof" is something that can be shown that "proves" whatever the claim being made it. If you cannot or do not show your proof, YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

Tell me. Why is it necessary that you personally have to be allowed to see it? Are you the judge? No. Are you a lawyer? No. Are you an intel analyst? No.

The government has to prove that it's a terrorist. They just don't have to prove it to you.

[bunnyboy]

Remember the Madrid bombing a few years back?

Remember how, were this memo actually in effect they could have killed someone who happened to be in Oregon practicing law when the attacks took place (Brandon Mayfield for the curious.)

Go look it up, then tell me it's a good thing.

[Greenday]

Remember the Madrid bombing a few years back?

Remember how, were this memo actually in effect they could have killed someone who happened to be in Oregon practicing law when the attacks took place (Brandon Mayfield for the curious.)

Go look it up, then tell me it's a good thing.

Also, come back to me when we start using drone strikes in our own country.

[Duelist925]

Tell me. Why is it necessary that you personally have to be allowed to see it? Are you the judge? No. Are you a lawyer? No. Are you an intel analyst? No.

The government has to prove that it's a terrorist. They just don't have to prove it to you.

Me specifically? No.

The public at large? Yes.

Because the public is who holds the government responsible for their bullshit.


And incidentally, if not me, if not the public at large: Then WHO. Who are they accountable to? Who must they prove themselves to?