US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[Shryke]

This is good. I can't believe Alan Dershowitz is actually defining the threat of a hostage-taker as non-imminent. Criminy.

Edited to add: I should have been surprised how eager the audience was to permit the president to unilaterally kill US citizens, but, sadly, I am not. The destruction of the World Trade Center taught me that Americans are willing and even eager to hand government overwhelming authority to curtail liberty as long as they themselves don't feel particularly curtailed.

They have little issue with giving the government the power to target non-US citizens, so the leap is really not that surprising.

[Gneisenau]

They have little issue with giving the government the power to target non-US citizens, so the leap is really not that surprising.

I don't think most Americans are okay with tortue but they are okay with advanved interrogation tactics. I think it is similar for the issue mentioned by sci-2.

[Shryke]

I don't think most Americans are okay with tortue but they are okay with advanved interrogation tactics. I think it is similar for the issue mentioned by sci-2.

I think it's different then that actually.

I'd say most Americans (most people really, but we'll stick with Americans cause that's the subject) are pretty ok with the government blowing up bad guys over somewhere foreign. That said bad guy might have a US passport doesn't matter because they are a bad guy and over in foreign parts and thus the citizenship thing doesn't count.

Less a matter of disguising what's going on with language and more a matter of othering them.

[Gneisenau]

I think it's different then that actually.

I'd say most Americans (most people really, but we'll stick with Americans cause that's the subject) are pretty ok with the government blowing up bad guys over somewhere foreign. That said bad guy might have a US passport doesn't matter because they are a bad guy and over in foreign parts and thus the citizenship thing doesn't count.

Less a matter of disguising what's going on with language and more a matter of othering them.

But presumably Americans demand that before the government blows them up they get proper evidence that said bad guy is actually a bad guy ?

[Shryke]

But presumably Americans demand that before the government blows them up they get proper evidence that said bad guy is actually a bad guy ?

Pfft.

[Gneisenau]

This is good. I can't believe Alan Dershowitz is actually defining the threat of a hostage-taker as non-imminent. Criminy.

Edited to add: I should have been surprised how eager the audience was to permit the president to unilaterally kill US citizens, but, sadly, I am not. The destruction of the World Trade Center taught me that Americans are willing and even eager to hand government overwhelming authority to curtail liberty as long as they themselves don't feel particularly curtailed.

Bush was voted in before 9/11

[Gneisenau]

Pfft.

I think if you phrased it like Neil did, "unilaterally kill US citizens", Americans would have a problem with it.

[Shryke]

I think if you phrased it like Neil did, "unilaterally kill US citizens", Americans would have a problem with it.

That's cause they'd be thinking of drone strikes killing white people in continental US suburbia.

[Gneisenau]

That's cause they'd be thinking of drone strikes killing white people in continental US suburbia.

I was thinking the word unilateral would have caused them to think twice.

[Shryke]

I was thinking the word unilateral would have caused them to think twice.

Most people wouldn't even know what that means.

You won't get most people in the US upset about drone strikes unless you can use wording such that it implies it might affect people in the US.

[Shryke]

Bush was voted in before 9/11

Bush was not voted in on anything like his post-9/11 platform.

[Gneisenau]

Most people wouldn't even know what that means.

You won't get most people in the US upset about drone strikes unless you can use wording such that it implies it might affect people in the US.

I think whenever Obama mentions gun control, gun and ammo sales jump alot, presumably because people get scared that they will lose their guns. There was the scandal (or non scandal) of the IRS and tea partiers. These people detest giving government too much power, so they should (at least in my mind) be very wary of approving of drones.

[Shryke]

I think whenever Obama mentions gun control, gun and ammo sales jump alot, presumably because people get scared that they will lose their guns. There was the scandal (or non scandal) of the IRS and tea partiers. These people detest giving government too much power, so they should (at least in my mind) be very wary of approving of drones.

They detest government having power to come after them. After other people is just fine.

[Gneisenau]

They detest government having power to come after them. After other people is just fine.

And thus they would be uncomfortable giving the government more power which could be used against them.

[Shryke]

And thus they would be uncomfortable giving the government more power which could used against them.

That's my point though. Only power that is used against them, not that might be.

Most people draw lines in their heads that aren't entirely logical between what government will and will not do with it's power. More specifically, between who it will and will not be used against.

It's the same kind of thing you see in, say, tough on crime bullshit. Tough on crime is good, even though it grants the government extraordinary powers against it's own citizens, because I'm obviously a law abiding citizen and so it will never affect me. It'll only effect those filthy criminal types. It's not logical to think that you could never be the target of those powers, but that's the way people think.

[Gneisenau]

It's the same kind of thing you see in, say, tough on crime bullshit. Tough on crime is good, even though it grants the government extraordinary powers against it's own citizens, because I'm obviously a law abiding citizen and so it will never affect me. It'll only effect those filthy criminal types. It's not logical to think that you could never be the target of those powers, but that's the way people think.

Except being a criminal isn't some natural property, the state defines what a criminal is, so even if it affects only criminals, one would still be wary of the fact that the tough on crime bill might just brand them as a criminal.

[Shryke]

Except being a criminal isn't some natural property, the state defines what a criminal is, so even if it affects only criminals, one would still be wary of the fact that the tough on crime bill might just brand them as a criminal.

You might think so, but that's not how people think or act.

[Gneisenau]

You might think so, but that's not how people think or act.

I disagree, people always think of the hypothetical. Take for example people who oppose shifting the burden to higher income earners. They do so on the basis that they might one day hypothetically end up on the high income side.

[Shryke]

I disagree, people always think of the hypothetical. Take for example people who oppose shifting the burden to higher income earners. They do so on the basis that they might one day hypothetically end up on the high income side.

Again, tough on crime. It's a thing. It's been a major political movement for decades now. And it's built on people explicitly not doing this.

The example I gave above was not a hypotheical. It's actually happened. And the War on Terror is just Tough On Crime Terrorism.

[Ramsay Gimp]

So you agree with Shamsi[?]:

Violating the ideals he pledged to uphold

Yep. And I think a major problem with the pro side is that they accept the government's claims uncritically. It's assumed that of course these people are really active threats, and the government isn't lying or mistaken. When in reality the public evidence that Awlaki was an operational Al Qaeda figure in Yemen is rather slim

Without releasing the evidence or intel they had confirming his involvement in plots or attacks, it looks like the government just killed him for saying nasty things on Youtube