Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 11:00 AM)5yrup Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 10:53 AM)I and I Wrote:  So most people here again support big daddy government when it comes to drones and kill lists. Atheists aren't any more curious about the world around them than religious peeps, atheists believe in one less thing and that's it.
Poor troll is poor! You can do better than that! Smartass
Project much?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 11:04 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)5yrup Wrote:  We're done unless you're going to address the points I raised rather than how I raised them. I've now made it quite clear what I meant.
You didn't raise any points. You made a few observations but you offered neither validation nor refutation of them. The post smacks of a "love it or leave it" argument but frankly, it was so vague that I can't determine whether or not you support the actions you mentioned or not.
Negative, Ghostrider. I refuted your statement that it didn't change murder. Legally, it does change whether or not it's murder. Legal precedence is what we have to go off of.

Good catch -- I thought I had gone into better detail in my reply regarding it being a scare tactic. Information below.

This letter that is being toted as a victory for Rand Paul and U.S. citizens isn't a victory in any way. The letter covers, very specifically, weaponized drones. This does not cover drones whose purpose is to observe and are not weaponized, nor does it cover individuals (read: Federal agents, etc.) doing identical killing of U.S. citizens under the same rules of engagement. This filibuster and the resulting letter are worth about as much as the paper it is printed on -- it addresses a single symptom and not the cause of the debate.

What should be debated and needs to be addressed is the ability of the U.S. government to circumvent due process in general. Limiting it to just drones makes decent soundbytes, but nothing more.

Drinking Beverage Enjoy your daily dose of syrup! And coffee. Don't forget the coffee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 11:56 AM)5yrup Wrote:  Negative, Ghostrider. I refuted your statement that it didn't change murder. Legally, it does change whether or not it's murder. Legal precedence is what we have to go off of.

Good catch -- I thought I had gone into better detail in my reply regarding it being a scare tactic. Information below.

This letter that is being toted as a victory for Rand Paul and U.S. citizens isn't a victory in any way. The letter covers, very specifically, weaponized drones. This does not cover drones whose purpose is to observe and are not weaponized, nor does it cover individuals (read: Federal agents, etc.) doing identical killing of U.S. citizens under the same rules of engagement. This filibuster and the resulting letter are worth about as much as the paper it is printed on -- it addresses a single symptom and not the cause of the debate.

What should be debated and needs to be addressed is the ability of the U.S. government to circumvent due process in general. Limiting it to just drones makes decent soundbytes, but nothing more.

Actually, it doesn't change the fact that it's murder. That would be whether you see it as philosophically justified, or legally justified, peace or war. Murder, in general, is still murder, especially regardless of how you set legal guidelines.

I'm kind of surprised that they actually responded, beyond what Eric Holder discussed previously, even though the letter was just talking specifically about non-combatants. Still, like I mentioned earlier, for those types of people, all they have to do is come to your house, target you, ask if you want to build a bomb and attack America, give you the resources, set you up and then take you to jail. Even with a bullshit set up and unjust sting operation, that is technically due process, and they can opportunistically target whomever they want.

If you were engaged in, or related to, some type of attack, which the real threats would be, then it would still be unrealistic to use a drone, but at that point, due process would be dropped and not needed.

I still say the war(s), conflicts, etc., in general, are the problem. People who are worried about the power of the federal government and the extent of executive power, especially at the presidential level, are insane and fanatical. If a president oversteps power, at that point, you should be smart enough to realize it, and get them out of office immediately. No need for speculation and hypothetical situations.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 01:58 PM by 5yrup.)
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 01:29 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 11:56 AM)5yrup Wrote:  Negative, Ghostrider. I refuted your statement that it didn't change murder. Legally, it does change whether or not it's murder. Legal precedence is what we have to go off of.

Good catch -- I thought I had gone into better detail in my reply regarding it being a scare tactic. Information below.

This letter that is being toted as a victory for Rand Paul and U.S. citizens isn't a victory in any way. The letter covers, very specifically, weaponized drones. This does not cover drones whose purpose is to observe and are not weaponized, nor does it cover individuals (read: Federal agents, etc.) doing identical killing of U.S. citizens under the same rules of engagement. This filibuster and the resulting letter are worth about as much as the paper it is printed on -- it addresses a single symptom and not the cause of the debate.

What should be debated and needs to be addressed is the ability of the U.S. government to circumvent due process in general. Limiting it to just drones makes decent soundbytes, but nothing more.

Actually, it doesn't change the fact that it's murder. That would be whether you see it as philosophically justified, or legally justified, peace or war. Murder, in general, is still murder, especially regardless of how you set legal guidelines.

I'm kind of surprised that they actually responded, beyond what Eric Holder discussed previously, even though the letter was just talking specifically about non-combatants. Still, like I mentioned earlier, for those types of people, all they have to do is come to your house, target you, ask if you want to build a bomb and attack America, give you the resources, set you up and then take you to jail. Even with a bullshit set up and unjust sting operation, that is technically due process, and they can opportunistically target whomever they want.

If you were engaged in, or related to, some type of attack, which the real threats would be, then it would still be unrealistic to use a drone, but at that point, due process would be dropped and not needed.

I still say the war(s), conflicts, etc., in general, are the problem. People who are worried about the power of the federal government and the extent of executive power, especially at the presidential level, are insane and fanatical. If a president oversteps power, at that point, you should be smart enough to realize it, and get them out of office immediately. No need for speculation and hypothetical situations.
Legally, it does change the definition of murder. If laws did not define what murder is, any individual who defended themselves from an attacker and wound up killing their assailant would be prosecuted for murder. International law states that designated combatants, which are usually uniformed soldiers but has been expanded to include armed insurgencies, is not murder. Therefore, it is not murder. It is sanctioned killing, in essence.

You cannot argue murder outside of its legal standpoint. It has no definition outside of its legal standpoint. Killing is killing, murder relates to a specifically defined instance of killing. Calling things like combatants killing one another murder is an appeal to emotion.

What you described is due process, yes. The debate with the drones is "signature strikes", where not even a sting operation as you described has been carried out. This idea of signature strikes is what bothers me, and springs from the NDAA and a little from the Patriot Act. Both contain bad things.

I agree, the series of protracted wars are a big issue. However, that shouldn't stop us from being legitimately concerned with some of the language in the aforementioned acts.

Edits: edited to be more clear.

Drinking Beverage Enjoy your daily dose of syrup! And coffee. Don't forget the coffee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 01:55 PM
Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 01:43 PM)5yrup Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 01:29 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Actually, it doesn't change the fact that it's murder. That would be whether you see it as philosophically justified, or legally justified, peace or war. Murder, in general, is still murder, especially regardless of how you set legal guidelines.

I'm kind of surprised that they actually responded, beyond what Eric Holder discussed previously, even though the letter was just talking specifically about non-combatants. Still, like I mentioned earlier, for those types of people, all they have to do is come to your house, target you, ask if you want to build a bomb and attack America, give you the resources, set you up and then take you to jail. Even with a bullshit set up and unjust sting operation, that is technically due process, and they can opportunistically target whomever they want.

If you were engaged in, or related to, some type of attack, which the real threats would be, then it would still be unrealistic to use a drone, but at that point, due process would be dropped and not needed.

I still say the war(s), conflicts, etc., in general, are the problem. People who are worried about the power of the federal government and the extent of executive power, especially at the presidential level, are insane and fanatical. If a president oversteps power, at that point, you should be smart enough to realize it, and get them out of office immediately. No need for speculation and hypothetical situations.
Legally, it does change the definition of murder. If laws did not define what murder is, any individual who defended themselves from an attacker and wound up killing their assailant would be prosecuted for murder. International law states that designated combatants, which are usually uniformed soldiers but has been expanded to include armed insurgencies, is not murder. Therefore, it is not murder. It is sanctioned killing, in essence.

You cannot argue murder outside of its legal standpoint. It has no definition outside of its legal standpoint. Killing is killing, murder relates to a specifically defined instance of killing. Calling things like combatants killing one another murder is an appeal to emotion.

What you described is due process, yes. The debate with the drones is "signature strikes", where not even a sting operation as you described has been carried out. This idea of signature strikes is what bothers me, and springs from the NDAA and a little from the Patriot Act. Both bad things.

I agree, the series of protracted wars are a big issue. However, that shouldn't stop us from being legitimately concerned with some of the language in the aforementioned acts.

Edits: edited to be more clear.

2 u.s. citizens have already been targeted and assassinated by drones. The idea that it can't happen or won't happen to u.s. citizens is non argument.

The revenge cop Recently was also cleared to be targeted by drones if they couldn't find him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 01:55 PM)I and I Wrote:  2 u.s. citizens have already been targeted and assassinated by drones. The idea that it can't happen or won't happen to u.s. citizens is non argument.

The revenge cop Recently was also cleared to be targeted by drones if they couldn't find him.
What? Huh

I didn't argue that at any point in that post. I haven't argued that at all in this post string. I'm arguing that the drones are a a red herring and not the issue that needs discussing.

Drinking Beverage Enjoy your daily dose of syrup! And coffee. Don't forget the coffee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 02:28 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 01:43 PM)5yrup Wrote:  Legally, it does change the definition of murder. If laws did not define what murder is, any individual who defended themselves from an attacker and wound up killing their assailant would be prosecuted for murder. International law states that designated combatants, which are usually uniformed soldiers but has been expanded to include armed insurgencies, is not murder. Therefore, it is not murder. It is sanctioned killing, in essence.

You cannot argue murder outside of its legal standpoint. It has no definition outside of its legal standpoint. Killing is killing, murder relates to a specifically defined instance of killing. Calling things like combatants killing one another murder is an appeal to emotion.

What you described is due process, yes. The debate with the drones is "signature strikes", where not even a sting operation as you described has been carried out. This idea of signature strikes is what bothers me, and springs from the NDAA and a little from the Patriot Act. Both bad things.

I agree, the series of protracted wars are a big issue. However, that shouldn't stop us from being legitimately concerned with some of the language in the aforementioned acts.

Edits: edited to be more clear.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't okay legally and/or wasn't outside of what the law defines as murder.

Murder, like I said, is still murder. It's not an "appeal to emotion". Murder is a specific kind of killing-- that's what it is by definition philosophically and fundamentally, and that is off of which the laws are somewhat supposed to be based; however, given that a person would see it as otherwise being a nonsensical concept that is "appeal to emotion", you could probably also imagine how a room full of idiots would fuck up a legal definition by being blatantly, and widely, subjective and arbitrary.

To me, I define murder, as a kind of killing, outside of the law. There is murder, and then there is law.

Like I mentioned on the first page, those certain things, are things, you should have been worried about, jumping up and down about, before, or from the beginning of us going to war with the bogeyman. If you are accepting of a war, that's obviously going to include elements hard to define and identify, you shouldn't then get crazy at some latter point, when shit gets real, as it does in war.

With some things, like the drone strikes, if it's okay, or not, for people in other countries to have drones flying down in and blowing shit up randomly, that's up to them to react. If it's okay for US citizens, that that happens in other countries, but not here, they are hypocrites. To me, war is war. I'm pissed that we are at war. That we are actually killing and blowing shit up, I would be fine with, if I supported the war.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 02:22 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 01:43 PM)5yrup Wrote:  Legally, it does change the definition of murder. If laws did not define what murder is, any individual who defended themselves from an attacker and wound up killing their assailant would be prosecuted for murder. International law states that designated combatants, which are usually uniformed soldiers but has been expanded to include armed insurgencies, is not murder. Therefore, it is not murder. It is sanctioned killing, in essence.

You cannot argue murder outside of its legal standpoint. It has no definition outside of its legal standpoint. Killing is killing, murder relates to a specifically defined instance of killing. Calling things like combatants killing one another murder is an appeal to emotion.

What you described is due process, yes. The debate with the drones is "signature strikes", where not even a sting operation as you described has been carried out. This idea of signature strikes is what bothers me, and springs from the NDAA and a little from the Patriot Act. Both bad things.

I agree, the series of protracted wars are a big issue. However, that shouldn't stop us from being legitimately concerned with some of the language in the aforementioned acts.

Edits: edited to be more clear.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't okay legally and/or wasn't outside of what the law defines as murder.

Murder, like I said, is still murder. It's not an "appeal to emotion". Murder is a specific kind of killing-- that's what it is by definition philosophically and fundamentally, and that is off of which the laws are supposed to be based; however, given that a person would see it as otherwise being a nonsensical concept that is "appeal to emotion", you could probably also imagine how a room full of idiots would fuck up a legal definition by being blatantly, and widely, subjective and arbitrary.

To me, I define murder outside of the law. There is murder, and then there is law.

Like I mentioned on the first page, those certain things, are things, you should have been worried about, jumping up and down about, before, or from the beginning of us going to war with the bogeyman. If you are accepting of a war, that's obviously going to include elements hard to define and identify, you shouldn't then get crazy at some latter point, when shit gets real, as it does in war.

With some things, like the drone strikes, if it's okay, or not, for people in other countries to have drones flying down in and blowing shit up randomly, that's up to them to react. If it's okay for US citizens, that that happens in other countries, but not here, they are hypocrites. To me, war is war. I'm pissed that we are at war. That we are actually killing and blowing shit up, I would be fine with, if I supported the war.
We agree on everything but the definition of murder.

What I am stating is your definition of murder is not the proper definition of murder. It is using the term in an abstract manner, expanding the definition of the term to include all acts of violence that lead to death. This makes it an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy), because you're connecting the emotions one feels when we hear "murder" to the rather fucked up job that the military is required to carry out -- fighting and killing other combatants over specific objectives.


If anything, the proper term to use in this debate would be unjustified killing and/or manslaughter. The specific term used means a lot in this debate.

Yes, killing is bad and I don't agree with it. I just get picky over terms used to describe it.

Drinking Beverage Enjoy your daily dose of syrup! And coffee. Don't forget the coffee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 02:36 PM)5yrup Wrote:  We agree on everything but the definition of murder.

What I am stating is your definition of murder is not the proper definition of murder. It is using the term in an abstract manner, expanding the definition of the term to include all acts of violence that lead to death. This makes it an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy), because you're connecting the emotions one feels when we hear "murder" to the rather fucked up job that the military is required to carry out -- fighting and killing other combatants over specific objectives.


If anything, the proper term to use in this debate would be unjustified killing and/or manslaughter. The specific term used means a lot in this debate.

Yes, killing is bad and I don't agree with it. I just get picky over terms used to describe it.

Did you not read what I said?

By using the term "specific", I was definitely not being "abstract" or implying that I was expanding it, especially to that extent you described, i.e., to "include all acts of violence that lead to death", and I was actually implying the opposite.

And like I said, "appeal to emotion" is a nonsensical concept. Appealing to a person's emotion can be done with a valid argument, same as it can with an invalid one. Whether, or not, it is an emotional argument, is irrelevant to the validity. If any thing, it's simply a distracting concept.

But, beyond that, I wasn't even arguing it, in the way you described, in general, or having to do with "job that the military is required to carry out -- fighting and killing other combatants".

Not all killing is bad (immoral), and thus I use murder to distinguish. If there is a better term, or a correct one, used to distinguish between types of killing, in a moral sense, because I know murder is also used and defined in accordance with laws, let me know, I've actually been wondering. If not, I'll stick with using murder, as that tends to be what, from my experience, people use to distinguish killing they see as wrong, or bad, versus other killings.

My point would be that certain killings, still have a commonality making them immoral, even if they are justified, either philosophical or by law. I used murder as the word. If there is a more accurate word to use, let me know.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.
(08-03-2013 01:55 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 01:43 PM)5yrup Wrote:  Legally, it does change the definition of murder. If laws did not define what murder is, any individual who defended themselves from an attacker and wound up killing their assailant would be prosecuted for murder. International law states that designated combatants, which are usually uniformed soldiers but has been expanded to include armed insurgencies, is not murder. Therefore, it is not murder. It is sanctioned killing, in essence.

You cannot argue murder outside of its legal standpoint. It has no definition outside of its legal standpoint. Killing is killing, murder relates to a specifically defined instance of killing. Calling things like combatants killing one another murder is an appeal to emotion.

What you described is due process, yes. The debate with the drones is "signature strikes", where not even a sting operation as you described has been carried out. This idea of signature strikes is what bothers me, and springs from the NDAA and a little from the Patriot Act. Both bad things.

I agree, the series of protracted wars are a big issue. However, that shouldn't stop us from being legitimately concerned with some of the language in the aforementioned acts.

Edits: edited to be more clear.

2 u.s. citizens have already been targeted and assassinated by drones. The idea that it can't happen or won't happen to u.s. citizens is non argument.

The revenge cop Recently was also cleared to be targeted by drones if they couldn't find him.

I did mentioned that it's unrealistic, in certain situations, in America; however, I wouldn't argue with "can't" or "won't".

Traditional means will likely be used, as opposed to blowing shit up with drones, but I wouldn't bet against it not happening.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: