[sciborg2]

You guys might be interested in this. First round is over but the whole thing should be available as a podcast, possibly the video as well:

Debate: The President Has Constitutional Power to Target and Kill U.S. Citizens Abroad

FOR THE MOTION: Alan Dershowitz, Michael Lewis

AGAINST THE MOTION: Noah Feldman, Hina Shamsi

[Callan S.]

Sorry, does that imply he doesn't have the constitutional support to do that to citizens within America?

Or is it already a given that he can put a hit on a US citizen and people will smile and nod, but the shock horror is that he can do it/get smiles and nods when their in another country?

[sciborg2]

Sorry, does that imply he doesn't have the constitutional support to do that to citizens within America?

Or is it already a given that he can put a hit on a US citizen and people will smile and nod, but the shock horror is that he can do it/get smiles and nods when their in another country?

Well the debate was supposed to be for the constitutionality of killing citizens abroad, rather than the morality, so the "smile and nod" thing shouldn't have been a factor.

Predictably it ultimately became about the morality.

But it is a good question - does giving the PotUS (President of the United States) power to kill abroad give him power to do the same thing on US soil? It was touched on in the debate but sadly it didn't become a focus.

That was a point where I felt neither side did a good job of clarifying.

[Madness]

I actually wrote an essay on this last year, Sci. I wonder if I can find it.

Whether or not he's being given the constitutional power, Obama's been doing this for his entire presidency.

I'll have to watch the recording later.

[Royce]

My first thought is, why would he not be allowed to do that? Kill people on US soil that is. Are there different constitutional rights for American citizens abroad than in?. Presidents have probably done it many times before anyway, assassinations, and maybe even through the police force?

I should not ask more questions before I listen, but what about death sentences?

[Madness]

Royce, Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer (if I recall correctly) and has surrounded himself with academics.

The debate is literally over "extra-judicial killings" and Obama (or any other president before him) is unable to do anything without a shitload of legalese happening.

Almost all, if not all, of the drone-strikes under Obama's administration happen with direct presidential authorization and Obama made that happen (kind of like Kellhus telling his followers that all their Damnation is on him, "done in his name.") Except that it still doesn't make what Obama is doing legal when he executes American citizens living (and possible operating as terrorists) abroad - technically, "enemy combatants" aren't able to act on their international rights to surrender, but otherwise Obama is pretty much allowed to slaughter those who fit the criteria of the "enemy combatant" the academic term in vogue right now so long as they aren't American citizens, otherwise people in America get understandably jumpy.

[EDIT: I should add here, that essentially, detractors of Obama's exercise of force is that Obama is judge, jury, and executioner. There are legal avenues that are to be followed for both international but in this argument, definitely, for American Citizens. They are supposed to have rights that their government recognizes internationally - so those "operating as enemy combatants" should in fact be captured and brought to trial in the States.]

All academics and law is based on "defensible argument" and so far Obama has acted with impunity in his own country and in the international community.

Hense, the necessity - and if Sci is correct and they don't really argue anything, then the farce as well - of debate on the issue because the first execution by drone of an American citizen on American soil will either go uncontested or it will be the cause of rebellion.

And "defending Canada" against the States is a joke if American goes to shit . Drones already patrol the Canadian-U.S. border forty-five minutes from where I live and can apparently capture images from that distance...

EDIT:

For notation, it's something like 88 countries who actively use drone technology for surveillance and 3 who arm them for combat.

To the enemies of America (myself included), America is already the terminator empire. We should link some of the horror stories from living "under the drones" because they are horrifying.

[Royce]

And "defending Canada" against the States is a joke if American goes to shit . Drones already patrol the Canadian-U.S. border forty-five minutes from where I live and can apparently capture images from that distance...

Holy shit, that must be really weird/scary. Is it helicopter drones? I have seen videoes of these small helicopters who fly a perfect figure eight formation etc.

I should invite all of you US/Canadian fellows to move over here Much safer, at least for now.
Although I heard earlier today that the police raided a high school and "arrested" kids in front of their class. Humiliated them, scared them shitless and brought them in. These kids were 14-15 years old. The crime? They had minimal amounts of hash on them. So we are pretty much US`s baby brother in many ways.

[Callan S.]

Sorry, does that imply he doesn't have the constitutional support to do that to citizens within America?

Or is it already a given that he can put a hit on a US citizen and people will smile and nod, but the shock horror is that he can do it/get smiles and nods when their in another country?

Well the debate was supposed to be for the constitutionality of killing citizens abroad, rather than the morality, so the "smile and nod" thing shouldn't have been a factor.

If the technical writing of the constitution is so poor as to allow two or more interpretations of it's text, then it crashes out to being a matter of 'morality'. People yelling over other people.

Why would you have a debate if something has a singular, clear cut technical reading?

But it is a good question - does giving the PotUS (President of the United States) power to kill abroad give him power to do the same thing on US soil? It was touched on in the debate but sadly it didn't become a focus.

Maybe not and that's why you have guantanamo bay? Not just for the other stuff, but because you have to ship them off shore to kill who you wanna kill.

Jeez, America even goes offshore for it's murdering! What's the world coming to!?

[Meyna]

Sorry, does that imply he doesn't have the constitutional support to do that to citizens within America?

Or is it already a given that he can put a hit on a US citizen and people will smile and nod, but the shock horror is that he can do it/get smiles and nods when their in another country?

Well the debate was supposed to be for the constitutionality of killing citizens abroad, rather than the morality, so the "smile and nod" thing shouldn't have been a factor.

If the technical writing of the constitution is so poor as to allow two or more interpretations of it's text, then it crashes out to being a matter of 'morality'. People yelling over other people.

Why would you have a debate if something has a singular, clear cut technical reading?

Originalism versus a living constitution is still a huge debate. I am personally amused by the theory that unifies the two in most weasel-like fashion: new amendments are simply "discovered" to be consequents of original intent. Protected classes, for example, weren't exactly brought into existence with the changing times, but, rather, the changing times caused the discovery of constitutional protections that were there all along!

[Madness]

Living Under Drones

Witness.

And "defending Canada" against the States is a joke if American goes to shit . Drones already patrol the Canadian-U.S. border forty-five minutes from where I live and can apparently capture images from that distance...

Holy shit, that must be really weird/scary. Is it helicopter drones? I have seen videoes of these small helicopters who fly a perfect figure eight formation etc.

Lol - the quadrotor drones are the most common civilian/academic drone and no, those aren't the kind that America is using to patrol its borders. The Predator is the fucker that patrols the Canadian and Mexican borders...

We're possibly witnessing the dawn of an honestly terrifying age to me, which is what makes debates like the one Sci linked so bloody important and topical in the international community, let alone the American-specific perspective.

EDIT:

Originalism versus a living constitution is still a huge debate.

+1 - I'm for living constitution but... I'm simply a faux-merican.

[Callan S.]

I had to look up originalism and I in absolutely no way refer to that at all, let me make clear! It sounds like the same thing you get with D&D players who 'seek the true spirit of the game' and such. It's wollowing in ambiguity and ensuring the texts remain ambiguous so as to reinforce their prefered interpretation of the ambiguity.

A technical reading is one that admits that if it generated two or more interpretations, that it failed as a technical text/failed at what it set out to do.

The person working from originalism takes two or more interpretations and declares they know the secret, just right interpretation. Another outlet for never having to admit being wrong.

Protected classes, for example, weren't exactly brought into existence with the changing times, but, rather, the changing times caused the discovery of constitutional protections that were there all along!

I think yes, your skepticism is right on how they start reversing how they derived a conclusion and so make a false history with it.

[Madness]

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: Covert Drone War

[Royce]

http://www.nydailynews.com/police-surplus-armored-trucks-iraq-article-1.1527650

This is what America needs right now. Tanks in the streets. This is so fucked up I do not even know what to say.

[EkyannusIII]

http://www.nydailynews.com/police-surplus-armored-trucks-iraq-article-1.1527650

This is what America needs right now. Tanks in the streets. This is so fucked up I do not even know what to say.

Increasing militarization is inevitable given the general disintegration of demanding, authoritarian cultural restraints and the flooding of the US with Third World peasants, many of whom can be politely described as refuse. The question is whether or not we have the will to address the causes of the militarization (lol no we don't) or whether we will complain about it like a drunk who hates his hangover but won't give up his rum.

[sciborg2]

Increasing militarization is inevitable given the general disintegration of demanding, authoritarian cultural restraints and the flooding of the US with Third World peasants, many of whom can be politely described as refuse. The question is whether or not we have the will to address the causes of the militarization (lol no we don't) or whether we will complain about it like a drunk who hates his hangover but won't give up his rum.

Any sources to support these claims?