Should the flag protect those that are intent on destroying it?

Absolutely. Because Awlaki couldn't possibly have been a military target. I mean, how could he be? He's just an individual. With US citizenship, no less.

I'm done with this thread. Continue... whatever it is that you guys claim to do in here.

I don't have a security clearance. Besides, I wouldn't publish that kind of information.

 

at bottom, i agree with alistair...if any information was to be leaked, all of it should be. if this was a reasonable call, then the administration is undermining itself by not providing the context. i guess we'll have to wait until wikileaks gets passed something.

 

No one has said that. You are the one who is completely closed to any other possibilities. What rb last posted was a very accommodating basis from which to hold a rational discussion on the subject of 'legitimacy, expediency and the GWOT.' But you don't want to discuss it. You seem bound and determined to shut people up. Not really a characteristic that leads to the health and well-being of a discussion forum.

 

Well, in all honesty, I took roachboy's comment as a sarcasm-laden slash condescending response. Looks like I was wrong.

I don't mind discussion, as long as it makes some sense.

EDIT: The beauty of the internet. I can't believe I turned into the girls on TFP that didn't get my sarcasm/half-heartedness. Now I read things into people's texts? Not cool, bro.

 

I'm not sure that's what I said. If it was what I said, it wasn't what I meant.

I think the process can be discussed. The specific intelligence available only needs to be explored if it is shown to have been wrong, to discover why it was given credibility and what safeguards can ensure such a thing not happening again.

I think I'll step out of this one. I'm more interested in the broader issue of this type of killing and the precedents being set - and looking at it from an international perspective, rather than one about US laws.

 

the problem there is that the position ends up being circular. without the requisite information, there's no way to evaluate a breakdown in process. at the same time, without information about the process, it's impossible to know what constitutes a breakdown. it's also possible--likely even--that what happened here is procedurally correct but resulted in a disturbing outcome. but because we know neither about the process nor about the information, it's an ethical matter. but the kind of ethical argument that'd apply is utilitarian. so that would rest on claims that the outcome produced a greater good. that's impossible to evaluate really without access to the information that informed the decision. so it's the principle of this kind of decision itself, the whole of it, that becomes the issue that can be talked about. that's why discussion keeps drifting back to gwot, as that's the framework that enables these various procedures. and the arguments end up being largely parallels of one's general position on gwot. which means that they're also circular.

in keeping with an earlier suggestion that one's context shapes one's attitude toward the awlaki liquidation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/10/afghanistan-torture

 

Jeez, not to take sides with al qeada but this was the basis for my original post. The fact that they disagree with this should not be surprising, though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...wlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

 

Best post on here... so far.

 

haha i completely forgot that Al-Qaeda has the moral and legal high ground to be telling the US about whether a killing was legal or not

 

I would pull the trigger myself if given the opportunity. He's dead and good riddance. As far as I am concerned there is no Rule of Law for Terrorists .-Next--

 

as much as a warm and fuzzy that would give a lot of people to give every terrorist a 9mm Pb aspirin, if we did that then we really would lose our moral high ground. yeah it might taste like a watered down version of justice juice but its better that then losing what little legitimacy we have left.

 

Can anyone imagine this type of power being in the hands of, say, Michelle Bachmann, or Rick Santorum? Does it still seem like a good idea? Michelle Bachmann would probably try to have half of congress Awlaki-ed. I'm sure she'd have no problem finding someone to write a memo to justify it. And then you'd no doubt have people nodding their heads and saying "Well, why shouldn't she have? Do you have any justification for why _________ (D) __ wasn't a threat?"

 

Yeah I can't see trusting them with this kind power... so why trust anyone with this kind of power?

 

Let's say I accuse you of being a terrorist. How do you defend yourself in the system you believe we should have?

 

They could give a shit about the irony of their statements. They're only interested in pointing out the hypocrisy of the West. And not for our benefit. Much in the same way we in the West engage in the same sort of ironic messaging - which is not for their benefit.

Both sides play this propaganda game. We either see it for what it is or we start to believe it.

 

AQ should really be saying "Look at these assholes! See how they've abandoned all pretenses of living up to their ideals in exchange for the mere perception of being infinitesimally more safe? We did that! They're so fucking scared that we might kill some of them that they're willing to give up freedoms that they used to take for granted. They have to take their shoes off when they fly. That's our doing! HA! They welcome their government listening in on their phone calls and tracking them nonstop, all because of us!"

 

propoganda is starting to lose its effectiveness as a tool to sway the opinions of the public, at least from where i'm standing. it seems that the biases of all the news networks are being noticed more and more. what's really starting to turn heads and change minds though is the ability of a party/group to affect the daily lives if the individuals. once people are comfortably employed, fed, and paid, then they'll start worrying about what is "right" and what isn't.

case and point

 

Have no fear - they will adapt.

I agree, propaganda tends to be less effective on the comfortable. Not too difficult to overcome, though. Simply create a pervasive evil that threatens to randomly undermine their comfortability. I think we've all witnessed how effectively that works.