Justice Department reveals legal case for drone strikes against Americans - Polidicks

[URL]http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans[/URL] [quote]A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are [B]believed [/B]to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- [B]even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.[/B][/quote] the white papers itself reveal so much vague justification bullshit though, would have been better if the memo wasn't fucking plastered by NBC NEWS LOGO

And cue conspiracy theories.

As the global population grows, the value of an individual's life diminishes.

[QUOTE=Lanopo;39478444]As the global population grows, the value of an individual's life diminishes.[/QUOTE] Not true. Human life is far more valued today than it was a couple hundred years ago.

[QUOTE=The golden;39478456]Individual life never had a value. As a whole group, humans don't even give the most minute fuck about each other.[/QUOTE] I disagree. On a logical standpoint healthy organs are worth a great deal of money.

interessing, what is the excuse they gonna use for the death of that american kid that got killed some time ago by a drone, because his dad was related to al-qaeda, and also because he apparently made stupid facebook posts.

[QUOTE=The golden;39478456]Individual life never had a value. As a whole group, humans don't even give the most minute fuck about each other.[/QUOTE] People who think this way tend to be extremely bitter recluses who were bullied as kids and therefore decided that everyone else is the same exact way.

[QUOTE=The golden;39478456]Individual life never had a value. As a whole group, humans don't even give the most minute fuck about each other.[/QUOTE] nah humans evolved as social animals. to say that a social animal doesn't give a fuck about other members of the "family" or "tribe" is just silly.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39479152]nah humans evolved as social animals. to say that a social animal doesn't give a fuck about other members of the "family" or "tribe" is just silly.[/QUOTE] true. humans don't necessarily give a fuck about other humans outside of their tribe, but they do care about those within it. For some people their tribe might be the entire world, for others its their nation, state, city, family, etc.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39479152]nah humans evolved as social animals. to say that a social animal doesn't give a fuck about other members of the "family" or "tribe" is just silly.[/QUOTE] Family and tribe, not necessarily species. Apes go to war against other apes.

Relevant? [img]http://i.imgur.com/EECsiwN.jpg[/img]

We could always just get the UK or someone to kill any American terrorists, and we can kill any of theirs, that way nobody's killing their own citizens.

"Associated force" is completely and totally arbitrary, EVERY supposed terrorist group is invariably labeled as "Al Qaeda affiliated" to justify action against them. What this boils down to is the Obama administration claiming that anyone they say is an enemy, American citizen or not, can be murdered by remote control without any due process whatsoever. And if you question it, they claim state secrets and won't provide any evidence of how your organization is supposedly "affiliated". One day Obama could simply decide PETA is a terrorist organization, which must obviously be linked to Al Qaeda (because all terrorist organizations are part of the same group), and shoot some Hellfires at their headquarters.

[QUOTE=OvB;39479273]Relevant?[/QUOTE] I read that whole thing like one of those 60's advert announcers. Glorious.

[QUOTE=Lanopo;39478444]As the global population grows, the value of an individual's life diminishes.[/QUOTE] Which is why workplace standards are much higher today than 100 years ago despite rapidly accelerated population growth?

[QUOTE=Strongbad;39479131]People who think this way tend to be extremely bitter recluses who were bullied as kids and therefore decided that everyone else is the same exact way.[/QUOTE] This is the internet, remember.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39479174]Family and tribe, not necessarily species. Apes go to war against other apes.[/QUOTE] This is true. There's a great piece by Martha Nussbaum called "Compassion and Terror" that seeks to explain why people are willing to carry out violence against each other, and why we aren't willing to carry out violence against certain people. Specifically, it deals with why bin Laden et al seeked to perpetrate 9/11 and did not feel compassion towards the victims, and why Americans who may have never been to NYC did then feel compassion for the victims. It also talks about compassion in decision making, and how and why this is a problem or a solution. Essentially, the roundabout of it is that we feel compelled to be compassionate for those we feel are like us, and care less for those that we don't feel are like us. If you identify that all the starving kids in Africa are just like you, they are more likely to be in your sphere of compassion. There are arguments like "How can you truly feel empathy for their situation? No matter how hard you try, you are not in their position, and are likely just compassionate towards them because you can imagine [I]yourself[/I] in their position." The example Nussbaum gives, iirc, is an Athenian play, wherein the Athenians play the role of peoples whose island is enslaved and destroyed by the Greeks, in which the Athenians participated in. Because the actor was an Athenian woman, even though many of the audience members may have been the ones doing the pillaging, they felt bad and compassionate towards the character- only because they would identify to the situation through the actor, and saw themselves as a potential victim. So it's alot more complicated to say whether or not we care and why. But the most fundamental factor is that people don't care only because they don't want to: they don't want to identify with those on the other side, which is why dehumanizing and profiling the enemy is so keen during wartime. But in a world where we are becoming more and more connected, will this always be the case?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39482162']This is true. There's a great piece by Martha Nussbaum called "Compassion and Terror" that seeks to explain why people are willing to carry out violence against each other, and why we aren't willing to carry out violence against certain people. Specifically, it deals with why bin Laden et al seeked to perpetrate 9/11 and did not feel compassion towards the victims, and why Americans who may have never been to NYC did then feel compassion for the victims. It also talks about compassion in decision making, and how and why this is a problem or a solution. Essentially, the roundabout of it is that we feel compelled to be compassionate for those we feel are like us, and care less for those that we don't feel are like us. If you identify that all the starving kids in Africa are just like you, they are more likely to be in your sphere of compassion. There are arguments like "How can you truly feel empathy for their situation? No matter how hard you try, you are not in their position, and are likely just compassionate towards them because you can imagine [I]yourself[/I] in their position." The example Nussbaum gives, iirc, is an Athenian play, wherein the Athenians play the role of peoples whose island is enslaved and destroyed by the Greeks, in which the Athenians participated in. Because the actor was an Athenian woman, even though many of the audience members may have been the ones doing the pillaging, they felt bad and compassionate towards the character- only because they would identify to the situation through the actor, and saw themselves as a potential victim. So it's alot more complicated to say whether or not we care and why. But the most fundamental factor is that people don't care only because they don't want to: they don't want to identify with those on the other side, which is why dehumanizing and profiling the enemy is so keen during wartime. But in a world where we are becoming more and more connected, will this always be the case?[/QUOTE] Very informative. To your last question: I'm not sure if this is really a good way of connection. It may give people a false sense of connection too. It's hard to explain for me but it is probably best illustrated by the fact that the big nations are not fighting other nations anymore but rather groups of people that use a certain idea rather than historical/sociological background to identify themselves.