6 ms·

If it was legally allowed, there would be no reason to hide the lists and cover up the process. If there existed other evidence, outside of states secrets, that

by daenz 6y ago

If it was legally allowed, there would be no reason to hide the lists and cover up the process. If there existed other evidence, outside of states secrets, that proved the actions, then there absolutely would be a valid case.

pm90 6y ago
The parent did not comment on the legality of the action but on whether the Government could execute on that action “without consequences or repercussions”. Arguing about the legality is a straw man argument, when the discussion is about what actions the Government can get away with (regardless of legality).
- daenz 6y ago
  The government "can" do a lot of things. They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not. Enumerating all of the things within the capabilities of the government is a meaningless exercise.
  - pm90 6y ago
    > They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. Please make better arguments. You seem to be making deliberate bad faith arguments and nobody benefits from engaging in that kind of discourse.
    - daenz 6y ago
      >It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. I didn't say "downtown San Francisco", I said "your home." How would you prove that blew up your home? If you can't prove it, then they got away with it. My point is that when we open up the definition of "can" in this headline to mean "things the government can do and get away with", then it becomes meaningless if it's not bounded by the legality of those things. There are a boundless number of things, including assassinations, framings, etc etc, that the government "can" do and get away with. So the only definition of "can" worth discussing, since the headline is intentionally vague about what "can" means, is whether or not it is legal to do the things described.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. No one ever faced any consequences for the MOVE bombing, and it wasn't even a secret that the (local) government did it.
      - staybailey 6y ago
        Wikipedia disagrees. Example: "In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgment to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing." The police commissioner was also forced to resign.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. Parent is right, the law is abstract. Violence is absolute. If the largest dispenser of violence in human history decides to bomb San Francisco, they're going to do it, and it will be legal.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        > If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. true, but only vacuously so. the "US Federal Government" is not some monolithic entity with a single will. it is made up of many organizations, factions, and individuals with their own motivations. if a military official ordered the bombing of san francisco, their subordinates may simply disobey them. if the orders were actually carried out, there would likely be other parts of the government that would find it politically expedient to hold those responsible to account. they may or may not be able to direct the use of force to do so. the government can only take extreme actions when some level of internal consensus (or at least apathy) exists, as in the case of the MOVE bombing.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not No it doesn't. If the public disagree with those actions they won't remain legal for long.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - daenz 6y ago
      And there's a reason why, in your example, the end result of the public being unhappy is to change the laws: because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws. If the public disagreeing was enough, then there would be no need to have laws.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        Sometimes officials choose not to do things "at their digression" based on public opinion, without the need to change laws. Also, the argument about changing laws is moot if we are discussion the suppression of information, from becoming public, and therefore motivating the law. Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.
      - aaronblohowiak 6y ago
        > because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.

by daenz 6y ago

pm90 6y ago

The parent did not comment on the legality of the action but on whether the Government could execute on that action “without consequences or repercussions”. Arguing about the legality is a straw man argument, when the discussion is about what actions the Government can get away with (regardless of legality).

daenz 6y ago
The government "can" do a lot of things. They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not. Enumerating all of the things within the capabilities of the government is a meaningless exercise.
- pm90 6y ago
  > They "can" drone your home right now if they wanted to. It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. Please make better arguments. You seem to be making deliberate bad faith arguments and nobody benefits from engaging in that kind of discourse.
  - daenz 6y ago
    >It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. I didn't say "downtown San Francisco", I said "your home." How would you prove that blew up your home? If you can't prove it, then they got away with it. My point is that when we open up the definition of "can" in this headline to mean "things the government can do and get away with", then it becomes meaningless if it's not bounded by the legality of those things. There are a boundless number of things, including assassinations, framings, etc etc, that the government "can" do and get away with. So the only definition of "can" worth discussing, since the headline is intentionally vague about what "can" means, is whether or not it is legal to do the things described.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It would be hard to imagine the Government getting away with bombing downtown San Francisco without any consequences. No one ever faced any consequences for the MOVE bombing, and it wasn't even a secret that the (local) government did it.
    - staybailey 6y ago
      Wikipedia disagrees. Example: "In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgment to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing." The police commissioner was also forced to resign.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. Parent is right, the law is abstract. Violence is absolute. If the largest dispenser of violence in human history decides to bomb San Francisco, they're going to do it, and it will be legal.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > If the US Federal Government decided to bomb San Francisco, I'm not sure who exactly would be able to render the consequences. true, but only vacuously so. the "US Federal Government" is not some monolithic entity with a single will. it is made up of many organizations, factions, and individuals with their own motivations. if a military official ordered the bombing of san francisco, their subordinates may simply disobey them. if the orders were actually carried out, there would likely be other parts of the government that would find it politically expedient to hold those responsible to account. they may or may not be able to direct the use of force to do so. the government can only take extreme actions when some level of internal consensus (or at least apathy) exists, as in the case of the MOVE bombing.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > The only thing that matters is if it is legal or not No it doesn't. If the public disagree with those actions they won't remain legal for long.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - daenz 6y ago
    And there's a reason why, in your example, the end result of the public being unhappy is to change the laws: because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws. If the public disagreeing was enough, then there would be no need to have laws.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Sometimes officials choose not to do things "at their digression" based on public opinion, without the need to change laws. Also, the argument about changing laws is moot if we are discussion the suppression of information, from becoming public, and therefore motivating the law. Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.
    - aaronblohowiak 6y ago
      > because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.