5 ms·

You forgot to mention black choppers. FTFY: "Do not pick fights with people who can fly black choppers"

patio11 14y ago
So when you mention black choppers, people will assume you are either being ironic or crazy. There's a particular policy goal affiliated with these attacks, and a spectrum of options for achieving that policy goal. Those options included "There exist certain individually identifiable employees of a foreign government who are personally indispensable to implementing something which goes against our policy goals. We could assassinate them." If you read the papers you know that that option is neither a joke nor the fevered imaginings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
- eli 14y ago
  Indeed: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  It is likely that such assassinations are against both International Law (Geneva Conventions) and US law. Carter, Ford and Reagan all prohibited them through executive orders. Even if you think that knocking off some Hamas leaders is a good idea, you will experience scope creep - last year a (sort of) influential policy advisor suggested using drones against Julian Assange. Honestly, "we" (the West) are best armed, best funded, most free peoples ever to walk the earth. If we cannot put aside assassination and torture, then the human race has no hope. Here for an interesting review of legality of such assassinations: http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/jerry-bekkerman-seminar%20paper%20%28final%29.htm http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/jerry-bekkerm... Assange / assassination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_%28political_scientist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_%28political_scien... edit: for clarity, before I become flamed as a woolly left winger, I think that there are many people in the world, that if they were hit by lightning today, the world would be much better off. but a) I think the world is nett worse off if democracies 'arrange' that lightning, because it demeans the important point of a democracy - being a beacon of hope for the future generations. b) the choice of targets, is not discussed in a democratic manner, and almost certainly would not be my choice. (Now thats a referendum I would love to see:-) c) my guess is that, like crime, taking out the people committing the crime right now, magically someone else steps into their place. Sometimes someone who yesterday was not committing those crimes. Hmm, still pretty left wing there...
  - tkahn6 14y ago
    The point in the first paragraph regarding 'scope creep' is a non sequitur because Julian Assange was in fact not assassinated and public figures calling for his assassination were not taken seriously. The second paragraph and points a and c are non sequiturs. In b it seems you are in favor of a lynch mob. Just explaining why I down-modded your comment
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      down modding stuff is fine, giving reasoned comments is fantastic. lynch mob - no, but I was struck with concern and amusement by the idea of a quarterly referendum on which world figures we should target for assassination, plus maybe a limit of civilian children whose collateral death would be acceptable in the voting list. In fact its the opposite of a lynch mob. A lynch democracy perhaps. don't quite understand the non-sequiteur part... could you expand?
  - cema 14y ago
    If we cannot put aside assassination and torture, then the human race has no hope. We can and should put aside torture. Assassination, however, is still a preferred tool, when often an alternative is a larger scale military conflict. A focused attack has a better chance of avoiding hitting innocent bystanders. important point of a democracy - being a beacon of hope for the future generations I do not think this is a point of "a democracy" at all. the choice of targets, is not discussed in a democratic manner, and almost certainly would not be my choice. This is a serious point. And it arises in any military conflict. How the democratic public controls its military is a matter of serious study; I am not competent in this, but perhaps someone could suggest a few links?
    - podperson 14y ago
      It seems pretty clear that the US public has democratically decided to delegate the commission of war crimes to its military and not be told about the details. This has been going on for far longer than we realize. (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/fussell.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle... -- excellent article on WWII linked on HN a couple of weeks back.)
- cheatercheater 14y ago
  Just for the record, I was implying you're crazy.

So when you mention black choppers, people will assume you are either being ironic or crazy. There's a particular policy goal affiliated with these attacks, and a spectrum of options for achieving that policy goal. Those options included "There exist certain individually identifiable employees of a foreign government who are personally indispensable to implementing something which goes against our policy goals. We could assassinate them." If you read the papers you know that that option is neither a joke nor the fevered imaginings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

eli 14y ago
Indeed: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
It is likely that such assassinations are against both International Law (Geneva Conventions) and US law. Carter, Ford and Reagan all prohibited them through executive orders. Even if you think that knocking off some Hamas leaders is a good idea, you will experience scope creep - last year a (sort of) influential policy advisor suggested using drones against Julian Assange. Honestly, "we" (the West) are best armed, best funded, most free peoples ever to walk the earth. If we cannot put aside assassination and torture, then the human race has no hope. Here for an interesting review of legality of such assassinations: http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/jerry-bekkerman-seminar%20paper%20%28final%29.htm http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/jerry-bekkerm... Assange / assassination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_%28political_scientist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_%28political_scien... edit: for clarity, before I become flamed as a woolly left winger, I think that there are many people in the world, that if they were hit by lightning today, the world would be much better off. but a) I think the world is nett worse off if democracies 'arrange' that lightning, because it demeans the important point of a democracy - being a beacon of hope for the future generations. b) the choice of targets, is not discussed in a democratic manner, and almost certainly would not be my choice. (Now thats a referendum I would love to see:-) c) my guess is that, like crime, taking out the people committing the crime right now, magically someone else steps into their place. Sometimes someone who yesterday was not committing those crimes. Hmm, still pretty left wing there...
- tkahn6 14y ago
  The point in the first paragraph regarding 'scope creep' is a non sequitur because Julian Assange was in fact not assassinated and public figures calling for his assassination were not taken seriously. The second paragraph and points a and c are non sequiturs. In b it seems you are in favor of a lynch mob. Just explaining why I down-modded your comment
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    down modding stuff is fine, giving reasoned comments is fantastic. lynch mob - no, but I was struck with concern and amusement by the idea of a quarterly referendum on which world figures we should target for assassination, plus maybe a limit of civilian children whose collateral death would be acceptable in the voting list. In fact its the opposite of a lynch mob. A lynch democracy perhaps. don't quite understand the non-sequiteur part... could you expand?
- cema 14y ago
  If we cannot put aside assassination and torture, then the human race has no hope. We can and should put aside torture. Assassination, however, is still a preferred tool, when often an alternative is a larger scale military conflict. A focused attack has a better chance of avoiding hitting innocent bystanders. important point of a democracy - being a beacon of hope for the future generations I do not think this is a point of "a democracy" at all. the choice of targets, is not discussed in a democratic manner, and almost certainly would not be my choice. This is a serious point. And it arises in any military conflict. How the democratic public controls its military is a matter of serious study; I am not competent in this, but perhaps someone could suggest a few links?
  - podperson 14y ago
    It seems pretty clear that the US public has democratically decided to delegate the commission of war crimes to its military and not be told about the details. This has been going on for far longer than we realize. (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/fussell.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle... -- excellent article on WWII linked on HN a couple of weeks back.)
cheatercheater 14y ago
Just for the record, I was implying you're crazy.