6 ms·

For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the presiden

by miles 13y ago

For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark. This should be daily news everywhere until it is addressed and we start scaling back the War on Humanity. This is simply not how America is supposed to work.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 13y ago
Where is the press, where are the protesters? Its not hard to understand why it does not change. Its sad that criticism can be blunted by the fear of being labeled.
- chii 13y ago
  not sure about the press, but the protests will only happen if this is affecting the average american, whose comfortable life is being maintained - until suddenly, the average american finds itself in a police state, unable to protest...
thaumasiotes 13y ago
I am in full agreement, but I have to ask, why now? This hasn't been news for years.
- phy6 13y ago
  Why now? Because we elected Change, and we're waiting for it. The question should be "Why NOT now?". Of all times, when the most vocal of Americans enjoy a popular President, why wait until the tide changes to press for the change we all see is needed?
  - pyre 13y ago
    > Because we elected Change A little off-topic, but I'm always reminded of this: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/248462/attack-of-the-change http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/248462/attack-of-the-c...
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  It's not "why now?", it's "why still not?". If the country that plays the role of the World's police becomes/is corrupt (to that degree), then there is no hope for the World.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Here's what's happening: intelligent people are having a desperately needed conversation about the full spectrum of related problems having to do with absolutely terrifying assertions of extra-judicial executive power. This is relevant. That's why it's part of the conversation.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rob05c 13y ago
    Well said. When atrocities are occurring, the question isn't "why now?" the question is "Why haven't we done anything about this?"
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    If you're referring to the ongoing NSA scandals, I actually think that the government claiming the power to kill citizens without trial, accusation, or evidence is much worse. It doesn't bother you that the random assassination power is only called into question because of the surveillance power? Here's loweringthebar.net mocking the story in 2011 (this story would appear to be almost exactly two years old; the commenter saying "we elected Change and we're waiting for it" might reflect that this is the Change we elected): http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-government-will-explain.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-gov... How did "the government will read your email" become a bigger outrage than "the government can kill you at any time without warning and without ever having to justify itself"? (If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me)
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      What I'm refering to is exactly what I said I'm refering to: the full spectrum of issues related to unchecked executive power. In other words, I'm not looking at these as seperate problems which can be stacked from bad to worse. Which is not to say people can't consider things in these terms, just that I'm not doing this. I'm doing what mathematicians do when they look for the most general yet concice expression to cover a range of instances. And yes, that obviously includes the NSA. But it also includes the transformation of the CIA into a paramilitary force, the transformation of the FBI from a federal level police force into a domestic intelligence agency focused on "national security", secret interpretations of law surrounding the the Patriot Act, unaccountable militarization of police forces up to and including the offices of prosecutors (tactics driven largely by the Drug War), and of course, the explosive growth of what has become the world's largest prison system, which we chillingly refer to as 'an industry' as though there were anything productive about destroyig people's minds using solitary confinement. And let's not forget prisons that operate completely outside the law, where the normal rules about trials, evidence, and expediency are a abandoned altogether. Topping it all off is the culture of fear, suspicion, and paranoia that pervades the agencies involved. The unprecedented use of the Espionage Act to terrify whistle blowers, actual or potential, fits squarely with a general pattern of escalating abuse. Indeed, that's one of the most frightening aspect of this entire development since it indicates that the people at the heart of this know that what they're doing is wrong and that it won't stand up to public scrutiny, but they're doing it anyway. HN is full of people attuned to systems. And what we're seeing here is a system getting completely, dangerously, wildly out of control. And not just any system, but one that keeps coming back to work done by a lot of people here. Even if it weren't for these unnerving personal connections, HN readers are far more likely than most to recognize deep systemic problems when they occur, and to see them in those terms. That leads to a desire to identify root causes, which leads to a general problem in the inescapable lawlessness of the Executive Branch. In essence it is treating the problems and conditions of normal life as though they were a formal state of war, and adopting the vastly more expansive and unaccountable set of powers that actual war permits. That must end.
rhizome 13y ago
But if it is simply how it does work, maybe that means it should be changed to something where the President doesn't have as much power.
- rob05c 13y ago
  IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs but not e.g. killing Americans without due process.
  - Osiris 13y ago
    Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future.
    - eru 13y ago
      Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        All voting systems are ripe for tactical voting; approval voting has the additional problem that ballots lack consistent meaning (a ranking, especially if it doesn't use forced preferences because it allows ties, has consistent meaning; "approval" vs. "disapproval" does not.) The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completely ignored by the voting system, maximizing the need to vote tactically in order to have a vote that isn't equivalent to abstention.
shin_lao 13y ago
Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country, this is called "Raison d'État". This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about it.
- zxcdw 13y ago
  Yes, we shouldn't be too naive about it, which is the very reason why we should be outright enraged about it happening.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  > Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country That's the beginning of a long, steep slippery slope. Who decides what is "the supreme interest of the country"? And who keeps a check on the laws that are violated in the pursuit of that goal?
  - moneyrich4 13y ago
    a new gang of people who usually went to school together, that we choose (usually... diebold ... die bold ... risk it all take everything) every 4 years. supposedly we do this every 4 years to balance the power they wield from veering too far left or right and sticking to the countries interest.
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  I thought raison d'etat was about a state deciding its dealings with other states solely on the basis of national self interest rather than moral or legal principles. It's that doctrine's failure in Europe and subsequent laws that lead to the idea of 'international law', right? As far as I know it does not apply to a government violating its own laws. Edit: subsequent WARS, not laws.

by miles 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 13y ago

Where is the press, where are the protesters? Its not hard to understand why it does not change. Its sad that criticism can be blunted by the fear of being labeled.

chii 13y ago
not sure about the press, but the protests will only happen if this is affecting the average american, whose comfortable life is being maintained - until suddenly, the average american finds itself in a police state, unable to protest...

thaumasiotes 13y ago

I am in full agreement, but I have to ask, why now? This hasn't been news for years.

phy6 13y ago
Why now? Because we elected Change, and we're waiting for it. The question should be "Why NOT now?". Of all times, when the most vocal of Americans enjoy a popular President, why wait until the tide changes to press for the change we all see is needed?
- pyre 13y ago
  > Because we elected Change A little off-topic, but I'm always reminded of this: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/248462/attack-of-the-change http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/248462/attack-of-the-c...
frank_boyd 13y ago
It's not "why now?", it's "why still not?". If the country that plays the role of the World's police becomes/is corrupt (to that degree), then there is no hope for the World.
alexqgb 13y ago
Here's what's happening: intelligent people are having a desperately needed conversation about the full spectrum of related problems having to do with absolutely terrifying assertions of extra-judicial executive power. This is relevant. That's why it's part of the conversation.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rob05c 13y ago
  Well said. When atrocities are occurring, the question isn't "why now?" the question is "Why haven't we done anything about this?"
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  If you're referring to the ongoing NSA scandals, I actually think that the government claiming the power to kill citizens without trial, accusation, or evidence is much worse. It doesn't bother you that the random assassination power is only called into question because of the surveillance power? Here's loweringthebar.net mocking the story in 2011 (this story would appear to be almost exactly two years old; the commenter saying "we elected Change and we're waiting for it" might reflect that this is the Change we elected): http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-government-will-explain.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-gov... How did "the government will read your email" become a bigger outrage than "the government can kill you at any time without warning and without ever having to justify itself"? (If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me)
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    What I'm refering to is exactly what I said I'm refering to: the full spectrum of issues related to unchecked executive power. In other words, I'm not looking at these as seperate problems which can be stacked from bad to worse. Which is not to say people can't consider things in these terms, just that I'm not doing this. I'm doing what mathematicians do when they look for the most general yet concice expression to cover a range of instances. And yes, that obviously includes the NSA. But it also includes the transformation of the CIA into a paramilitary force, the transformation of the FBI from a federal level police force into a domestic intelligence agency focused on "national security", secret interpretations of law surrounding the the Patriot Act, unaccountable militarization of police forces up to and including the offices of prosecutors (tactics driven largely by the Drug War), and of course, the explosive growth of what has become the world's largest prison system, which we chillingly refer to as 'an industry' as though there were anything productive about destroyig people's minds using solitary confinement. And let's not forget prisons that operate completely outside the law, where the normal rules about trials, evidence, and expediency are a abandoned altogether. Topping it all off is the culture of fear, suspicion, and paranoia that pervades the agencies involved. The unprecedented use of the Espionage Act to terrify whistle blowers, actual or potential, fits squarely with a general pattern of escalating abuse. Indeed, that's one of the most frightening aspect of this entire development since it indicates that the people at the heart of this know that what they're doing is wrong and that it won't stand up to public scrutiny, but they're doing it anyway. HN is full of people attuned to systems. And what we're seeing here is a system getting completely, dangerously, wildly out of control. And not just any system, but one that keeps coming back to work done by a lot of people here. Even if it weren't for these unnerving personal connections, HN readers are far more likely than most to recognize deep systemic problems when they occur, and to see them in those terms. That leads to a desire to identify root causes, which leads to a general problem in the inescapable lawlessness of the Executive Branch. In essence it is treating the problems and conditions of normal life as though they were a formal state of war, and adopting the vastly more expansive and unaccountable set of powers that actual war permits. That must end.

rhizome 13y ago

But if it is simply how it does work, maybe that means it should be changed to something where the President doesn't have as much power.

rob05c 13y ago
IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs but not e.g. killing Americans without due process.
- Osiris 13y ago
  Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future.
  - eru 13y ago
    Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      All voting systems are ripe for tactical voting; approval voting has the additional problem that ballots lack consistent meaning (a ranking, especially if it doesn't use forced preferences because it allows ties, has consistent meaning; "approval" vs. "disapproval" does not.) The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completely ignored by the voting system, maximizing the need to vote tactically in order to have a vote that isn't equivalent to abstention.

shin_lao 13y ago

Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country, this is called "Raison d'État". This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about it.

zxcdw 13y ago
Yes, we shouldn't be too naive about it, which is the very reason why we should be outright enraged about it happening.
r0h1n 13y ago
> Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country That's the beginning of a long, steep slippery slope. Who decides what is "the supreme interest of the country"? And who keeps a check on the laws that are violated in the pursuit of that goal?
- moneyrich4 13y ago
  a new gang of people who usually went to school together, that we choose (usually... diebold ... die bold ... risk it all take everything) every 4 years. supposedly we do this every 4 years to balance the power they wield from veering too far left or right and sticking to the countries interest.
dalek_cannes 13y ago
I thought raison d'etat was about a state deciding its dealings with other states solely on the basis of national self interest rather than moral or legal principles. It's that doctrine's failure in Europe and subsequent laws that lead to the idea of 'international law', right? As far as I know it does not apply to a government violating its own laws. Edit: subsequent WARS, not laws.