This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Some Advice To Americans: Don't Be Engaged In Combat On American Soil
It seems 13 hours of open discussion on the Constitutional rights of the President to be judge, jury, and executioner aroused further response from the Attorney General.
»
- 34626 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Long ago a old document said that powers not granted in it were reserved for the states and the people to hold. Boy how we miss the good old 10th.
I miss 9 of th 10 of the bill of rights. I think the Habrius Corpus is still simi intact. If the pirate Jack Sparrow was real, and worked for the government, he would say the bill of rights is more like a guidline or sugestion. Eric Holder reminds me of a pirates parrot.
Rand Paul is a hero
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/08/27/bernanke-deflation.html
Drones are very dependant on computers.....
That's all we need to know.
The drones I do not fear in the least,(at least that would be quick) the OTHER shit, is far worse,and more likely to come and see you.
Now demand that Holder clearly answer the following question.
If that very same person steps across the US border and is on foreign soil, does the president magically gain the authority to kill him then?
Also ask Holder to define "combat". I am fairly sure that in his mind the term "combat" includes ever having a skeptical thought, or uttering a skeptical word about "government" uttering a skeptical word about the "private" entity called "the federal reserve", or being ten bucks short on payment of taxes or other fees according to any random government employee (including before-trial, of course).
Also ask Holder to define "American", as well as "American soil".
Does a US Citizen have the right to kill a US President for Abuse of Office ? Or to kill a Banker for Criminal Activity ?
First of all, don't forget that "US President" is a blatant fiction and doesn't exist. And thus the "office" doesn't exist either.
To answer questions like yours honestly and accurately, you need to observe the individual human and his actions, and make your judgement based upon that. Any animal that behaves like a predator (especially on a regular basis) can ethically be treated like a predator. Consider what is ethical when a predatory animal (say, lion or tiger) kills others, or has them killed (corners them so other predators can kill them). Continue this line of thinking and you may find a rational, reality-based ethical answer to your questions.
honestann, so it's all about definitions? what is "combat", what is "president of the usa", what is an "international border", what is "american" and what is "american soil"?
while I find your search for rational, reality-based ethical answers nice, please remember that there is a whole planet full of individuals (yes, and groups) that are quite pissed off that this "us group-think" is so confused
it's fine that you divorce yourself from "group-think", but from some foreigners' perspective you are part of the problem - by not "owning your group-shit", together with endless other individuals (often emphatically not groups) that endlessly moan about current trends and yet politically poison any moderate political policy with this emphasis on "I'm me, I have nothing to do with them"
take your "the "US President" is blatant fiction..." - well, US President's military actions abroad ain't fiction, in the rest of the world
take the "what is american soil" question, this one is particularly rich, seen from abroad. In practice, it sounds like: "I don't care where those drones go as long as they don't fly over me"
you should be asking why your fictional president has any authority to kill at all except in a declared war - but your moaning is that he is both fictional and without authority while moaning that this very old "undeclared war" you never cared for might reach... you
your very line of extreme anti-authoritarian reasoning delegitimizing any form of government, state, groups and so on is the line of thinking that is blurring your own national borders and so filling up your air with killer-drones
I'm not saying this is the intent, I'm just saying this is the result
------------
you know what ethics and morals really boil down to?
some people love individuals/humans and hate groups/humanity
some people love groups/humanity and hate individuals/humans
some people love none, and some love only themselves
the trick would be to love both ways and hate none
Yes, there is a lot of truth to what you say --- when applied to a great many other clueless or inconsistent individuals. No, this is not about definitions. Perhaps you didn't mean "definitions" exactly. If you meant "meanings" (the reality or fiction that concepts refer-to), then I disagree. Anyone who is not clear about what each of his concepts means (refers-to), then they are incapable of rational, reality-based thought. Instead they spiral around aimlessly in the universe of bogus and outright fictional concepts the predators have created to enslave them. Unfortunately, I'm not clear exactly what you criticize.
You are especially correct about me in particular when you talk about the difference between "me" (honestann) versus "everyone else". But it is quite obvious to me that I don't have the power to much influence anyone else. Once I did, and even now when I realize I have near-zero influence to help others understand, I still waste some of my time trying.
I don't know what "us group-think" means and refers-to. Is the "us" in that phrase supposed to me "us" (some group), the USSA, or something else?
Why should I care whether many people consider me part of the problem? Am I supposed to start becoming part of the problem because those people are clueless and misguided? Or because I used to live on a continent where so many others are clueless and misguided?
You seem to have completely misunderstood why I endlessly repeat phrases like "predators-DBA-government", and point out that "government" and "president" and endless other made-up fictions are in fact fictions, and do not exist. The reason I say "predators-DBA-government" is to make clear that "predators" are very real, and very harmful... but "government" is pure fiction and doesn't exist. Why do I say this? Precisely because the predators are completely real, and the actions those predators take are so completely real and egregiously harmful. The reason it is important that people understand "government" is fiction, is that "government" is the fiction that disables regular folks, and gives these regular folks the misguided idea or impression that these predators have some legitimate justification for all the harm they cause. These regular folks need to understand that all that exists in this equation is real people... some of whom are predators, and some of whom are producers (or at least, not predators). Only when regular folks realize all these fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy abstract nonsense do not exist, will they come to understand that every individual must be judged and treated on the basis of their actions period... without regard for any fiction such as "government" or "president"... or what a few dozen people wrote on a piece of paper 235 or 555 years ago in philadelphia or england.
If you even imagine that I defend any action taken by any individual acting "on behalf of" the federal government of the USSA (or any other so-called "government" fiction), you are utterly, totally and completely mistaken. Not a single action by a single individual "on behalf of" any fiction (government or corporation) is legitimate --- unless that action was legitimate for that individual to take as a single individual on his own behalf. I can't imagine where you get any impression I sanction any action by any government worker! I thought I was clear about that!
The reason that I left the USSA over 3 years ago was because it was completely clear to me that the vast, vast, vast majority of individuals living within the borders of the USSA sanction and defend the predators-DBA-government. If there were even 2% who were honest, consistent individualists willing to take actions to work with others like them to defend themselves, then I would have happily stayed, designed and deployed weapons and other systems, and done something about the current situation in the USSA. But I never advocated good people kill themselves just to make a point. If there isn't a reasonable chance of success (a positive existential outcome), then I'm not interested, I'm not joining with other individuals, no matter how good and correct they might be. To put this another way, I refuse to be self-destructive.
You completely miss my point about "what is American soil". In fact, you appear to take my point exactly backwards from what I intended. The point is (or was supposed to be) to expose the absurdity of adding "on American soil". What right does any predator have to just go and kill people.... any people in any location. But also, you might find that Holder does not consider anywhere in the "North American Continent" to be "America". These guys are complete, baldface liars. I would be positively surpised if later when they continue to kill people (americans and others) inside what people call "the USA" or "America"... that Holder says "there is no such place as America". You may think I'm kidding, but I'm not.
Frankly, I don't care about drones per-se. What I do care about is drones spying on me or anyone else they do not have convincing evidence has committed a real, physical act of aggression against another individual. What I do care about is any individual being treated unfairly for any reason whatsoever. And I do not make any distinction between "american" and "others". Hell, I certainly don't consider myself an "american"... or any other fictional collective for that matter. I don't even consider myself an "anarchist" or "libertarian" or any other fictional category, no matter how many individuals ideas or statements I might agree upon, because most of their "members" are clueless, and every supposed official position or philosophy I've heard of is jam-packed with errors (even if a great many of their members are benevolent folks).
Let me be clear for you, since I must assume you didn't read most of my old messages.
Every single "official" and every single "collective" (government, corporation, society, club, etc) is a fiction. The individual human beings are real, but the so-called "organization" that supposedly gives them "authority" is fiction. NONE of these real, physical, individual beings has ANY legitimate right to do any harm (or even inconvenience) to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON... except to counteract a previous real, specific, physical harm that individual did to them (as an individual). This does NOT include any harm done to them while they were in the process of harming or controlling them or others "on behalf of" some fiction like government.
Let me be FURTHER clear about this. Any so-called "war" is also pure, unadulterated fiction. A "war" as virtually everyone means the term (you included, I presume), is an "official" and therefore entirely fictional state (or claim, or something), made by real, physical individuals who claim to have some entirely fictional "position" in some entirely fictional "organization".
So "a declaration of war" is nothing more than noise being uttered by some deluded sociopath predator. Nothing more. Nothing more. Nothing more. The fact that "regular folks" then go through all sorts of fictional-delusion-guided motions like "join the military", "wear a uniform", "read orders", "carry out orders", "shoot people", "bomb people", and so forth... is an extremely sad statement about the completely insane, clueless state of the majority of human chimps on this planet.
If everyone ignored the lunatic who calls himself "president" or "emporer" or "king" or "other bogus fiction name"... then "war" would be exactly what it is in fact --- NOTHING BUT HOT AIR. This should be obvious by now, especially since the predators have even discarded the unpleasant formality of "declaring war", and bomb innocents all around the world without regard for anything but their desire to do so.
This doesn't mean you and millions or billions of others would not load your guns and start shooting if some invading mob of predators tried to roll through your town and take over your lives, steal your goods, co-opt your homes and farms and property, and declare you their slaves. Of course not --- you'd lock, load and start shooting. And if you want to call that a "war", then you are welcome to do so. But in fact, you are just treating predators (invaders) the way they treat others. In other words, you are just defending yourselves. And you have every right to do so, no matter who you are and where you live.
What the predators-DBA-government of the USSA has been doing the past 50 years is blatantly and aggressively appalling. They are not much different than the nazis of the 1940s, except they are more proficient, more crafty, and even more evil (if that's possible, which it is).
There ARE no "national borders". And I am no more afraid of people who you would call "from another country" than I am afraid of people within the fictional line you call "the border". All those things are fictions! If I was so afraid of "foreigners", why on earth did I move completely out of the USSA and put myself into a situation where virtually everyone near me is what you would call "a foreigner"? I mean... duh!
I am not much afraid of individuals (even though those individuals who sanction, support and defend the predators are dangerous). What I am afraid of is individuals (predators) who adopt fictional "official titles" in "fictional organizations"... and thereby convince themselves they can legitimately cause any harm, damage and inconvenience to anyone and everyone (or at least feel free to do so because they are backed-up by their fellow fictional cops and military).
NOBODY has any right to kill a non-predator human-being, except in self-defense. However, in self-defense they should kill the predator attacking them. And known predators (and I do mean known, not guessed) can be treated the same way, exactly as when a known human-killer wild animal is hunted down and shot by the first individual with a gun who encounters that creature. Since all titles like "president" are fiction, and all "organizations" that supposedly make certain actions "legitimate" are fiction... then obviously the fact that people speak or write the names of those titles and organizations has zero significance. Well, I guess it has one significance. Anyone who claims he takes actions on behalf of those fictions has clearly and unambiguously declared himself a predator.
I competely reject "borders" as being absolute, complete, total and utter fictions. Therefore any comments I make about drones or anything else applies equally everywhere on earth. No, let me expand that a bit. It applies everywhere in the universe.
Yes, I do know what ethics comes down to. It comes down to "predators versus producers".
I do not say that as a soundbite. I do not say that as a trivial response. Like many fundamental issues or questions, I have spent decades reflecting on these terms to identify whether they have any reality-basis for them at all, and if they do, to identify that reality-basis.
The fact is, the only legitimate (that is, "sensible reality-based") meaning of the term "ethics" is causality as applied to human actions.
To describe what "ethics" means in detail takes more than one or two paragraphs. I have tried to explain "ethics" in this form (in a couple dozen long paragraphs) at least twice in the past 3 years, but I don't have time to add a dozen more paragraphs here right now.
The soundbite version (which I suppose requires justification that I don't have time for right now) goes something like this:
The state of "ethics" or "justice" exists when every individual enjoys/bares/suffers 100% of the consequences of his actions, and enjoys/bares/suffers 0% of the consequences of actions of others.
The above "soundbite version" is so short that it doesn't explicitly explain certain fringe situations like "giving a gift (that you produced via your time and effort) to a friend". That's the nature of short "soundbite versions" of any non-trivial concept. Nonetheless, it does give you a general pointer towards the legitmiate reality-based meaning of "ethics".
I probably need to add that "ethics" is something created by "producers" sometime after the first humans learned how to be "producers" (create goods and goodies that would not have existed without their intentionally productive actions).
When this happened (humans first learned they could be "producers" as well as "predators"), the producers observed they needed to protect the goods they produced from wild animals (predators) who would simply grab and eat their crops (the goods they produced). Their response was to kill those predators when they tried to grab their goods, and/or fence in their goods so the predators could not get to them. Later they realized they needed to also distinguish "human predators" from "human producers", because the "human predators" presented the exact same problem as other animal predators --- they would simply grab and destroy/consume the goods they (the producers) created.
At some vague level the producers understood what I stated above... that they had created those goods, that those goods would not have existed if not for the productive actions they took, and therefore those goods were connected to them by the fundamental nature of reality... specifically by applying the fundamental nature of reality that we call "causality" to human actions. They were the cause of those "produced" goods and goodies, and therefore had a special relationship to those goods and goodies --- the right to consume or dispense with them.
This relationship is, in fact, the same as the relationship that is most often given for the notion that gold has a right to control and dispense with human beings... because he created them.
I certainly do believe that producers tend to "love individuals/humans". Specifically, I believe that [especially highly] productive individuals hold other [highly] productive individuals in high regard, value them, appreciate them, and sometimes love them for their positive attributes.
The problem with (and overall story of) human beings is still "predators versus producers". The predators do not have any "ethics". Instead predators have a modus-operandi, which is "grab, consume, destroy and generally get away with whatever you think you can". In contrast, producers have the ethics that I described. Unfortunately, the vast majority of producers do not understand the history and nature of human "predators versus producers", and try to apply their ethics to predators --- which does not, and cannot work.
This is why predators are the masters of fiction. They have learned they can completely confuse producers, and thereby control them with almost zero risk to themselves. As a result, they go about practicing their modus-operandi of "grab, destroy, threaten, enslave and generally get away with whatever they can".
You are wrong in your last several lines. Why? Because those collectives do not exist. ALL that exists is individuals... period. Do you even realize that every individual belongs to millions of separate fictional "collectives"? Short people, tall people, fat people, thin people, pretty people, ugly people, rich people, poor people, athiests and religious people (and thousands of varieties of religious people), asian people, white people, black people, hispanic people, chinese people and hundreds of other kinds of peoples, smart people, dumb people, nice people, mean people, creative people, non-creative people, music players, music lovers, music listeners, people who don't care much about music... or movies... or theatre... or opera... or novels... or sci-fi... or...
Are you getting the picture yet? There are millions of these sorts of categories. But they are only "categories", which means "in your mind". I simply IGNORE all categories when it comes to evaluating any individual. I don't give a damn what million+ groups they might happen to belong to. I care about what actions they take! If they do not [intend to] harm me, or sanction or support others [authorities] harming me, then they're okay folks in my book. Whether they also take actions that I find especially attractive given my values, then they might be better than "just okay". Apparently I don't see the world (or humans) the way you (and most people) seem to. I don't note some exterior feature and then immediately imagine I know everything about them. Even when I notice some exterior feature that "implies A LOT" (like a police badge), I am careful not to assume full knowledge of their actions --- though I am damn tootin on guard against potential harm from "this fiction-loving, authoritarian-oriented predator". Oh, unless I find out he's just an actor, and wearing that outfit because he's about to participate in a movie or TV show or something.
I hate predators. Or to be more accurate, I feel completely justified to defend myself against predators, whether they are other species, or they are crazed human chimps. But I do admit to greatly favoring human producers. I do not hate "wild animal predators", because they cannot and do not understand the difference between predator and producer. And I have no urge to go out in the wild and kill wild animal predators either --- I prefer to leave them alone and keep my distance. But if they wander into my house, and I have a viable weapon and reasonable safe opportunity, I will kill them dead without hesitation. No, I'm not inclinded to take the same actions with a human predator who wears some fictional "official uniform", but only because I am unlikely to be able to eradicate this specific predator without unleashing dozens or hundreds or thousands or millions of other predators upon myself. But if it was "him or me", or we were at the stage of the police-state where I expected to be dragged into a cage and have little chance of quick release, then... who knows what I would decide. I certainly would rather die in a shoot-out than get locked in a cage indefinitely in the current ethics-free predator police state that now exists in the USSA. Which is one reason I escaped the USSA over 3 years ago... to avoid even the tiny chance I'd get into that situation.
But no. You will never get me to love human predators. Not only do they "not love me", but they intend to suck me dry, then destroy me. I will not "love that", "defend that", "support that", "sanction that", or allow that to destroy me without my escape if possible, and self-defense otherwise.
And yes, I do hate human predators. At least the vast majority of them who at some point had to come to understand the "predators versus producer" distinction at some level of clarity, and yet chose to be a predator because "that's the winning side" (or any other bogus rationalization).
I hope you don't imagine I defend the predators-DBA-government in the USSA over any other predator (or over regular folks, or non-predators). In all cases my sanction and support for predators is negative infinity.
it depends on what the meaning of "combat" is.
FUBSEH............FUCK YOU BARRY SOETOZERO AND ERIC HOLDUP......Our future is going to be about as pretty as Soetozero's wife.
Eric Holder is a scumbag. Looks the other way when the big criminals appear. Vowed to adhere the constitution and then works to ignore the constitution.
No better than having a coke dealer as the attorney general.
But the definition of combat extends to wars of words like posting anti-Obama material on zerohedge.
Fuck You Holder you fucking puke
It takes a twelve hour filibuster to get this administration to renounce murder. Bravo.
So the president has the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill a legal Permanent Resident not engaged in combat on American soil? ....Just curious.
It is not until the Autopsy that one can check ID
So I guess that means I have the right to blow-up someone's ass if they get all up in my grill.
The answer is: not if they've been deemed systematically important to the financial system.
It is correct for the man who holds the office of U.S. Attorney General to tell the country and the world that U.S. citizens cannot be kiilled on U.S. soil without due process of law and the 5th Amendment.
Long live the Republic.
The world is a contest of ideas. Keep calm, and carry on.
newengland, I +'d you for that comment and for the fact that I know that you watched the filibuster last night.
This I understand: "The world is a contest of ideas."
the World is more than just a contest of ideas; its a mirror of facts and acts.
When they contradict the ideal of the Constitution then fact takes precedence over the ideal; trampled into the mud.
Our vigilence shoulld never condone sleight of hand that hides that statist reality.
Like here : Pentagon investigating link between US military and torture centres in Iraq | World news | The Guardian
This is an ongoing US admin. perpetrated/condoned saga which is what is in store for the world, as the race to RM will hotten up more n more in coming decades. We will see more n more of this people bashing around the world; and its collateral consequences in first world; whence the increasing presence of drone and Gitmo culture even in so called advanced nation havens.
These political barriers become figments of the elitist imagination when the game goes from push to shove world wide...the Oligarchy order of 0.1 % will take its toll and it won't be limited to third world.
Well they killed a lot of combattants at Waco I suppose
There was once a drone from Obama
Looking for a domestic version of Osama
It Hellfired a libertarian named Joe
Who repaired cars in East Kokomo
And also "collateralized" his mama.
Fuck Eric Holder. And fuck...dez fucking Democrats. fuck em all!
It all comes down to the definition of "not enganged in combat on American soil"
aaand above and below ?
Combat: any sudden move that makes cops or politicians fear for their lives. See: uppity.
The comments on this thread (and the #standwithrand thread the day prior) have cemented why I read this site on a daily basis.
Back to the topic at hand though. So many more questions need asking.
1. Can drones be used to track American citizens inside the U.S. and for terminal guidance for DHS swat teams? (IOW, great, not death by a hellfire, but death by a sniper bullet?)
2. Can weaponized MRAPs be used against American citizens inside the U.S.?
3. Will those 1.2+ billion .40 cal JHPs ever be used against American citizens inside the U.S.?
4. Will a refusal to turn over personal weapons be a valid rationale to engage with deadly force?
5. If yes to the above, can you at least whack McCain and Graham first, and televise it so we get some small measure of schadenfreude before it's our turn?
Good news, a new anti-drone clothing line. Protection for your phones too.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIMEVFxxR3I
Last word.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZEp34YBsGU
could i rent a drone
for an afternoon..
the 3rd ex wife
is becoming a real pain..
That does not meet the standard set forth by the honorable Mr Holder -apparently you would have claim that she was combative.
I once came across a book in a public library in Oakland California while going to university in the states, it was a book the chronicled treaties between the usa and the various indian tribes from the first one in Manhattan until the last in northern California. There was no commentary in the book, just the list of treaties in chronological order, one by one. This book completely changed how I looked at the usa and its government because there was essentiall a 200 year history of lying and not honoring any treaty they solemly made; they never had any intention of honoring those treaties and they were completely ignored by the courts, too.
In another book I learned about the history of state and federal militias being used to wipe out civilians, things like the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado were quite common throughout the usa history. The internment camps full of usa citizens during WWII. experiments with radiation, venereal diseases, LSD, all on unknowing citizens. I come to the conclusion that the usa is a violent country with long history of violence and the teacher of this violence is its government.
Who could grow up in this culture and not be violent, ready to resort to force? Somehow they manage to control the people and suppressed enough to keep them in check but the one thing I know for sure is that I would not trust Mr. Holder, the gun runner who gives guns to mexican drug gangs and protects banks and communists that are black from committing election fraud, to honor his signature on that piece of paper.
Holder and people like him are people who are held in check only by their pesonal sense of how fast they should proceed in taking their own country down.
" protects banks and communists that are black from committing election fraud,"
WTF...... you lost me on the communists that are black part.....
ZH blogs are in a class of their own! lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
New Black Panthers, communist and allied with Obama election campaign. Intimidating voters at polling place. Eric Holder famously refused to prosecute "my people".
ZH blogs are a class of their own. You are supposed to do the background reading first so you can keep up with the class
Where have you been
Thank you for that helful and well reasoned response Mr holder.
I would have to say I agree with your well reasoned response and I can see why it would have taken time to develop a suitable response on such a complex issue.
I am curious... apparently you have droneed Amarican citizens not on American soil.
Do the rights of our citizens change based on where they are standing?
No problem, the new definition will entail six degrees of freedom. If you're an associate of an associate of an associate of an associate of an associate of a suspected terrorist, you're a combatant. Problem solved.