Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/3/11 04:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you refuse to do that, then I really don't see what you can honestly add to the debate whatsoever.

Really?

So in a topic trying to find a line between legal and not legal, using hypotheticals to try to determine the line is not relevant?

I think you have essentially destroyed hundreds of years of legal canons there...

Anyway, why so quick to brush aside? Do you not want to find the line? Are we just going to end this at "the girls post these pics to theri facebook, so case closed." Should we ignore the core issue now?

At 10/3/11 02:48 PM, satanbrain wrote: Doesn't it prove that the US will fight terrorists regardless of their nationality? Doesn't it prove the US isn't hypocrite about the war on terror?

I will counter your question with another question:

How so?

At 10/3/11 05:25 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Actualy all savings, in Ireland at any rate, are gauranteed when a bank goes bankrupt upto about 100,000 euro.

I don't mean to sound crass, but the bailout wasn't in Ireland. In teh US, the FDIC only insures Bank held accounts up to $100,000 (approx 67,000EU). IRAs, 401Ks, Stocks, Bonds, Debentures, private CDs, and other forms of saving are wholly losable.

The only people the bailout did in fact help were those whose source of revenue was the banking system. As sensationalist as websites like http://www.usdebtclock.org/ are they do show the mounting debt in relation to the average citizen and the figures involved are insane. How we can consider that high a rate of fiat currency to debt viable is beyond me.

I am not defending the debt, because the bailouts were paid back (with some sexy level of interest I might add). What I am merely pointing out is that Joe Q. American doesn't know enough about the basics of our financial system (I charge them to define just 2 of the terms I listed about without the Net to help) to really understand what's going on. Let alone do they know enough of the complexities (institutional investors, swaps, hedges, insurance, derivatives) to make simple judgments. Foexample, when AIG lost tens of billions by insuring GM to the tune of over 1000% the institutional investors who were investing derivatives of our IRAs, 401Ks and so one stood to lose that money. As that money was actually a combo of millions of regular Joes' accounts, the Joes stood to lose substantially.

When it comes to career Bonaroo protestors, I seriously doubt that they took or passed high school economics, let alone the securities classes necessary to understand what Wall Street is all about.

At 10/3/11 12:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well, you could go check if for no other reason then to actually get more information for your argument.

I'm going to pass. I don't think going to that site will help me in any way, and there is an off chance that it could really hurt me. I'll stay away and stick to hypotheticals, thank you.

Ok, but do those circumstances make a difference in the eyes of the law? Because I'm thinking that right now the answer is probably "no" as long as nobody has their underwear off.

I very much think it does. When it comes to the pure Miller test analysis it likely won't, however when you get exploitation (i.e. any sort of forced act for another's sexual pleasure) there are some other legal issues and protections that come into play.

So that's even less reason to bring child porn into it. Because you are admitting that you don't know if these pictures do, or do not, qualify as child porn.

I am not even saying they qualify as child porn. I am putting out the hypothetical that if these pictures indeed are exploitative, there may be grounds to treat them in the same light as child pronography.

At 10/2/11 10:40 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: economists were saying it would have been cheaper to pay off all the mortgages given to all those people than it was to bail out the bank. would have solved a few more problems too. alas the bank wouldn't get as much money out of that deal though.

'Twere it have been that the mortgages were even a majority of the problems...

Too bad there would still have been billions of dollars out of US retirement funds that would have evaporated.

At 10/2/11 09:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: An interesting (negative) perspectve on the protests.

While I yawn at these protests I do think this guy kinda contradicts himself in the same manner he faults the hipsters for doing.

He faults the protestors for want the complicit party to fix Wall Street, adn then goes and says that actively guilty party should be the ones to do it... While both options are a pile of crap, his seems to be the stinky fly infested pile.

At 10/2/11 07:42 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I think their concerns are legitimate.

No doubting of the concerns here. Only doubting of their rudimentary economic knowledge.

For instance it's easy to protest the bailout when you don't realize that it was your savings that was actually bailed out.

At 10/2/11 06:35 PM, serving7 wrote: Faux-arch conservative stuff.

We see right through you little one. No one here is saying these people have no right to protest. What we are saying is that these people protest as a profession, so when this demographic protests it is nothing new.

At 10/2/11 01:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote: sexual intercourse is defined as "Sexual interaction, usually involving genital and/or anal and/or oral penetration, between at least two organisms" and neither link differentiates between male and female victims, ergo i call shenanigans on your statement.

Well, working in the Oregon Criminal system, rape applies to vaginal intercourse. The sodomy and unlawful penetration apply to the other things you speak of.

At 10/2/11 01:00 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I really wonder how far this will get pushed and under what grounds.

I dunno. I have never gone to the Reddit site, and I never will.

You got something to back up using the word "most" here? Because to me this just seems more like the "sexting" phenomenon where otherwise well behaved girls or boys, start sending pictures to each other via the net or the phone.

That depends on what these pictires actually are. Are these pictures of stupid kids doing sexting things they think are private or are these exploitative pictures? These two categories take two very different circumstances to create.

Uh, how exactly did we go from a topic about the jailbait pictures on reddit to child porn? The two things are not the same. I fail to see where any time or discussion should be spent in bringing child porn into the matter.

Again, I have never been to the site. However, if these are exploitative pictures I see the line between them and child porn to be thinner than the clothes the children wear.

At 10/2/11 11:34 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well i guess they got the attention by now, took some time.

The attention really only came because Tony Balogna couldn't keep his pepper spray in his pants.

Living in the Northwest, this protest is nothing new to me. Frankly, it's no different than going downtown and seeing the college dropouts on the street searching for signatures to put Bush in jail, or name the crapper after Bush, or some other stupid and worthless cause.

Again, I repeat that so long as the people who are protesting are of no worth, I will not support this protest or anything.

At 10/2/11 06:16 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: This one came from a professor at the university of Texas who teaches women's studies.

Apparently rape is about violating the vagina.

Rape in criminal law is defined as "Sexual Intercourse"

The Model Penal Code says the followiong about rape: "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape"

Face it fellas. Rape is male female intercourse. There are numerous other laws such as sodomy and unlawful sexual penetration that cover other forced sexual acts.

At 10/2/11 02:46 AM, android175 wrote: Russia and China are the only ones i Know that are doing fair

And I beleive their economic reports as much as I believe the drunk homeless guy's claim that money he wants from me is NOT going for alcohol...

Russia and China's greatest collective export is lies.

At 10/2/11 02:23 AM, android175 wrote: And trought the middle ages the reason of millions of deaths trought religion and even the iraq war going on right now

The massive recession caused by the collapse of Rome caused the Dark Ages.

At 10/2/11 12:00 AM, thegarbear14 wrote: so basically people are agreeing that those assumed of being a terrorist ( i don't think it's proven if he isn't given a trial or caught in the middle of doing something) should be assassinated?

There's a HUGE difference here. This isn't like Padilla, KSM, or the others we have stashed away at Guantanimo. Osama and al Awaki were killed as enemy combatants in a military action. They were no different than enemy soldiers killed during a bombing of a barracks or a raid on a base.

The minute that specific military actions ceases, THEN the burden shifts. But during military action, openly allying oneself as part of the enemy force and participating in military action with that force then they are nothing other than a soldier. If they are killed, that is the nature of armed combat. If they are captured then they become elligible for the opportunities many here are saying they should have.

At 10/1/11 05:34 PM, serving7 wrote: Anyone that thinks these people deserve better treatment I say are supporters of Al-Qaeda and should be executed on the spot, I volunteer to do the executing.

Well, when you ever get accused of terrorism, or charged with a crime I'll be sure to let the PDs and these people know how you feel about them. Perhaps then, the support you so decry will do exactly what you want; leave to you hang.

At 9/30/11 09:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Cause if you don't, it sets a precedent for not doing so. That precedent then opens the door to start legislating based on personal taste (kind of like we just did in NJ over Jersey Shore's tax credits).

True, but I could definitely see this passing the Miller test for unprotected obscenity. Would take a little stretch, but not so much of one that would render the decision meaningless. I challenge anyone to claim that this stuff passes the SLAPS test (Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientifict value)

Why would you let your underage daughter get into situations where she can have suggestive images of her made? Again, if what they are doing is legal, they shouldn't be stopped. If it's not to your taste, then just stay away from it and don't look at it.

Sad thing is that most children who get involved in this sort of stuff don't have good parents or parents at all. There may be a few rebellious but well parented girls who get involved in the jailbait stuff on the teenager end, but when it comes to full on child pronography or younger exploitation the parents are usually dead, the perpetrators, complicit, or out of the picture in some other way. Many of these children were actually kidnapped at a young age to essentially live as subjects of this stuff.

It's sad.

At 10/1/11 03:08 PM, Psil0 wrote: I really don't see any conflict. And anybody opposed, is just sympathizing with the person and Al Qaeda (which is kind of a losing battle).

Now this is just not true. The people who are claiming due process apply, don't want due process out of sympathy for Al Qaeda, its people, or its cause. Instead they believe that due process is universal and should be applied in all contexts to all people, regardless of what they did, who they are, or who they support.

At 10/1/11 12:19 AM, Scarface wrote: And if he had been killed in combat, it would have been acceptable. Having been captured, however, it's appropriate that he receive a trial.

But al Awaki was killed.

Then have them plead guilty in a trial, but give them the goddamned trial.

Why would they plead guilty? 100% chance of death or a very high chance at going free in a trial where the prosecution is handcuffed by the rules of evidence?

Even if the evidence were stacked and legit, what benefit would they get? They would be seen as weak.

Hearsay information is outright fucked. Wiretaps, on the other hand, can be used if they have a warrant. So why not create one? If you're wiretapping someone, you obviously suspect them, and a warrant only requires reason for such suspicion.

Actually, warrants require full on probable cause, and most of these wiretaps are outside of the jurisdiction of US judges.

Trust me. If we could get useable evidence in a manner that would allow us to incapacitate terrorists as quickly as possible we would be doing it.

At 10/1/11 12:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also, how is al-Awlaki covered under the idea of attacking those who perpetrated 9/11? Do we have some connection between him and 9/11 I just haven't seen?

He is covered the same way that Joe Schmoe from Hokkaido who was recuited to fight in the Japanese army from 1942 on is the same Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor. al Awaki is a high ranking officer of Al-Qaeda, the people that perpetrated 9/11.

So international law is ok...until it hits an area you don't think works anymore? K.

It's more of "International law is OK, so long as it actually governs and has a rule applying"

Also this doesn't to me answer my fundamental question, can somebody find me the legal framework in which his US citizenship is revoked and that this allowed us to go do air strikes to drop him?

One would've hope this would have dealt with in the Padilla case, but alas...

Not really. I especially think this is funny when you consider that we have actually given shit tons of funding to nations to hunt for terrorists we later found out harbored the worst of the worst (Pakistan I'm looking at you).

And it aggrivates me to see them angry at us right now. They stabbed us in the back and now WE'RE the bad guy?

Update it then. Don't just disregard it completely. Isn't that the responsible thing to do when things like this don't work? Review the framework, see what you can salvage, and add what's needed for the modern world.

You have no idea how much legal money has been spent trying to shove the square peg of terrorism into the round hole of the Geneva Convention for over two decades...

Oh, and the same reason terrorism law sucks major penis is why the Geneva convention will forever be outdated, but this time we have the pompous Euros who rely on us solely to handle terrorism but are too arrogant to give us the tools necessary to do so. We have to face it. International criminal law is a flat out failure, and the people we have to blame the most are the Europeans.

They agree to abide by it because they rely upon us to handle the dirty matters while holding their noses up at us.

Terrorism is a military action now? Did you really just say the two are the same thing? Also, since when does al qaeda have a definable uniform. If they do, why wasn't that uniform recognized on 9/11?

See why the Geneva conention is utterly useless in today's world?

Oh right, because this was something I'd wager that if you read it back once you hit post it you went "oh shit, that wasn't conceived very well".

Not really. What you claim is stupid is what Europe forces us to do by requiring that we view and fight terrorism in World War II terms. We saw how that worked in Viet Nam, but unlike Viet Nam, there are actual safety threats to the US and the Western World.

At 10/1/11 12:02 AM, Scarface wrote: No. Airstrikes and missile strikes are only allowed to be carried out if the target is causing danger or potential danger to either US Military forces, NATO military forces, or civilians. It's not like these strikes are just bombing the shit out of people who are suspected terrorists, they are bombing people in the act of terrorism.

al Awaki was performing acts of terrorism. He was engaging in acts of war that put US military men and civlians in danger.

Do you know they want to kill hundreds of thousands at a time? Do you know that they have hostile intentions? Do you know? Do you? Or should you maybe, just maybe confirm your suspicions with a trial, until which the "terrorist" in question will be in a prison cell, unable to harm anyone.

Well, when they claim to promote terrorism and have followed thorugh on it more than once...

Could you go into further detail about how criminalizing evidence that could put a potentially dangerous terrorist in prison simply goes "poof"? If you wish to do things differently, then do one thing differently; don't set the alleged terrorist free until the trial proceedings are finished with.

Much of the evidence gathered against terrorists is done through clear hearsay, through warrantless wiretaps, other clean but inadmissable methods, and some other not so kosher methods. In a criminal court this evidence would be quickly excluded. In the vast majority of cases, what we would have left is wholly insufficient or is not slam dunk enough to risk putting the terrorists in a position to be set free.

If the trial is bound to fail based upon our current rules, holding them until completion of the trial only serves to delay the inevitable.

In the end it comes down to a very difficult choice between two things: The need for a trial, and the need to ensure these extremely dangerous folk are incapacitated.

At 9/30/11 11:43 PM, Scarface wrote: A captured terrorist deserves due process.

American law expressly says they don't.

An enemy combatant killed in the heat of battle has no claim to due process, because he posed an immediate threat to a soldier, who had to take the enemy combatant's life to save his own. It's entirely different.

So, inother words you are saying ALL airstrikes and missle strikes are a violation of due process?

Assuming the worst and convicting every accused person is certainly the safest thing to do. It isn't the right thing to do.

You sure about that? This isn't some petty criminal ,or even a hardened criminal where at most a handful of people may be hurt during the evidence gathering period. These are people who strive to kill hundred and thousands AT A TIME. The cost benefit is weighed MUCH heavier in the direction of saving lives than performing traditional invesitgation and trial tactics. Hell, the Green River Killer, one of America's most prolific serial killers killed less than 100 in just under 20 years. A single suicide bomber usually kills a quarter of that in an instant.

We would all love to be able to use regular criminal tactics on terrorists, but the game is very different.

You don't have to let them go free, you can hold them until trial, but they deserve A trial, and that is what I'm arguing. I'm not denying that said terrorist is dangerous if he is let free, but I think before conviction, any terrorist must be convicted of the crime. A trial doesn't mean the terrorist can run wild and do whatever the fuck they want.

Look at what I said before. We did things that scream exclusionary rule in order to capture the terrorist. Take them to court and, voila! Evidence goes poof! Mr. terrorist now gets set free with Double Jeopardy attached. Trial is very risky when it comes to terrorism. It leads to a situation where either we have to abandon the rules of our trial system, thus making the trials a sham, we don't use trials at all, or we are forced to let the terrorists be free while we gatehr evidence, or set them free because our evidence wasn't "clean".

Trust me, this decision isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

At 9/30/11 11:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The "war".

Sorry, some poor cutting and pasting on my part...

by this I meant:
The only difference between the AUMF and a declaration of War is the declaration and the word "war".

At 9/30/11 09:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: We call it war...but I don't remember Congress issuing a declaration of war....I actually don't know how you would even go about declaring war on a mobile terrorist group that operates withing and across multiple sovereign nations.

Read the 2001 AUMF. It reads just like a declaration of war. It is a declaration of war against the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 and any country that harbors them. The "war".

Let's check on that...
Enemy Combatant. You are correct sir. However, I see where the problem comes in because basically what happened is the Bush administration decided to put the US above international law

Now, I am very much fine with international law. But international law is about as useful in tackling terrorism as the NFL rules are for stopping organized crime. You know why? Because they don't exist!

Those who claim "international law" when it comes to terrorism essentially want us to sit on oru hands while those who harbor and foster terrorism (many parties in the arab league) cock block any attempt for international law to come up with a solution.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention asks a 21st Century world to live in rules of antiquate war systems of the early 20th Century. The Geneva convention was obsolete in the 1950s. Just ask the French. In actuality the Korean war was the last war where the Geneva Convention was relevant.

An army by the barest sense of the term. Do you even know how groups like Al Qaieda work? They're nowhere near as organized as what just about anyone thinks of when they think of an army.

Well, they perform military actions and wear the uniform of claiming that they are part of Al Qaeda. That seems to satisfy the international definition of enemy soldier to me.

At 9/30/11 10:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: "due process" is what prevents the president from purging congress.

No. Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution do that, not the 4th/14th Amendments. The 4th Amendment prevents the President from purging your life without a sound reason and the opportunity for you to fight it.

At 9/30/11 10:21 PM, Scarface wrote: The point is if we're going to keep up the idea that we're a fair democracy, then we'd probably better not contradict ourselves by choosing who deserves due process and when to administrate it. If this person truly is a terrorist, and there is evidence to convict them, then what's the problem with a trial? What is wrong with due process? If they're guilty, then they will be found guilty, and will be prosecuted as such.

Let's make a BIG distinction here. A terrorist captured in any context and a terrorist killed in a military action.

A captured terrorist has some claim to due process. Any enemy combatant killed in the heat of battle has no claim to due process.

American or not, America has an obligation to give everyone due process and a fair trial, whether dipshits like you feel they "deserve" it or not. Even if someone is not an American citizen in a "meaningful sense" or even in a legal sense, we should give them due process, because not to would contradict all of the freedom and fair rights that we're struggling SO hard to protect, wouldn't it?

The biggest issue I see here is that you're wanting to place a criminal law system of priorities and rules in a terrorism context. now let's take a gander at why this is a problem. What is the goal of criminal law? To gather evidence and try criminals. What is the goal of counter-terrorism efforts? To stop further terrorist attacks. The very nature of terrorism and its capacity to cause such harm and panic and such a widespread scale gives it an exigency that does not exist in criminal law.

When the utmost priority of terrorism is to stop terrorism, methods must be used that would render evidence inadmissable in a criminal court. We have a choice of being super prim and proper and letting terrorists go free as we gather evidence allowing them to plan and execute further acts of mass violence, or stopping that potential as soon as possible to the detriment of gathering evidence.

So, make the choice. Leave the perpetrators and conductors of mass violence to their own willin a largely futile attempt to gain evidence, or do some things we may not like in order to avoid these acts of mass violence. Just think, if we chose the former, KSM would still be out there to plan another WTC style bombing, another bojinka, or another 9/11.

At 9/30/11 10:28 PM, Scarface wrote: which becomes distracted by an all out war over "who's right and who's wrong".

And we wouldn't have this without religion?

From what I have seen this seems to be the same old Bonaroo hippie march as every other protest in the past decade. If this were made up of even remotely average Americans, not career protestors, maybe the media would care.

Case in point, Wisconsin was made up of regular cheese eating Joes, and it got a ton of coverage. I get the feeling the media looks at this unshaven and unshowered bunch and says "again? What are these drop outs mad at now?" While yawning.

Yawn.

At 9/30/11 07:45 PM, adrshepard wrote: It's all about precedent. If Obama can kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without consequences, than what's to stop him from killing Mitt Romney or Rick Perry?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Me thinks you didn't care when Bush detained Americans in Guantanimo... Now that Obama does it, it suddenly becomes a slippery slope? Puh-lease.

Anyway, this is EASILY distinguishable. al-Awlaki joined a force in open war with the United States and had engaged in activities in support of that war. Neither Romney or Parry have done that.

I would have to agree. I would have a hard time finding an enemy combatant deserving of due process when the military conflict has been sanctioned by Congress.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, following 18 U.S.C 4001(a) stated that due process is not required to detain/imprison people if an Act of Congress allows otherwise. The AUMF would no doubt allow otherwise here.

While killing is definitely on a different level than detaining, the same logic should apply. We don't give due process to enemy soldiers before we kill them. Then again, you could consider the active joining of a force engaged in open combat against the United States as either due process in itself, or a waiver thereof.

At 9/30/11 02:42 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/30/11 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Have you ever wondered why Congress does nothing?

because it is loaded with self serving politicians who only care about power and personal gain on both sides? just a guess.

Perhaps a bit of change when it comes to elections could diminish the power of the offices?

At 9/30/11 11:35 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: So give Congress even more time to do nothing? No thanks.

Have you ever wondered why Congress does nothing?