StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Could somebody with a better understanding of US law explain the original charges, 'destruction of a motor vehicle and providing material support for a terrorist organization.' the second is fairly understandable but the wording of the first seems odd. Is this just an odd way of saying death by dan...

Good bye, Yosemite Bear. You will be missed.

Under *what* standards of evidence? By consensus of the UN Security Council. And, by all means, what standard of evidence is required under the Geneva Conventions? Oh, yeah , that's right. It's supposed to be a functional, applicable series of rules which can be broadly applicable even under combat...

Ah. No, I was talking a RAID 1 set of SSD. Last night I was over at a friend who installed Win 7 on his RAIDed SSD disks. The time he spent disabling protocols he didn't need vastly overshadowed the actual install time, which was a matter of moments. I would actually advise against RAID 1 on SSDs. ...

Is there much point in getting an SSD anyway? I mean beyond boot-up bragging purposes. And if you're only going to use it for boot-up purposes, isn't getting a 120GB capacity SSD a bit overkill? How much space does the OS need for cryin' out loud. :) 120GB is overkill for boot-up purposes only, but...

Every single one of them has a home run hitter: Foster, Johnson, Gore, Mathews and Rice. This is kind of nitpicking, but much as I love Frank Gore, I don't really consider him a home run hitter like Johnson or Rice. He's just... not... quite fast enough to get away from DB's. Believe me: I'm not cr...

The notion that "evidence" supports the finding is unsupported nonsense in the first place. Why? The Committee is obligated to review the evidence prior to placing anyone on the list. Do you honestly think that each and every member of the UNSC would have no compunctions about putting som...

Except they didn't authorise the targeting killing of Al-Awlaki, did they? You're picking and choosing here - evidence (if any!) that is considered sufficient to blacklist someone in terms of travel and bank accounts and what not is worlds away from justifying an authorisation of military force. Wh...

Why? Quite frankly, there's no connection at all between what the UNSC says and what the Geneva Conventions say. The UNSC is not a court. Its one thing to say that the UNSC authorised his inclusion on a list regarding economic sanctions, its quite another to use that list to justify his targeted ki...

The UNSC didn't ever declare him a member of an armed organized group for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions under the relevant resolution. They had no regard to the Geneva Conventions at all. The purpose of the list made under the relevant resolution was merely economic and travel sanctions:- ...

Vympel: how exactly can you claim that Awlaki was anything other than a member of Al Qaeda, given that the United Nations Security Council announced that he was one? Or are you arguing that members of Al Qaeda can also be civilians?

Any private group the US has declared itself at war with, no argument. This portion of his argument is clearly directed at the domestic law situation. For the strike on Awlaki to be legal, it must comply with both US domestic law and with international law. He's arguing that it's legal under US law...

Alkaloid: Same basic criticism as Thanas: READ THE FUCKING THREAD. Or civil unrest, like what is happening on Wall street at the moment. Because that is the precedent that is being set, that the state, in this case the US, can declare itself to be at war with a private group, and is then legally all...

Thanas, do us all a favor and read the fucking thread. As to the topic at hand, a few relevations: - the drone strike did not just kill Al Awlaki, but another american citizen as well. Yes. This was discussed at considerable length, earlier in the thread. Thanks for that "revelation." :rol...

Havok wrote:Harbaugh, not Nolan.

D'OH! Yes, obviously.

Oh, so Schwartz slapped Harbaugh condescendingly on the back and cursed at him then? I don't think that was a condescending slap at all. It's an exuberant one, but he's clearly celebrating and not demeaning his opponent. As for Schwartz, I know what he said happened, but if you actually watch the r...

No, he wasn't. I know that. That's part of my point. He was killed because he was a dangerous radical, or an inciter of terror, or an enemy combatant, or a lawful military target, or whatever the phrase du jour is for people the state thinks would be better off dead because they're associated with ...

The question is not whether it's impractical to arrest him. The question is whether or not he's a legitimate military target. Deciding that he is a legitimate military target is equivalent to deciding that he's committed a capital offense. In what possible sense is this true? There are entirely sep...

I seem to have missed the part where the executive isn't asserting that it can only assassinate people who flee to foreign countries and go hide in the hinterlands to avoid extradition. Why can't they decide, twenty years from now, to assassinate someone because it would be difficult to arrest them...

So my question is, under your criteria, would China be justified legally to launch an attack (assuming they have the means to do so)? Probably, but you're slightly missing the analysis, still. The question answered by the Deeks framework is not whether they can target members of a state as legitima...

Sriad wrote:Or maybe he's an extremely GOOD player who's forcing the game out of book for the hell of it.

Haha. That would definitely get the computer out of its opening book very quickly and force it to start calculating its moves.

MoO, going on with Winston's hypothetical, what about the Uyghur detainees at the Gitmo? IIRC China wanted them back for questioning (an article Shep posted some time ago). The US was desperately trying to find third countries which will take them instead of sending them back to the PRC. Does this ...

So does the meaning of 'unwillingness' here necessarily imply collusion? Can the territorial state be accused of being 'unwilling' without evidence of immediate and substantial collusion (evidence strong enough to hold up in the ICJ)? No. Evidence of collusion constitutes an exception to the genera...

No. You do not get to make "mistakes" with the Geneva Conventions, Due Process and Torture. The precedent that waterboarding, other torture, non-repatriation of prisoners etc is illegal, and Right of Return exists is very clear, if I remember correctly. Evidence? Hell, it is not legal und...

Thank you for taking the time to write that. As I understand it, in this (admittedly somewhat vague) scenario, there are essentially two things preventing the Chinese actions from being plausibly legal: (1) Regarding 'unwillingness': presumably China's prior interactions with the US in terms of add...