Oct 19, 2011
Message to Blayne
I hope you don’t think I’m coming down too hard on you. Perhaps a few positive words are in order.
Overall you have one of the finest minds that I have come across and when battling ignorance I am always overjoyed to have you on my side. I think that if you and I had been attorneys together we could have become famous for winning cases.
You remind me somewhat of Paul who was independent, operated out of the box and fiercely went his own way whether Peter and the others agreed or not.
You also remind me of my beloved friend Wayne (whose thinking was a lot like yours) with whom I also had many strong disagreements. Like you he was a person that I could have passionate arguments with yet still keep as a great friend who would do most anything for me and I for him.
Oct 19, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration
Your God says to kill Americans who have not been given their due process rights under the 5th Amendment? The following is Ron Paul’s thoughts on the matter:
JJ Moses had many of his enemies taken out without any due process and many of them were not an imminent threat.
Oct 20, 2011
Question Three: The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do? This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this? If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?
Let us expand this question a bit. Here are some yes or no questions. Would it be alright to assassinate Awlaki if evidence indicated there was a 50% chance he was involved in plotting terrorist acts against.
A 75% chance?
A 90% chance?
A 99% chance?
A 99.9% chance?
Why not 100%? Because there is never 100% surety in any judgment of guilt or innocent.
Now let us suppose that we had firm intelligence that Awlaki was heading up a group that gained possession of a nuclear weapon and they had plans to detonate it in Washington DC. We receive intelligence that the group is gathered in a certain location in Yemen. We could send a cruise missile that would destroy the entire group as well as put the bomb out of commission. Should we act now?
Should we have lots of discussion and legal research first, miss the opportunity and take our chances
Should we take him out even if we are violating the a number of laws in doing so?
Oct 20, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration
This is a consideration indeed but I doubt if they expected that 80% of murders would escape the jury process. I think the point to take in consideration is that no matter how intelligent the initiators are that they cannot foresee all the results of their work and cannot include all the safeguards necessary. You’d think the wording of the Second Amendment would be plain enough but if the Founders could have seen into the future they would have just left off the reference to militias.
Oct 21, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.1
JJ quoting Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.
JJ (from last post) You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101
“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”
You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.
Blayne: You have taken this out of context you do this a lot when we disagree and it clouds the issue. I went on to explain when questioned earlier on this very thing that it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly as if it is no big deal.
JJ It was in context for that post and there was nothing in post #541012 that indicated otherwise. Sure you have said other things in your dozens of posts on this subject. Am I supposed to piece them all together, read your mind and come up with an acceptable conclusion???
Even taking into consideration that you said (in another post) that “it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly” does not change the meaning of this statement in question you made:
“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”
Both of your statements could be your true meaning as they do not contradict. It could be the first such hit ordered by an American President and apart from that it could be an unprecedented act.
This is an example of why others do not think you see the other side or yield a point.
You clearly said that “”This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history..” and nothing in that post or any other says otherwise.
When I read that I didn’t think you were referring exclusively to the president’s actions but seemed to be speaking generally.
You do not seem to be able to put yourself in the readers shoes to the point that you can see how your words were interpreted to mean what they seemed to say in the context of that post.
This causes you to project an image of being so determined to be right that you cannot concede a little and say something like:
“Yeah I can see how that statement could come across that way. Sorry about the confusion. Here’s what I really meant to say.”
JJ (Previous post) Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.
Blayne: You’re entitled to your opinion. However basically you have just called me a liar. Just because you are unconvinced of my reasoning is no reason to assume I have not considered others opinions.
JJ I’ll practice what I preach and yield here as I just suggested you do. I can see how you might read my statement that way, but it is certainly not what I meant. I believe you are a very honest individual and that you are a big believer in telling the truth.
I know that you always think you give the other side of an argument fair consideration, but that doesn’t mean you actually do.
For instance, I remember a lifetime ago when I was a strong believer in the Mormon church. I thought I gave full consideration to arguments against my beliefs in church doctrine. For instance, I didn’t accept reincarnation even though I had taken people back into past lives as heard them speak in different accents and reveal things they couldn’t have known in this life. When I rejected this as evidence I really believed I was giving both sides of the argument full consideration.
Now, on hindsight I can see that I was not. I was not lying when I thought I was seeing both sides fairly. I just had a blind spot due to my strong fixation on my belief system at the time.
Even so I think you believe yourself to be truthful when you say you’re seeing both sides, but in my opinion you are caught in an illusion that needs dispelled.
This is why I have tried to break this argument down into pieces so we can look at them one at a time and discover where the real problem lies in reaching reasonable conclusions all rational minds here can accept.;
JJ (Previous Post) Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this…
Blayne: The legal system is already bogged down and there is no justice and we are facing disaster precisely because we do not follow the law here.
JJ Law is not based on how fundamentalists interpret original documents but how it has been applied and interpreted by judges as well as altered by new clarifying law over the years. This is the reality that makes laws that are now legal. You do not seem to accept this reality which I and most people do.
That doesn’t mean I agree with all the laws, but unlike you I accept their reality. I don’t have to agree with a law to accept that it is the law. You seem to think you have to agree.
A fundamentalist could probably argue that most speed limit laws are unconstitutional and refuse to recognize them. Now I do not like speed limit laws and would be happy to see most of them eliminated, but I recognize their reality that they are indeed legal within our system, even though permission to create them was not spelled out by the Founders.
So, overall the system has evolved legally with Congress adding to and constitutionally appointed judges interpreting the law we are governed by. We thus follow law – some good and some not so good, but laws nevertheless.
Blayne It’s pretty clear that all crimes should be tried by jury in Law and historical precedent.
JJ The jury system doesn’t have time to judge more than 20% of the murders let alone traffic tickets and thousands of other infractions. I think you are being unreasonable here.
Blayne: Your saying only a certain percentage are actually tried by a jury is a red herring to say the least.
JJ It’s not a red herring at all but makes the point that many points of the Constitution cannot be applied in black and white literal mindset. That’s why we have judges as well as Congress to pass clarifying laws.
Blayne Most these people WAVED THEIR RIGHT to a trial by jury.
JJ And where in the Constitution does it give them that right? Even you are using wiggle room here.
Blayne: Using this to try and justify assassination of an American citizen does not apply.
JJ I was using it to show that a hard-core fundamentalist black and white interpretation is often not practical.
Blayne: The few exceptions are self defense when one must kill or harm someone in self defense and war which is basically self defense on a massive scale.
JJ But we are in a war with terrorists which has been approved by all branches of government making it Constitutional. Therefore the president as Commander in chief can do what is necessary to carry out the war unless stopped by the legal system, Congress or the people themselves.
Blayne: The Jury is supposed to judge the case not the Judge he is supposed to be impartial and only keep order during the trial period.
JJ This is a good point. The Founders realized that no law was perfect, not even Constitutional law. Therefore they created juries to be the final arbitrators. They have the final say on law and can even legally throw it out or disregard it – even if it is constitutional. The legal system tries to hide this power from juries and unfortunately, sometimes a jurist can be held in contempt for using this power.
Blayne: Judges have no authority to make law…
JJ They do have Constitutional power to interpret law which often does create new applications of the law. Some could argue that this makes new law.
Other times they do actually make new law from something not even written and this is a wrong use of power that the system has no effective way to correct. This needs to be addressed, but it has little to do with the subject at hand.
Blayne Also this idea that we can separate legal from moral or right is not correct. Laws are supposed to be based on basic morality.
JJ Where do you get this idea? There are many laws that have nothing to do with morality such as speed limits, eminent domain, licensing, the qualifying age of our representatives, taxes, immigration, and many other laws are based on common sense – not morality.
I think that is one of the main reasons you cannot agree that the action on Awlaki was legal because in your mind it was not right. You seem to think that if a thing offends your sense of morality then it is not legal.
This is not logical and it is not true in the real world. Some laws offend my sense of morality also, but that does not make them illegal. If I break them I will suffer the consequences whether I agree or not.
Blayne If it is immoral and wrong to kill someone without a fair trial and hearing of all the evidence (except in self defense) then any law passed that allows it is no law at all.
JJ You’re not being logical here. If a law is passed and approved within our system then it is the law whether we like it or not.
I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.
Blayne: I have to wonder why you left out my example of Churchill defying the group pressure when he thought it was wrong?
JJ I didn’t. You even quoted it in your post. Here it is again:
“There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.”
I have no problem with you going against the majority. It is your right, which I support. It is my right to disagree with you though and attempt to show you the error of your reasoning.
Blayne You are telling me because 4 or 5 disagrees with me I must be wrong and haven’t considered their side.
JJ It’s not that others disagree but I see little evidence that you see opposing arguments through the others eyes.
Blayne: And I am telling you I have looked at the known evidence and found their side wanting.
JJ I’m sure that is true in your eyes.
Blayne: By the way. I have refuted all the arguments several times.
JJ I know you’ve argued all over the map on this with a number of members and you made some good points and this is why I jumped in to use this like a Molecular exercise and attempted to break the argument down to its parts.
The first hurdle is simply agreeing on the legality of the action – not the morality, or all the other points discussed.
Blayne: Sorry I will not just rubber stamp anything you or anyone says or Even God George Washington or Thomas Jefferson If it doesn’t make sense and is refuted by facts… 😉 Some people don’t like that and perhaps that is one of the sources of negativity..
JJ I felt a little disturbance in the force. That was my motivation in posting something more positive about you.
It’s fine with me that you don’t follow the crowd.
Blayne: I am adhering to the principles of freedom and liberty that a man is innocent until proven guilty…
JJ Awlaki was presumed innocent until those with legal power to judge judged otherwise. Whether they judged correctly has nothing to do with the first point. The point is they had the legal power to judge.
Blayne: What principle are you arguing from?
JJ Man made law is not directly based on a principle but determined by the will of the people who are involved. It is [probably loosely associated with the principle of intelligent organization under the Law of Economy. Sometimes what is legal is a million miles away from a principle. The Principle of freedom has nothing to do with whether a thing is legal or not. It used to be legal to own slaves, but that had nothing to do with the Principle of Freedom.
Blayne: Who are these legal minds that you think are so great?
JJ It doesn’t take a “great” legal mind to determine the legality of most things. It’s a fairly simple procedure that you seem to be making extremely complicated.
Blayne This is nothing more then an appeal to authority.
JJ Authorities have their place. What is legal is often determined by authorities, like it or not. Just because you do not like what is legal does not alter reality.
Blayne: Because some lawyer says something is one way or another does not make it so. Assuming these guys are the greatest legal minds because they are politically connected to get into these positions is naive at best. Attorneys are among the most ignorant of law of any group! These guys know how the corrupt non article 3 courts work and how to manipulate them for their own gain but they know little about the actual law. Being officers of said courts the courts also favor them despite their ignorance. The judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor all belong to the same club and their first duty is to protect the court and not their client yet few people see the huge conflict of interest here.
JJ Wow.. You are really negative on the legal system. If some alien came here and only listened to you he’d think we have no justice whatsoever and thugs are everywhere. Our system is not perfect but sometimes it gets things right.
But the point we are discussing has nothing to do with this red herring. We are not discussing right and wrong, but legal and illegal. Two very different things.
Blayne: My reasoning is sound that allowing this type of Assassination sets a precedent that could impact millions and future generations.
JJ This has nothing to do with whether the action was legal.
Blayne Instead of trying to minimize it to bolster your argument here you should be admonishing the opposing group they could ALL be wrong and it could impact millions but since you are part of that group it appears you could not bring yourself to jeopardize winning the argument by doing that.
JJ For the umpteenth time this part of the argument has nothing to do with right and wrong. The first point is to establish whether the action was legal or illegal.
Blayne: The varied interpretations of the constitution are just people trying to twist the meanings to their own agendas and or illusions.
JJ Several here have different interpretations of the Constitution. Are those who disagree with you just twisting things? I don’t think so. I think we are all interpreting it the best we can.
Blayne So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.
JJ I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.
Blayne: Sounds to me like you prefer a bunch of people shouting he’s guilty he’s guilty kill him kill him and then trying to rubber stamp it with a bunch of lying attorneys, ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty…
JJ I think most people reading this will agree that you have an imagination going wild here concerning me.
Blayne: Your argument is based on your belief that due process means a bunch of politically connected attorneys with agendas said its ok. When I have pointed out the constitution clearly defines due process as trial by Jury
JJ And, using your reasoning, I could say that your argument of a jury trial for all is shows you rely on corrupt judges and attorneys in trials with hand picked biased juries. Nothing we set up is perfect.
Blayne: Wow you have this completely backwards. Justice has been destroyed precisely because we do not adhere to it (jury process).
JJ So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.
Blayne: The basis of all law is no harm no crime. The Idea we don’t have time to give every accused a fair trial is a construct created by attorneys so the can run people through a corrupt system…
JJ I don’t think so. If we gave every law breaker a jury trial we would need ten times as many attorneys and judges.
Blayne: If we had stuck to the maxim of law no harm no crime there would be a lot less cases and a lot less theft by attorneys and judges.
JJ Again, I’m sure your idea of harm differs from many and you are sure yours is the only right one. All the laws we have follow someone’s idea of preventing harm.
Blayne: This just illustrates you do not understand the maxim of law and you are in illusion on this. The 5th Amendment precisely says NO MAN shall be deprived of life liberty and property without due process. Pretty sure that means it INCLUDES EVERYONE.
JJ That’s right, but it doesn’t define due process. A due process was applied to Awlaki but that’s not good enough for you because it doesn’t fit the meaning of due process that you have defined in your belief system.
Blayne The 6th then defines it as trial by jury. They are not mutually exclusive.
JJ That’s your conjecture. The Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or another about exclusiveness.
Blayne: The maxim of law has always been that the federal government can do nothing that is not specifically granted in its charter the constitution. Not; that if it is not spelled out they have free reign to do what ever they want. In other words if it is not in there they can’t do it PERIOD!
JJ You look at the Constitution the way fundamental literalists look at the Bible. This attitude causes them to get many things wrong because they do not look at the Spirit of the word.
There are many things the Federal Government has to do that is not literally spelled out. Adjusting the salaries of Federal workers to inflation is one thing, or should we just pay them $300 a year? (Actually that might be a good idea for a lot of bureaucrats)
Authority to create national highway system was not spelled out but maybe one out of 10,000 thinks the government overstepped its bounds there.
The creation of NASA was not spelled out there but this has been a great benefit for the world.
Many things not specifically spelled out have been fined tuned by judges and new legislation. None of us agree with all the fine-tuning but some has been a stabilizing force. And if some of this offends the people enough public opinion can always force positive change.
Blayne The constitution also settles how we deal with war and lesser threats to the nation.
JJ Yeah, The Constitution does this followed by constitutionally authorized judges and legislation which does not rely on your interpretation. Your opinion does not make law or determine how the Constitution is interpreted.
Blayne: By declarations of war and for lesser actions letters of marque and reprisal period. So there is nothing grey about it…
JJ Nothing grey about it??? Yeah, right. If its so clear then why cannot you and I agree??? It’s so clear that all intelligent people can just give it a quick look and agree with what it says – right? Give me a break.
This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:
“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”
Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.
The human language is so imperfect that one cannot wrote more than one paragraph that a dozen people will interpret the same way. You even complain that your own words are misunderstood, so what makes you think the Founding Fathers found the magical method of creating a document that is so clear that all who can read will see the meaning the same way and only see differently if they are corrupt?
Do you even read and analyze some of the things you are saying here?
Blayne: IOW I am saying in order for any action to be legal it has to be moral on a basic level.
JJ I’ve already responded to this. See above.
Blayne: And of course there is no accountability here to what they claim. How does anyone know if any of their accusations are true?
JJ And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.
Blayne: If they knew where he was to hit him with a drone strike it seems to me they could have captured him fairly easily. There is no proof he was an eminent threat to us.
JJ And how many times has this been done in history with a notorious bad guy? I can’t think of any. And why? Because it takes time and planning to accomplish such a thing and by the time the execution is ready he is likely to be in hiding at another location.
This is all I have time for at the moment….
JJ Probably a good thing you didn’t have two moments.
Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey
(You do not have to log in to add comments)