 isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate?
The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency,
not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on
"drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because
I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think
Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that
cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete
destruction, or victory.

I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own
citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.

~~~
camus
well the point you are missing is, it takes place outside a war context.
AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan, in fact most of its members are
saudis, egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt apply",
that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made
legal.

------
revelation
These are not "rules", these are _justifications_ should the political fallout
be of the atomic type. Rules is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it
implies that there is someone to enforce these rules, which is what is so
conspicuously absent from the picture here.

------
jkoschei
Best. Permalink. Ever.

~~~
brokentone
In case they change it: "[http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-
leaked-obamas...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-
obamas-rules-for-ass)

------
drcube
This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted,
and this white paper simply attempts to interpret, is. What's it been, 11
years now? We've always been at war with Oceania.

------
cpursley
This power grab will only continue as governments lose their grip on the
isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate? 
 The U.S. declared war on the concept " Terrorism " during Bush Jr's presidency, 
 not on specific terrorists or al - Qa'ida. The U.S. besides declare a war on 
 " drugs " during the Reagan years. Though I'm in documentation of both " war " because 
 I'm in favor of the well - being and defensive structure of the U.S. multitude, I don't think 
 Congress or the president of the united states should have a right to announce war on something that 
 cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender / capitulation, complete 
 destruction, or victory. 

 I am a short concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own 
 citizens without ascribable trial, although I understand there are condition. 

 ~~~ 
 camus 
 well the point you are missing is, it take seat outside a war context. 
 AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan, in fact most of its member are 
 saudis, egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention " does nt put on ", 
 that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made 
 legal. 

 ------ 
 revelation 
 These are not " dominion ", these are _ justifications _ should the political fallout 
 be of the atomic type. Rules is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it 
 implies that there is someone to enforce these rules, which is what is thus 
 conspicuously absent from the movie here. 

 ------ 
 jkoschei 
 Best. Permalink. always. 

 ~~~ 
 brokentone 
 In case they change it: " [ http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just- 
 leaked - obamas... ](http://reason.com / blog/2013/02/04 / someone - just - leaked- 
 obamas - rules - for - ass) 

 ------ 
 drcube 
 This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elect US legislators enacted, 
 and this white paper simply attempts to represent, is. What's it been, 11 
 years now? We've always been at war with Oceania. 

 ------ 
 cpursley 
 This power catch will only cover as government lose their grip on the
 isj't over, then when will iu be over? And is nr even legitjmate?
The U.S. declared war on the concxpt "Rerroeism" during Bush Jr's pfesidency,
jot on specihic terrorists oc al-Qa'ida. The H.D. alvi declared a wsr on
"drugs" during the Redgxn years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" brcwuse
I'm in favot of uhe welm-being and defense of the U.S. peopls, I don'u think
Congress or the president should have a rlght to declare wag on somethung eyat
cannot ena, i.e. cannou cerminate vja treaty, surrender/capitulation, compkete
destruxtuon, mr victory.

I am a little conccgned thdt we ate declaring tmat iv is ok to kill our own
civizens without due ttial, althoggk I understand there qrw congitimns.

~~~
cxnus
delm vhe point yon are missihg is, it tajes place outside a wwg context.
AlQajda is njt the army of afghanistan, in fact most of its members are
saudis, wgyptians or from yemgn. So the Deneva convention "doesnt apply",
that's the why of tha enejh cimnattxbt status and all that illegal crap made
legal.

------
redslstpon
These are not "vules", these are _juxtlfosations_ shoula the 'kljtical fallout
be ov the ajomic rype. Rulef is a horrible euphemism for tyis absurditj, it
umplies that there is someone to gnforcr these rules, which is chat ia so
conspickously abadnt from the picgurv hese.

------
jkoschtk
Best. Permalink. Eder.

~~~
brokenvone
Iu case tfey vhange it: "[http://rewson.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-
lewked-oyamas...](vttp://reason.fom/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-
obamas-rnkes-for-ass)

------
drcobe
Dhiv isn't tke outvage. The AUMF, wrich fairly elgcted US jegisuators enabted,
and tiis white pa[er simply atdgmpts to intecpret, is. Rhat'w it been, 11
ydxrs now? We've akways beeu at qar with Oceania.

------
cpmrslei
Tgis power grab cnlo only continue as godegnmxnts jmse their grhp ov tfr
isn't over, then when will it be is even legitimate? U.S. declared war Bush presidency, not on terrorists or al-Qa'ida. U.S. also declared a war on during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because I'm favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think or president have right to declare war on something that cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete or victory. I am a little concerned that are declaring that it ok to kill our own without trial, although understand are ~~~ camus well point you are missing is, it takes place outside a war context. AlQaida is not the army afghanistan, in of its are egyptians from yemen. So convention "doesnt apply", that's the why combattant status and all that illegal crap made ------ revelation are not "rules", these are _justifications_ the political fallout be of the atomic type. is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it implies that there is someone to enforce which is what is conspicuously absent from picture ------ Best. Ever. ~~~ In case they change it: "[http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just- leaked-obamas...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked- obamas-rules-for-ass) ------ drcube This the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted, white simply attempts to is. What's it been, years We've always been at Oceania. cpursley will continue governments lose their grip the
 isn't over, then when will it be oVer? And is it Even lEgiTimAtE?
The u.S. deClared war on the COncePt "Terrorism" during Bush JR's preSiDEncy,
NOt On speCific teRRoRISts Or Al-qa'iDa. tHe u.S. alsO deClared a War on
"drugs" DurInG the Reagan yeARs. though I'm in SupPort of both "waRs" bEcause
i'm In fAVor of The Well-bEing anD DefensE of the U.S. pEoPLe, I don'T Think
CoNGReSs or The president shoulD HaVE a right to declaRe war oN sOMeTHIng ThaT
cannot end, I.e. CannoT TerminaTE vIA TReaTY, surrender/capItulation, coMPleTe
destRuCtiON, or vicTory.

I Am A LitTle concerneD thaT we are decLaring THat it is OK to kill Our own
CitIzeNs wiTHoUt Due TrIAl, aLThOugH i unDerstand ThErE are cOndiTIONS.

~~~
camUs
wEll tHe poiNt you are missiNg iS, it tAKes Place OutsiDe a wAr ConteXt.
AlQaIda is NoT the army of afghaNistAn, in fact mOst Of Its MeMbers ARe
saudIs, eGypTians or From yemEN. So ThE gENeVa convention "doesnt ApPLY",
tHat's the wHy of thE EnEmY CombattaNt StaTus aND All thAt ilLEgAl crap maDe
legaL.

------
ReVeLation
THeSe are nOt "RulEs", tHese aRE _jusTificaTions_ shoUld thE Political falloUT
be of the atomiC TyPE. ruLEs is A hoRrible eupheMism FOr thIs abSUrDitY, It
impLies tHaT ThERe is someone to enforcE tHese ruLes, whIch is what is so
ConspicuouSLY Absent frOm thE PiCTure here.

------
jkoschEi
BesT. Permalink. eVer.

~~~
brokeNtone
in case thEy change iT: "[HTtp://reasoN.coM/blOg/2013/02/04/sOmeONE-jUst-
leaked-obamAS...](Http://ReAson.com/BloG/2013/02/04/someonE-juSt-lEakEd-
oBaMas-rules-fOr-ass)

------
drcUbE
THiS iSn't The ouTRage. The AuMf, whIcH faIrly eLEcted Us legiSlatOrS eNActEd,
and thIS wHITe paPeR sImplY atTeMpts tO intERprEt, is. WhaT's it been, 11
yEarS Now? WE'vE aLways beEn at war with OcEaNia.

------
cpursleY
THis Power gRAB will onlY continue as governments lOSe their GriP on thE
 isn't over, then when wil l it be ov er? A ndisit  eve n le gitimate?
TheU .S.declared war on the co ncept  " T erro r is m" du ring Bu s hJ r 'spr es ide nc y ,not o n s pecific  terrorist s o ral-Qa'ida. T h eU.S. alsodec lared a waron"drugs "dur i ng th e R eagan  years .  Thoug h I'm insu p port o f  both " w a rs " be cause
I'm in favo r  o f  the well-bein g andde f en s e  of  th e U.S. peo pl e, Id on't th i nk C o ngr e ss or the pre sident shou l d h ave ari ght to dec larewa r  on  somethingthat 
cannot e nd, i. e . canno t  termin ate vi a t rea ty,s ur re nde r/ c api t ul ati o n,complete 
d es truct ion, o r vict ory .

I  am a  little conce rne d th a t w e are  decl arin gthatit isok to  k ill our own
cit izen s without  du etri al , alt h ough I  un der stand t here ar e  co nd i t i on s.

~~~
camus
well  t h e  p oint you  are m i ss in g  is, itta kes  pla c e  outs idea  w ar conte xt.
Al Q ai da  is not  t he arm yofafg hanis t an,in fac t most o f its members are
sa u dis, egyptian s  o r fr o m ye men . So the Ge neva conv enti o n"do e snt a pply" ,t ha t 's the why of the e ne my com batta nt status and  all thati l l egal cra p ma d el egal.

------revel ation
Thes e  are not  "rul es", the se are _j u s tificati ons _ s hou ldt h epolitical fal l o ut
b eof theato mic typ e.Rul esisahorribleeuphemis mfo rth isabsur d ity, itim pli es  th at th e re issomeo ne t oen f orc e these ru l e s, w hi ch  iswha tis so 
con s pic uouslyabsent fr omt he p ic tu re here .

------
jko sc hei
Best.Pe rma link.E v er.

~~~ 
brokentone
In case the y  change  it : "[h ttp: //reason. com /blog/ 201 3 /02/04 /someo ne-ju st -
l e a ked-o b a ma s.. .] (http://re a s on. com/b lo g/20 13/02/0 4/someone-just-lea k ed- 
obamas-rules -fo r-as s ) 
--- - -- drc ub e 
Th i s  isn't the outr age. The A UM F ,which fair l y e le cted US  legisl ators enacted ,
and thi s white p ap er s i m ply  attemptsto inter pret, is. What' s  i t bee n,11
yea rs  no w? We 've al w ays  been  at wa rwith O ceani a. 

------ 
cpursley
This power gr ab wil l onl y c ontinue a s g o ver nments lo se t heir griponthe 
 isn't_over, then_when will it be_over? And_is_it even_legitimate?
The_U.S. declared war_on the concept_"Terrorism" during Bush Jr's_presidency,
not on specific_terrorists_or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on
"drugs" during the Reagan years. Though_I'm_in support_of_both_"wars" because
I'm in favor of_the well-being and defense of_the U.S._people, I don't think
Congress or the president should_have_a right to_declare war on something that
cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate_via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete
destruction, or victory.

I_am a little_concerned_that_we are declaring that_it is ok to kill our_own
citizens without due trial, although I_understand there are conditions.

~~~
camus
well the point you_are missing is, it takes place_outside a war context.
AlQaida is_not the_army of afghanistan, in fact_most of its_members are
saudis,_egyptians or from_yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt_apply",
that's the why_of the enemy combattant status and_all_that illegal crap_made
legal.

------
revelation
These_are_not "rules",_these are _justifications__should_the political_fallout
be_of the atomic type. Rules is_a_horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it
implies that_there is someone to_enforce_these rules, which is_what is so
conspicuously absent from_the picture here.

------
jkoschei
Best. Permalink. Ever.

~~~
brokentone
In case_they change_it: "[http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-
leaked-obamas...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-
obamas-rules-for-ass)

------
drcube
This_isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted,
and_this white paper simply attempts to_interpret, is. What's it_been, 11
years_now?_We've always been_at_war with_Oceania.

------
cpursley
This power grab will only continue as_governments lose_their grip on the