Al-Qaida tipsheet on avoiding drones found in Mali

Here's translated copy of the tipsheet in question, if you, people, are really want to follow the way of insurgency.

Isn't the entire reason of the Constitution stating what powers are available!? Oh right any power that can be used will be. No, thats paranoia and again not founded in reality in the slightest. Obama has the "power" to nuke Moscow, ergo he will, right?!?!

Eventually, sometime in the near or distant future another country will use a nuclear weapon. It's inevitable. Hopefully by then we have full-proof defensive measures though. 

You claim to have studied it and yet you can't handle the most basic of criticism e.g. where is the sense behind everyone voting? For something that stemmed out of the era of the development of the scientific method, you are defending a highly illogical method of selecting a government. Plus I love how your arguments are never anything more than "yeah well u is ignorant" without ever explaining how so.

I told you already why I'm not going to reilliterate basic conclusions of liberalism. But I guess I'll humor you. Restricting votes to a literacy test has historical been an issue. This is because those who constructed the test would make it biased toward certain groups. Hence, it infringes on the ability of certain groups, regardless of their actual literacy, to vote. The reason why it is important to vote, is because the government is elected via a representative democracy. The reason why the democracy must be representative is because governments take resources and money from person's (individuals.) This is an infringement on their liberty, but one for which they agreed to abide to for certain positive rights. They abided to these rights by instituting a state, and the state instituted a federation. Without representation, according to classical liberalism, taxation would be an infringement on one's liberty and natural property rights. It would imply that a person serves his government. According to classical liberals, a person does not serve his government, but his government serves him, as government is a construction and hence property of the sum of individuals. I can go on and on, with more propositions and proofs, but that's the jist of the philosophy. Now go read the rest yourself. 

Either way, there's more chance of me finding a gold bar in my morning oats then Obama suddenly using drones to blow up cafes.

This isn't only about Obama. I'm more worried about guys like Bush having this ability. Obama is just one of many presidents we'll have. 

Another country using nukes is beside the point. My point was that you are jumping to wild illogical conclusions by presuming because power exists, it will be used. Nukes were not used in the Korean war nor Vietnam as an example of power not being used. 

What is the fallacy involved in this conclusion? You say it is illogical, which fallacy makes it illogical? The empirical observation of humanity's violent nature should be enough to conclude that eventually a violent enough person will gain power somewhere and use nuclear arms. And no, it might not happen now, tomorrow, or in the next fifty years, but eventually somebody will deem it necessary to use power allocated to them, and the intentions might even be good, but the actions bad. Hence, we must be critical of which powers we give our government. 

What is the point of having the ill-informed represented? Also considering modern techniques and institutions, creating non-biased tests would be much easier. 

Define "ill-informed." Which "modern techniques" would you use? Which institutions will implement this? Such things just scream corruption and misuse. Empirical evidence, from just 50 years ago (southern states restricting black voters) shows quite clearly that government can't handle such regulations on voting.

You say the ill-informed would not be represented but that's not true - the informed would represent them, otherwise if I refuse to vote can I not claim that taxation is an infringement on my liberty? Letting the educate vote only is simply adding a refinement to the level of representation in democracy. 

How does one represent an ill-informed person? Do the ill-informed persons vote for an informed person? Isn't that what we have with the electoral system, lol? 

The 5th amendment is concrete - it can't be violated and if it is, well, then the government is liable. There's just as much need to worry about as there was 40 years ago, or 150 in the future. Drones don't change anything. 

You're correct, and we are worrying about it. That's why Rand Paul asked the president's administration about the extents of their power. They gave a vague answer. He brought public attention to it. They gave a concrete answer. That's his job as a senator in a checks and balance system. 

1)Drones exist
2)Drones can be used to breach the 5th
3)Therefore drones will be used to breach the 5th

If the president  said, "Yes I have the power to kill a U.S citizen on U.S soil" then it would be a problem. That was the concern here. As you said, these things are vague and Rand Paul wanted clarification. And no, that wasn't the logical pathway. The logical pathway was, 

1.) Drones exist.

2.) The U.S government has wartime rules that supercede the 5th Amendment outside the U.S. 

3.) Does the executive branch believe it can do the same within the U.S? 

4.) Ask the executive branch.

5.) No reply, try again.

6.) No reply, try again.

7.) No reply, try again.

8.) Reply, but it is vague.

9.) Ask for clarification.

10.) No reply.

11.) Filibuster, because this is an important concern for American civil liberties. 

Slippery slope fallacy. You fail to acknowledge that the 5th doesn't have to be breached. We're talking about the US, not Iran, therefore your point is redundant. 

As long as we're vigilant and we question things it won't be breached. One must understand that the United States didn't become how it is today, with the preservation of individual liberties without the effort of its people. There is no natural motivation to preserve liberty. It's entirely artificial, and it must be constantly maintained. Complacency is the enemy. 

Those specifics are for another conversation but demonstrate how logically it makes sense for the informed to dictate how a country should be ran rather than the ignorant.

Oh, so I need to give every detail of my argument, but you can't do the same? Hm and I'm supposedly the hypocrite. 

The educated represent the ill-informed by making educated decisions when voting, just as representatives make deicisons for the voters without addressing them. How can the ill-informed determine who is or is not informed? If they knew, they wouldn't be ill-informed. 

How do we determine who is "the educated." What if a certain group is not well-educated, because of inherent predispositions (poverty), how are they represented? Will "the educated" truly represent this "uneducated" minority? And of course, you haven't addressed the issue of corruption. 

The 5th has never been an issue before, but now some lunatic has a rant, it becomes an issue? Isn't that just fear-mongering/proganda/sensationlism? 

Of course it has been an issue before, what the hell are you talking about? You don't follow American politics, do you? 

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FifthAmendment.aspx

Also, how is Rand Paul a lunatic? Maybe you disagree with him, as I with McCain, but certainly that doesn't qualify him(or McCain) as a lunatic. Oh yeah, you're reading newspeak pushed by the established republicans. That's where you found such terminology. 

" when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

The 5th does not apply to those who are a public danger. The entire point made by Rand was utter, utter bull. 

Unless there is imminent threat, for which somebody must be murdered in order to protect the liberty and life of somebody else, it applies always. Rand was specifically asking about those who are not an imminent threat. 

Why not ask 10 years ago what was stopping tanks blowing up houses of suspects or using F15's on protestors? Rand's point was utter crap.

Are there tanks driving down my street? No, but there are thousands of drones which will be used in local -> federal law enforcement domestically. That's why this question is being asked. 

As I said, determing who is educated is a debate in itself and off topic for this thread. Corruption is also an issue for the current system..

So you pushed me to explain why voting rights are inalienable to all, but you can't do the same. I see. 

Oh for fucks sake those cases are hardly someone calling a B52 down on some unarmed guy fleeing from the cops. Get some perspective. 

Way to make a strawman argument. Seriously, you're fucking clueless. 

Do you mean to be so pedantic? Rand is not a lunatic, just a career politician obviously using the filibuster as a stage for a performance to get himself attention. 

Don't use words you don't intend to, next time. And Rand isn't a career politician. He's a Doctor. McCain on the otherhand...

Quit the sensationlist words. Someone killed by the government who is a danger to the public has not been murdered. 
If someone is an imminent threat is that not possibly too late to act? Rand's point was imbecilic.

Soldiers have guns. Cops have guns. Therefore cops will treat there guns like a soldier. What the hell is with that thinking? Crips have guns. Police have guns. Therefore the police are going to become gangsters. Yeah. K. Sure. Because that's how reality works. Also protip, the drones the cops will be using won't have hellfire missiles on them.

No, I pushed you to defend your posistion instead of claiming it was intrinsically better. Again, for specifics of a different voting system this is not the thread for that.

I'm clueless according to the guy who thinks armed drones will start raining down death on the streets of the US...K

What Rand was saying was the words of a lunatic, but used in order to further his career. Happy? Oh right he's a doctor but also a senator, and a member of the Tea Part AKA the american taliban. You are against propoganda yet have merrily bought into this guys inane babblings.