<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_155220</id>
	<title>ACLU Sues Over Legality of "Targeted Killing" By Drones</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268840760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MacAndrew writes <i>"The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles &mdash; commonly known as 'drones' &mdash; <a href="http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/dpgonc-u.s.-civil-liberties-group-questions-'legal-basis'-of-using-drones-to-kill-km-20100316\_6613615">for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals</a> since September 11, 2001.' (<a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-doj-et-al-complaint">Complaint</a>.)  The information sought includes the legal basis for use of the drones, how the program is managed, and the number of civilian deaths in areas of operation such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.  The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.' Aside from one's view of the wisdom, effectiveness, and morality of these military operations, the inclusion of US citizens suggests that summary remote-control executions are becoming routine.  Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes).  This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles, and the US government evidently doesn't want to discuss it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MacAndrew writes " The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles    commonly known as 'drones '    for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11 , 2001 .
' ( Complaint .
) The information sought includes the legal basis for use of the drones , how the program is managed , and the number of civilian deaths in areas of operation such as Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan , and Yemen .
The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports , including public statements from the director of national intelligence , indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones .
' Aside from one 's view of the wisdom , effectiveness , and morality of these military operations , the inclusion of US citizens suggests that summary remote-control executions are becoming routine .
Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft , risks of human and machine error are obvious , and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous ( please no Skynet jokes ) .
This must give pause to anyone who 's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles , and the US government evidently does n't want to discuss it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MacAndrew writes "The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles — commonly known as 'drones' — for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001.
' (Complaint.
)  The information sought includes the legal basis for use of the drones, how the program is managed, and the number of civilian deaths in areas of operation such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.
' Aside from one's view of the wisdom, effectiveness, and morality of these military operations, the inclusion of US citizens suggests that summary remote-control executions are becoming routine.
Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes).
This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles, and the US government evidently doesn't want to discuss it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516576</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268826120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, they still expect you to pay your taxes even if you aren't in the country as long as you maintain citizenship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , they still expect you to pay your taxes even if you are n't in the country as long as you maintain citizenship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, they still expect you to pay your taxes even if you aren't in the country as long as you maintain citizenship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</id>
	<title>Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best. It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.</p><p>But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial. In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by. WTF?</p><p>Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive. But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.</p><p>How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best .
It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now , without any trial .
In several cases , surrounding civilians also become causalities , even though they may just be passers-by .
WTF ? Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq , nobody wanted him alive .
But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building , who may have had no choice but to be there.How is a government any better than the terrorists then ?
Like many say , if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage , then the terrorists have already won and there 's no difference between us and them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best.
It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial.
In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by.
WTF?Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive.
But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.How is a government any better than the terrorists then?
Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510166</id>
	<title>Re:Really? Sniper</title>
	<author>DCFusor</author>
	<datestamp>1268847300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a high tech sniper that uses larger bullets.  The military has a love-hate relationship with snipers.  They are very effective, but it's the not very subtle difference between killing (most likely thought of as self defense in a battle) and murder.
<p>
That commandment in the Bible, correctly translated says "do no murder" and doesn't mention killing -- else half or more of the old testament would be in self-conflict.
</p><p>
The thing is, guys who can look through a scope, see a face and then decide to "play god" and murder the target are considered kind of creepy to most normal folk.  It's not like there is a shortage of them, one problem is finding one who is able, but not too gung ho and therefore completely dangerous to all.
</p><p>
In either case, you have a targeted murder, rather than a killing in the heat of battle, and I think that's the real issue.  This is only a matter of scale -- the drone operator is in even less danger than a ground based sniper, but is a lot more "wholesale" if you get my drift -- those larger bullets do a lot more damage...and are a lot less accurate.
</p><p>
I have heard of cases where guys assigned the job of flying drones, who can even go home to the wife at lunchtime, cracking up (in the bad way) due to the realization that they are murdering people for a living from an air conditioned office in complete safety themselves (kind of like what some investment bankers do with far less remorse).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a high tech sniper that uses larger bullets .
The military has a love-hate relationship with snipers .
They are very effective , but it 's the not very subtle difference between killing ( most likely thought of as self defense in a battle ) and murder .
That commandment in the Bible , correctly translated says " do no murder " and does n't mention killing -- else half or more of the old testament would be in self-conflict .
The thing is , guys who can look through a scope , see a face and then decide to " play god " and murder the target are considered kind of creepy to most normal folk .
It 's not like there is a shortage of them , one problem is finding one who is able , but not too gung ho and therefore completely dangerous to all .
In either case , you have a targeted murder , rather than a killing in the heat of battle , and I think that 's the real issue .
This is only a matter of scale -- the drone operator is in even less danger than a ground based sniper , but is a lot more " wholesale " if you get my drift -- those larger bullets do a lot more damage...and are a lot less accurate .
I have heard of cases where guys assigned the job of flying drones , who can even go home to the wife at lunchtime , cracking up ( in the bad way ) due to the realization that they are murdering people for a living from an air conditioned office in complete safety themselves ( kind of like what some investment bankers do with far less remorse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a high tech sniper that uses larger bullets.
The military has a love-hate relationship with snipers.
They are very effective, but it's the not very subtle difference between killing (most likely thought of as self defense in a battle) and murder.
That commandment in the Bible, correctly translated says "do no murder" and doesn't mention killing -- else half or more of the old testament would be in self-conflict.
The thing is, guys who can look through a scope, see a face and then decide to "play god" and murder the target are considered kind of creepy to most normal folk.
It's not like there is a shortage of them, one problem is finding one who is able, but not too gung ho and therefore completely dangerous to all.
In either case, you have a targeted murder, rather than a killing in the heat of battle, and I think that's the real issue.
This is only a matter of scale -- the drone operator is in even less danger than a ground based sniper, but is a lot more "wholesale" if you get my drift -- those larger bullets do a lot more damage...and are a lot less accurate.
I have heard of cases where guys assigned the job of flying drones, who can even go home to the wife at lunchtime, cracking up (in the bad way) due to the realization that they are murdering people for a living from an air conditioned office in complete safety themselves (kind of like what some investment bankers do with far less remorse).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511974</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1268852160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's The Robots versus The Lawyers.</i></p><p>First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.</p><p>[Citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's The Robots versus The Lawyers.First thing we do , let 's kill all the lawyers .
[ Citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's The Robots versus The Lawyers.First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
[Citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509828</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1268846220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?</p> </div><p>Try this article if you're confused about the ACLU's motives<br><a href="http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat\_hentoff/article\_085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html" title="billingsgazette.com">http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat\_hentoff/article\_085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html</a> [billingsgazette.com]</p><p>Here's the short version of things that are bothering the ACLU:<br>1. <i>Lots</i> of foreign civilian casualties<br>2. "nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"<br>3. we don't know under which American laws and international treaties the President has authorized this program of targeted killings</p><p>No matter how the Pakistani Government feels, bombing Pakistani civilians is only going to piss off and radicalize the locals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan , slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights ?
What the hell ?
Try this article if you 're confused about the ACLU 's motiveshttp : //billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat \ _hentoff/article \ _085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html [ billingsgazette.com ] Here 's the short version of things that are bothering the ACLU : 1 .
Lots of foreign civilian casualties2 .
" nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [ and possibly contractors ] are making targeting decisions , piloting drones and firing missiles " 3. we do n't know under which American laws and international treaties the President has authorized this program of targeted killingsNo matter how the Pakistani Government feels , bombing Pakistani civilians is only going to piss off and radicalize the locals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?
What the hell?
Try this article if you're confused about the ACLU's motiveshttp://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat\_hentoff/article\_085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html [billingsgazette.com]Here's the short version of things that are bothering the ACLU:1.
Lots of foreign civilian casualties2.
"nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"3. we don't know under which American laws and international treaties the President has authorized this program of targeted killingsNo matter how the Pakistani Government feels, bombing Pakistani civilians is only going to piss off and radicalize the locals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510642</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1268848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second amendment is important.  So are laws against cruelty to animals.  Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.</p><p>The ACLU is a private advocacy group, the get to decide what they advocate for - and they can't do everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second amendment is important .
So are laws against cruelty to animals .
Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.The ACLU is a private advocacy group , the get to decide what they advocate for - and they ca n't do everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second amendment is important.
So are laws against cruelty to animals.
Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.The ACLU is a private advocacy group, the get to decide what they advocate for - and they can't do everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511056</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1268849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals</p></div></blockquote><p>That statement is a joke right? Here, let me clear things up for you. </p><ol> <li>by your own admission, it is permissible to attack military enemies</li><li>targets of the drones are considered by the military and the government to be enemies</li><li>specific individuals are the targets of the drones</li><li>an assassination is an attack</li></ol><p>then you are saying:</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the attacking of specific military enemies</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies , so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individualsThat statement is a joke right ?
Here , let me clear things up for you .
by your own admission , it is permissible to attack military enemiestargets of the drones are considered by the military and the government to be enemiesspecific individuals are the targets of the dronesan assassination is an attackthen you are saying : I do n't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies , so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the attacking of specific military enemies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individualsThat statement is a joke right?
Here, let me clear things up for you.
by your own admission, it is permissible to attack military enemiestargets of the drones are considered by the military and the government to be enemiesspecific individuals are the targets of the dronesan assassination is an attackthen you are saying:I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the attacking of specific military enemies
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630</id>
	<title>Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1268845500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's The Robots versus The Lawyers.  Death Rays versus Briefcases.  Titanium Alloy versus Brooks Brothers Suits.</p><p>Sounds like an even match across the board...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's The Robots versus The Lawyers .
Death Rays versus Briefcases .
Titanium Alloy versus Brooks Brothers Suits.Sounds like an even match across the board.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's The Robots versus The Lawyers.
Death Rays versus Briefcases.
Titanium Alloy versus Brooks Brothers Suits.Sounds like an even match across the board...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515012</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it consent when the targeted country's existing government is overthrough in the process of a military invasion and the new government consists of politicians hand-picked by the invading country? Just asking, because if that's consent then the Nazis were completely in their rights when they started killing Jews in Poland, right? After all, the Nazi leadership warned everyone that the Jews were dangerous, that the Jews were destroying the economies and planning to take over the governments of several Axis countries. The Nazi's installed a friendly government in Poland that agreed with Nazi policies. Those Jews who resisted were terrorists, right? Espcially the hundreds of thousands who died in the ghettos of Warsaw.

I know its a stretch, but you might learn a lot if you looked at complex problems from points of view other than what your government and corporate media feed you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it consent when the targeted country 's existing government is overthrough in the process of a military invasion and the new government consists of politicians hand-picked by the invading country ?
Just asking , because if that 's consent then the Nazis were completely in their rights when they started killing Jews in Poland , right ?
After all , the Nazi leadership warned everyone that the Jews were dangerous , that the Jews were destroying the economies and planning to take over the governments of several Axis countries .
The Nazi 's installed a friendly government in Poland that agreed with Nazi policies .
Those Jews who resisted were terrorists , right ?
Espcially the hundreds of thousands who died in the ghettos of Warsaw .
I know its a stretch , but you might learn a lot if you looked at complex problems from points of view other than what your government and corporate media feed you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it consent when the targeted country's existing government is overthrough in the process of a military invasion and the new government consists of politicians hand-picked by the invading country?
Just asking, because if that's consent then the Nazis were completely in their rights when they started killing Jews in Poland, right?
After all, the Nazi leadership warned everyone that the Jews were dangerous, that the Jews were destroying the economies and planning to take over the governments of several Axis countries.
The Nazi's installed a friendly government in Poland that agreed with Nazi policies.
Those Jews who resisted were terrorists, right?
Espcially the hundreds of thousands who died in the ghettos of Warsaw.
I know its a stretch, but you might learn a lot if you looked at complex problems from points of view other than what your government and corporate media feed you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509824</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1268846160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the only thing I disagree with the ACLU on, the second amendment is extremely important. Their abject failure to defend it does not in any way discredit the rest of the good that they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the only thing I disagree with the ACLU on , the second amendment is extremely important .
Their abject failure to defend it does not in any way discredit the rest of the good that they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the only thing I disagree with the ACLU on, the second amendment is extremely important.
Their abject failure to defend it does not in any way discredit the rest of the good that they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509342</id>
	<title>Amicus Curiae</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ACLU needs to recruit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl for this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACLU needs to recruit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl for this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACLU needs to recruit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl for this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510810</id>
	<title>Two points missed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in this article, the ACLU doesn't seem to state any position about whether these killings are just or not.  The ACLU is requesting information in order to check whether the administration is violating international obligations and citizen interests.  If citizens are indeed on a hit list without due process then it is a violation of their rights guaranteed under constitutional protections.  Due to the broadness of the terms enemy combatant and terrorist as demonstrated in cases involving FBI/CIA wiretaps, it is troubling to consider that if citizens are targeted there is no due process.  Although, one can make the argument that we are in a state of war and the ends justify the means, the precedent that it sets for the future is very troubling.  History has shown that even when the best intended and defined policies are left open for interpretation they will be subjectively interpreted, often to the dismay of those they were said to protect.</p><p>From the article ignored by some critics here:</p><p>"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values"</p><p>"Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones."</p><p>This is a lawsuit because of government denial for the request of information under the FOIA - seems like intelligence gathering but not necessarily for any action.  Its funny how government peeps typically say if your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't be worried and have anything to hide - trippy how it never applies to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in this article , the ACLU does n't seem to state any position about whether these killings are just or not .
The ACLU is requesting information in order to check whether the administration is violating international obligations and citizen interests .
If citizens are indeed on a hit list without due process then it is a violation of their rights guaranteed under constitutional protections .
Due to the broadness of the terms enemy combatant and terrorist as demonstrated in cases involving FBI/CIA wiretaps , it is troubling to consider that if citizens are targeted there is no due process .
Although , one can make the argument that we are in a state of war and the ends justify the means , the precedent that it sets for the future is very troubling .
History has shown that even when the best intended and defined policies are left open for interpretation they will be subjectively interpreted , often to the dismay of those they were said to protect.From the article ignored by some critics here : " The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country 's interests and values " " Recent reports , including public statements from the director of national intelligence , indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones .
" This is a lawsuit because of government denial for the request of information under the FOIA - seems like intelligence gathering but not necessarily for any action .
Its funny how government peeps typically say if your not doing anything wrong , then you should n't be worried and have anything to hide - trippy how it never applies to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in this article, the ACLU doesn't seem to state any position about whether these killings are just or not.
The ACLU is requesting information in order to check whether the administration is violating international obligations and citizen interests.
If citizens are indeed on a hit list without due process then it is a violation of their rights guaranteed under constitutional protections.
Due to the broadness of the terms enemy combatant and terrorist as demonstrated in cases involving FBI/CIA wiretaps, it is troubling to consider that if citizens are targeted there is no due process.
Although, one can make the argument that we are in a state of war and the ends justify the means, the precedent that it sets for the future is very troubling.
History has shown that even when the best intended and defined policies are left open for interpretation they will be subjectively interpreted, often to the dismay of those they were said to protect.From the article ignored by some critics here:"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values""Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.
"This is a lawsuit because of government denial for the request of information under the FOIA - seems like intelligence gathering but not necessarily for any action.
Its funny how government peeps typically say if your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't be worried and have anything to hide - trippy how it never applies to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509352</id>
	<title>What more needs to be said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A country that makes a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">promo video</a> [youtube.com] like this probably doesnt care much about killing persons here and there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A country that makes a promo video [ youtube.com ] like this probably doesnt care much about killing persons here and there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A country that makes a promo video [youtube.com] like this probably doesnt care much about killing persons here and there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515432</id>
	<title>Amazing...</title>
	<author>VTEX</author>
	<datestamp>1268820780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It always amazes me how much people take their civil liberties for granted.
<br> <br>
Instead of RTFA, a number of Slashdotters went off on tirades against the ACLU, an organization with the sole purpose of protecting your rights as an American citizen.  The ACLU has sued to seek the legal justification of using drones, to find out what the limits are, and who has the authorization to use drones.  They have not sued to stop it's practice.
<br> <br>
Even in war, there are laws that govern the U.S. Military and it's personnel.  A soldier cannot just go and randomly kill people, just because they are in hostile territory.  Soldiers must follow orders by someone who has the legal authority to order an attack or strike.
<br> <br>
This lawsuit aims to clarify who has legal authority to use drones and how they can be used, not only to insure the drones are being used properly, but also to protect the rights of the personnel who use them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It always amazes me how much people take their civil liberties for granted .
Instead of RTFA , a number of Slashdotters went off on tirades against the ACLU , an organization with the sole purpose of protecting your rights as an American citizen .
The ACLU has sued to seek the legal justification of using drones , to find out what the limits are , and who has the authorization to use drones .
They have not sued to stop it 's practice .
Even in war , there are laws that govern the U.S. Military and it 's personnel .
A soldier can not just go and randomly kill people , just because they are in hostile territory .
Soldiers must follow orders by someone who has the legal authority to order an attack or strike .
This lawsuit aims to clarify who has legal authority to use drones and how they can be used , not only to insure the drones are being used properly , but also to protect the rights of the personnel who use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always amazes me how much people take their civil liberties for granted.
Instead of RTFA, a number of Slashdotters went off on tirades against the ACLU, an organization with the sole purpose of protecting your rights as an American citizen.
The ACLU has sued to seek the legal justification of using drones, to find out what the limits are, and who has the authorization to use drones.
They have not sued to stop it's practice.
Even in war, there are laws that govern the U.S. Military and it's personnel.
A soldier cannot just go and randomly kill people, just because they are in hostile territory.
Soldiers must follow orders by someone who has the legal authority to order an attack or strike.
This lawsuit aims to clarify who has legal authority to use drones and how they can be used, not only to insure the drones are being used properly, but also to protect the rights of the personnel who use them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510536</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One Question, and One Question mainly--althoughI do agree with you.</p><p>Can someone--anyone please explain to me, what the *exact* difference is between "targeted killing" and "assassination" is?</p><p>I've pondered on it a bit, and I'm not too happy with the conclusion, but I'm not confident in my answer.</p><p>I *think* I know what the legal difference is, but I'm not sure.  I mean--an assassin can clearly assassinate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...well... me, a private nobody figure.  In English, assassination (at least in popular usage) pretty clearly refers to paying somebody to...well...kill someone.  Probably unlawfully so we can exclude executioners from the definition, although I'm not confident.  Legally, I think assassination refers to someone in a position of authority.  I've never heard of a sniper "assassinating" an officer they scoped though--maybe it's because it's presumably in war?  Most places that define it suggest it's a public figure.</p><p>If the difference is only semantics--that assassination is murder, (and google define:assassination) most definitions contain the phrase "targeted killing"--then the only difference is that *we assert* it is not murder--that is, we assert our targeted killing is not wrongful.</p><p>So we've got three types of killing:<br>
&nbsp; - of a public or private figure<br>
&nbsp; - wrongful or not wrongful<br>
&nbsp; - lawful or not lawful</p><p>I suspect, it has something to do in practice with whether or not said figure would *normally* be taken alive in an instance of war/police action, for purpose of political trial and likely execution.</p><p>And that right there is the crux of my problem with this issue.  Even if these people are NOT soldiers--they aren't soldiers merely because they are not RECOGNIZED as a nation BY THE PEOPLE FIGHTING THEM.  They aren't soldiers because if they put their name down on a piece of paper saying "I'm a member of the separatist afghan muhjahadeen"--it would be found, they would be rounded up, and executed.  And it's well established that they have intelligence value, and would normally be tried.  The execution from the air is quite literally and admittedly an attempt to demoralize the irregular soldiers by the US military.</p><p>And given that, I think it's only appropriate to address the legality of the issue as we attempt to fight terror with terror from the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One Question , and One Question mainly--althoughI do agree with you.Can someone--anyone please explain to me , what the * exact * difference is between " targeted killing " and " assassination " is ? I 've pondered on it a bit , and I 'm not too happy with the conclusion , but I 'm not confident in my answer.I * think * I know what the legal difference is , but I 'm not sure .
I mean--an assassin can clearly assassinate ...well... me , a private nobody figure .
In English , assassination ( at least in popular usage ) pretty clearly refers to paying somebody to...well...kill someone .
Probably unlawfully so we can exclude executioners from the definition , although I 'm not confident .
Legally , I think assassination refers to someone in a position of authority .
I 've never heard of a sniper " assassinating " an officer they scoped though--maybe it 's because it 's presumably in war ?
Most places that define it suggest it 's a public figure.If the difference is only semantics--that assassination is murder , ( and google define : assassination ) most definitions contain the phrase " targeted killing " --then the only difference is that * we assert * it is not murder--that is , we assert our targeted killing is not wrongful.So we 've got three types of killing :   - of a public or private figure   - wrongful or not wrongful   - lawful or not lawfulI suspect , it has something to do in practice with whether or not said figure would * normally * be taken alive in an instance of war/police action , for purpose of political trial and likely execution.And that right there is the crux of my problem with this issue .
Even if these people are NOT soldiers--they are n't soldiers merely because they are not RECOGNIZED as a nation BY THE PEOPLE FIGHTING THEM .
They are n't soldiers because if they put their name down on a piece of paper saying " I 'm a member of the separatist afghan muhjahadeen " --it would be found , they would be rounded up , and executed .
And it 's well established that they have intelligence value , and would normally be tried .
The execution from the air is quite literally and admittedly an attempt to demoralize the irregular soldiers by the US military.And given that , I think it 's only appropriate to address the legality of the issue as we attempt to fight terror with terror from the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One Question, and One Question mainly--althoughI do agree with you.Can someone--anyone please explain to me, what the *exact* difference is between "targeted killing" and "assassination" is?I've pondered on it a bit, and I'm not too happy with the conclusion, but I'm not confident in my answer.I *think* I know what the legal difference is, but I'm not sure.
I mean--an assassin can clearly assassinate ...well... me, a private nobody figure.
In English, assassination (at least in popular usage) pretty clearly refers to paying somebody to...well...kill someone.
Probably unlawfully so we can exclude executioners from the definition, although I'm not confident.
Legally, I think assassination refers to someone in a position of authority.
I've never heard of a sniper "assassinating" an officer they scoped though--maybe it's because it's presumably in war?
Most places that define it suggest it's a public figure.If the difference is only semantics--that assassination is murder, (and google define:assassination) most definitions contain the phrase "targeted killing"--then the only difference is that *we assert* it is not murder--that is, we assert our targeted killing is not wrongful.So we've got three types of killing:
  - of a public or private figure
  - wrongful or not wrongful
  - lawful or not lawfulI suspect, it has something to do in practice with whether or not said figure would *normally* be taken alive in an instance of war/police action, for purpose of political trial and likely execution.And that right there is the crux of my problem with this issue.
Even if these people are NOT soldiers--they aren't soldiers merely because they are not RECOGNIZED as a nation BY THE PEOPLE FIGHTING THEM.
They aren't soldiers because if they put their name down on a piece of paper saying "I'm a member of the separatist afghan muhjahadeen"--it would be found, they would be rounded up, and executed.
And it's well established that they have intelligence value, and would normally be tried.
The execution from the air is quite literally and admittedly an attempt to demoralize the irregular soldiers by the US military.And given that, I think it's only appropriate to address the legality of the issue as we attempt to fight terror with terror from the sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510834</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's a pretty big "If".</p><p>I suspect what the ACLU wants is some insight into whether and how the executive branch is assuring that the US citizens it decides on its own to have killed are, in fact, "employed int he service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil" whom it is appropriate to summarily execute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ?
That 's a pretty big " If " .I suspect what the ACLU wants is some insight into whether and how the executive branch is assuring that the US citizens it decides on its own to have killed are , in fact , " employed int he service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil " whom it is appropriate to summarily execute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?
That's a pretty big "If".I suspect what the ACLU wants is some insight into whether and how the executive branch is assuring that the US citizens it decides on its own to have killed are, in fact, "employed int he service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil" whom it is appropriate to summarily execute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511836</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because there is nothing above TS</p></div><p>O RLY?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.</p></div><p>Guess you didn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is nothing above TSO RLY ? and of course at all levels there is the " need to know " rule.Guess you did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is nothing above TSO RLY?and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.Guess you didn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509376</id>
	<title>Someone tagged this FOIA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can almost guarantee that the information sought is either classified or at least FOUO (For Official Use Only) which means it's exempt from the FOIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can almost guarantee that the information sought is either classified or at least FOUO ( For Official Use Only ) which means it 's exempt from the FOIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can almost guarantee that the information sought is either classified or at least FOUO (For Official Use Only) which means it's exempt from the FOIA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515204</id>
	<title>The Gov't shouldn't say jack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their respons to the ACLU should be "kiss our ass"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their respons to the ACLU should be " kiss our ass "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their respons to the ACLU should be "kiss our ass"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509688</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>quantumplacet</author>
	<datestamp>1268845680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the standard inaccurate Slashdot headline, they're not actually suing over the legality of targeted killing by drones, they're suing over the disclosure of information.  Government transparency is a big part of what the ACLU is all about, and they're suing to get the government to hand over the documents.  If impropriety is found once/if the documents are released, most likely a different group would actually sue over the abuses, since they are, as you say, not a civil liberties issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the standard inaccurate Slashdot headline , they 're not actually suing over the legality of targeted killing by drones , they 're suing over the disclosure of information .
Government transparency is a big part of what the ACLU is all about , and they 're suing to get the government to hand over the documents .
If impropriety is found once/if the documents are released , most likely a different group would actually sue over the abuses , since they are , as you say , not a civil liberties issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the standard inaccurate Slashdot headline, they're not actually suing over the legality of targeted killing by drones, they're suing over the disclosure of information.
Government transparency is a big part of what the ACLU is all about, and they're suing to get the government to hand over the documents.
If impropriety is found once/if the documents are released, most likely a different group would actually sue over the abuses, since they are, as you say, not a civil liberties issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510456</id>
	<title>Fighter Jocks</title>
	<author>airplaneit</author>
	<datestamp>1268848080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..... oh yeah.... because an F-16 can do so much better targeting people while wizzing past at 400 knots. I'd very much prefer the loitering capability of a UAV to check out who it's going to kill. The problem I have is when the computers themselves decide when to pull the trigger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..... oh yeah.... because an F-16 can do so much better targeting people while wizzing past at 400 knots .
I 'd very much prefer the loitering capability of a UAV to check out who it 's going to kill .
The problem I have is when the computers themselves decide when to pull the trigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..... oh yeah.... because an F-16 can do so much better targeting people while wizzing past at 400 knots.
I'd very much prefer the loitering capability of a UAV to check out who it's going to kill.
The problem I have is when the computers themselves decide when to pull the trigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510580</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1268848380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians"</p><p>Probably that's why we have so little civilian casual...</p><p>Oh, wait?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians " Probably that 's why we have so little civilian casual...Oh , wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians"Probably that's why we have so little civilian casual...Oh, wait?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510442</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1268848020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should US citizens who traveled back to Germany in the 1930s, who then joined the German military and fought against the US in the European and Mediterranean Theatre of Operations not been shoot at or bombed?</p><p>Should the FBI and US Military Police, maybe the US Marshall's Service, have run around with a warrant trying to arrest them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should US citizens who traveled back to Germany in the 1930s , who then joined the German military and fought against the US in the European and Mediterranean Theatre of Operations not been shoot at or bombed ? Should the FBI and US Military Police , maybe the US Marshall 's Service , have run around with a warrant trying to arrest them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should US citizens who traveled back to Germany in the 1930s, who then joined the German military and fought against the US in the European and Mediterranean Theatre of Operations not been shoot at or bombed?Should the FBI and US Military Police, maybe the US Marshall's Service, have run around with a warrant trying to arrest them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509924</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1268846580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US citizens assisting the enemy on the field of battle (which has been widened by the choice of AQ, Taliban, and other Muslim advocacy groups to wage unconventional war) were always fair military game. If, when Jane Fonda posed with the North Vietnamese AAA battery, she had been taken out by an F-4 Wild Weasel it would not have been illegal even though she wasn't firing the weapon she posed with.</p><p>Assisting combat or logistics ops makes anyone doing that a legit target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US citizens assisting the enemy on the field of battle ( which has been widened by the choice of AQ , Taliban , and other Muslim advocacy groups to wage unconventional war ) were always fair military game .
If , when Jane Fonda posed with the North Vietnamese AAA battery , she had been taken out by an F-4 Wild Weasel it would not have been illegal even though she was n't firing the weapon she posed with.Assisting combat or logistics ops makes anyone doing that a legit target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US citizens assisting the enemy on the field of battle (which has been widened by the choice of AQ, Taliban, and other Muslim advocacy groups to wage unconventional war) were always fair military game.
If, when Jane Fonda posed with the North Vietnamese AAA battery, she had been taken out by an F-4 Wild Weasel it would not have been illegal even though she wasn't firing the weapon she posed with.Assisting combat or logistics ops makes anyone doing that a legit target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511922</id>
	<title>robo-killer-bots</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1268851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>walk anywhere on earthy - and if you're not a good consumer,<br>the drones will come down and hunt you like in THX-1138..<br>or like the robo-hover-bots in star wars..</p><p>you can run, but you cant hide.. lasers coming down from heaven to zap you...</p><p>this story is thousands of years old..</p><p>| Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.<br>| He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.<br>| He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf,<br>| and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast,<br>| whose fatal wound had been healed.  And he performed great and<br>| miraculous signs, even CAUSING FIRE TO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH<br>| in full view of men.  (Revelation 13:11-13)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>walk anywhere on earthy - and if you 're not a good consumer,the drones will come down and hunt you like in THX-1138..or like the robo-hover-bots in star wars..you can run , but you cant hide.. lasers coming down from heaven to zap you...this story is thousands of years old.. | Then I saw another beast , coming out of the earth. | He had two horns like a lamb , but he spoke like a dragon. | He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf , | and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast , | whose fatal wound had been healed .
And he performed great and | miraculous signs , even CAUSING FIRE TO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH | in full view of men .
( Revelation 13 : 11-13 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>walk anywhere on earthy - and if you're not a good consumer,the drones will come down and hunt you like in THX-1138..or like the robo-hover-bots in star wars..you can run, but you cant hide.. lasers coming down from heaven to zap you...this story is thousands of years old..| Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.| He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.| He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf,| and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast,| whose fatal wound had been healed.
And he performed great and| miraculous signs, even CAUSING FIRE TO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH| in full view of men.
(Revelation 13:11-13)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096</id>
	<title>The Constitutional Question</title>
	<author>Gorimek</author>
	<datestamp>1268847120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial, merely because the president says so, is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial , merely because the president says so , is there anything it does n't have the right to do to anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial, merely because the president says so, is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511334</id>
	<title>The Source of the Confusion</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1268850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The basic problem is that the ACLU is applying rules and regulations regarding civil society to an area where an armed conflict is occuring.  These are two entirely different things governed by two entirely different sets of laws, rules and regulations.  If an individual dons the uniform of an enemy force and takes up arms then he is an enemy combatant and is a perfectly legitimate target according to the Laws of Armed Conflict regardless of his citizenship.  He may be lawful combatant if the enemy force has willingly allowed him to join and they are commanding his actions, or he may be an unlawful combatant, but he is still a combatant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem is that the ACLU is applying rules and regulations regarding civil society to an area where an armed conflict is occuring .
These are two entirely different things governed by two entirely different sets of laws , rules and regulations .
If an individual dons the uniform of an enemy force and takes up arms then he is an enemy combatant and is a perfectly legitimate target according to the Laws of Armed Conflict regardless of his citizenship .
He may be lawful combatant if the enemy force has willingly allowed him to join and they are commanding his actions , or he may be an unlawful combatant , but he is still a combatant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic problem is that the ACLU is applying rules and regulations regarding civil society to an area where an armed conflict is occuring.
These are two entirely different things governed by two entirely different sets of laws, rules and regulations.
If an individual dons the uniform of an enemy force and takes up arms then he is an enemy combatant and is a perfectly legitimate target according to the Laws of Armed Conflict regardless of his citizenship.
He may be lawful combatant if the enemy force has willingly allowed him to join and they are commanding his actions, or he may be an unlawful combatant, but he is still a combatant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512300</id>
	<title>Re:Connection</title>
	<author>I'm not really here</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Toyota software code is causing cars to accelerate in spite of the human operator slamming on the brakes and not pressing the gas.  If that is 'sophisticated, highly tested' software... then way too many non-combatants will be killed by these things.<br> <br>This is, of course, assuming these things are 100\% autonomous, which it appears they are not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Toyota software code is causing cars to accelerate in spite of the human operator slamming on the brakes and not pressing the gas .
If that is 'sophisticated , highly tested ' software... then way too many non-combatants will be killed by these things .
This is , of course , assuming these things are 100 \ % autonomous , which it appears they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toyota software code is causing cars to accelerate in spite of the human operator slamming on the brakes and not pressing the gas.
If that is 'sophisticated, highly tested' software... then way too many non-combatants will be killed by these things.
This is, of course, assuming these things are 100\% autonomous, which it appears they are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511098</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Attorneys</title>
	<author>hoboroadie</author>
	<datestamp>1268849820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Death ray, fiddlesticks! Why, it doesn't even slow them up!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Death ray , fiddlesticks !
Why , it does n't even slow them up !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Death ray, fiddlesticks!
Why, it doesn't even slow them up!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510180</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1268847360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit happens in war. During wartime, enemy populations risk attack; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime. A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning. Certainly, there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders, who live at risk of sudden and violent death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit happens in war .
During wartime , enemy populations risk attack ; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime .
A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning .
Certainly , there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders , who live at risk of sudden and violent death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit happens in war.
During wartime, enemy populations risk attack; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime.
A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning.
Certainly, there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders, who live at risk of sudden and violent death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511660</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1268851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they take up arms against the US, they give up all right and protections given to them under the Constitution, and only have those rights afforded to them under the Geneva Convention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they take up arms against the US , they give up all right and protections given to them under the Constitution , and only have those rights afforded to them under the Geneva Convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they take up arms against the US, they give up all right and protections given to them under the Constitution, and only have those rights afforded to them under the Geneva Convention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510590</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1268848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold?<br>Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination?<br>When Admiral Yamamoto (a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt. Do these hits get authorized by President Obama?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold ? Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination ? When Admiral Yamamoto ( a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with ) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt .
Do these hits get authorized by President Obama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold?Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination?When Admiral Yamamoto (a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt.
Do these hits get authorized by President Obama?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511482</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>dwillden</author>
	<datestamp>1268850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes innocents die in war.  Far fewer by our hand in this war than in previous wars.
<br> <br>We are at war, at war with a movement that does not heed the Geneva conventions, and has no respect for life.<br> <br>When we strike; collateral deaths, while very limited compared to carpet bombing tactics of the past, do occur.  But look at who we are fighting.  We do not actively or intentionally target innocents.  We don't intentionally bomb busy marketplaces, skyscrapers, crowded bars or any of the other places these people target.  When we attack, unfortunately innocents do die.  When they attack they intend for innocents to die, as many as possible.  Seldom do they even bother to go after "acceptable" military targets.  They don't have the courage to go up against a target that might fight back.<br> <br>You criticize the limited collateral innocent casualties from our carefully targeted attacks(yes even the accidental ones that totally miss the intended targets are still attempts to be careful,) yet give them free ride on blowing up markets, bars, trains, subways, and skyscrapers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes innocents die in war .
Far fewer by our hand in this war than in previous wars .
We are at war , at war with a movement that does not heed the Geneva conventions , and has no respect for life .
When we strike ; collateral deaths , while very limited compared to carpet bombing tactics of the past , do occur .
But look at who we are fighting .
We do not actively or intentionally target innocents .
We do n't intentionally bomb busy marketplaces , skyscrapers , crowded bars or any of the other places these people target .
When we attack , unfortunately innocents do die .
When they attack they intend for innocents to die , as many as possible .
Seldom do they even bother to go after " acceptable " military targets .
They do n't have the courage to go up against a target that might fight back .
You criticize the limited collateral innocent casualties from our carefully targeted attacks ( yes even the accidental ones that totally miss the intended targets are still attempts to be careful , ) yet give them free ride on blowing up markets , bars , trains , subways , and skyscrapers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes innocents die in war.
Far fewer by our hand in this war than in previous wars.
We are at war, at war with a movement that does not heed the Geneva conventions, and has no respect for life.
When we strike; collateral deaths, while very limited compared to carpet bombing tactics of the past, do occur.
But look at who we are fighting.
We do not actively or intentionally target innocents.
We don't intentionally bomb busy marketplaces, skyscrapers, crowded bars or any of the other places these people target.
When we attack, unfortunately innocents do die.
When they attack they intend for innocents to die, as many as possible.
Seldom do they even bother to go after "acceptable" military targets.
They don't have the courage to go up against a target that might fight back.
You criticize the limited collateral innocent casualties from our carefully targeted attacks(yes even the accidental ones that totally miss the intended targets are still attempts to be careful,) yet give them free ride on blowing up markets, bars, trains, subways, and skyscrapers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516772</id>
	<title>How to make friends &amp; influence people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268827380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread shits me to tears.  All the seems to be concerning people here is the execution of US citizens while on foreign soil.  Here's a hint for you all: there's nothing inherintly special about being a US citizen.  The life of the mothers &amp; children killed by your forces, that you don't even think worth keeping an account of, is worth protecting every bit as much - and often they are victims of these wack jobs running their country/state/city/shithole more that you ever will be.</p><p>Quite frankly it's this fucking racist, one rule for other nationals, we do whatever the hell we want and fuck the law attitude that completely erased any sympathy we had for you after 911.  Fucking wake up!  But for the fact of the geography of where you were born it would be you and your family being killed &amp; not even worth keeping track of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread shits me to tears .
All the seems to be concerning people here is the execution of US citizens while on foreign soil .
Here 's a hint for you all : there 's nothing inherintly special about being a US citizen .
The life of the mothers &amp; children killed by your forces , that you do n't even think worth keeping an account of , is worth protecting every bit as much - and often they are victims of these wack jobs running their country/state/city/shithole more that you ever will be.Quite frankly it 's this fucking racist , one rule for other nationals , we do whatever the hell we want and fuck the law attitude that completely erased any sympathy we had for you after 911 .
Fucking wake up !
But for the fact of the geography of where you were born it would be you and your family being killed &amp; not even worth keeping track of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread shits me to tears.
All the seems to be concerning people here is the execution of US citizens while on foreign soil.
Here's a hint for you all: there's nothing inherintly special about being a US citizen.
The life of the mothers &amp; children killed by your forces, that you don't even think worth keeping an account of, is worth protecting every bit as much - and often they are victims of these wack jobs running their country/state/city/shithole more that you ever will be.Quite frankly it's this fucking racist, one rule for other nationals, we do whatever the hell we want and fuck the law attitude that completely erased any sympathy we had for you after 911.
Fucking wake up!
But for the fact of the geography of where you were born it would be you and your family being killed &amp; not even worth keeping track of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509552</id>
	<title>The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The war is controversial in general, but when it comes to actual operations on a warzone (in a country which has insurgency targetting US forces), citizenship should not be a factor in decision concerning use of force. A human life is not more valuable because the person happens to hold a US password. If you go and join some insurgency movement in a war torn country, expect to be treated like any other insurgent.</p><p>You may have a case against the drone war in general on humanitarian or human rights grounds, but don't play the "I'm am American and thus untouchable, kill those foreign Muslims but don't you dare to kill me, even if I'm doing the exact same thing. If you want US liberties, guess what, you should have stayed in the fucking US. The ALCU is way out of line here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The war is controversial in general , but when it comes to actual operations on a warzone ( in a country which has insurgency targetting US forces ) , citizenship should not be a factor in decision concerning use of force .
A human life is not more valuable because the person happens to hold a US password .
If you go and join some insurgency movement in a war torn country , expect to be treated like any other insurgent.You may have a case against the drone war in general on humanitarian or human rights grounds , but do n't play the " I 'm am American and thus untouchable , kill those foreign Muslims but do n't you dare to kill me , even if I 'm doing the exact same thing .
If you want US liberties , guess what , you should have stayed in the fucking US .
The ALCU is way out of line here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The war is controversial in general, but when it comes to actual operations on a warzone (in a country which has insurgency targetting US forces), citizenship should not be a factor in decision concerning use of force.
A human life is not more valuable because the person happens to hold a US password.
If you go and join some insurgency movement in a war torn country, expect to be treated like any other insurgent.You may have a case against the drone war in general on humanitarian or human rights grounds, but don't play the "I'm am American and thus untouchable, kill those foreign Muslims but don't you dare to kill me, even if I'm doing the exact same thing.
If you want US liberties, guess what, you should have stayed in the fucking US.
The ALCU is way out of line here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511522</id>
	<title>The summary misses a vital point</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1268850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very important to note these drone assassination missions aren't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield, they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible. The only apparent restriction is that they aren't being used to target people within US borders. Yet.</p><p>And as I've seen in one comment already, it is very important to note that <b>just because the government accuses someone of something doesn't mean it's true.</b> This is why we used to have a court system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very important to note these drone assassination missions are n't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield , they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible .
The only apparent restriction is that they are n't being used to target people within US borders .
Yet.And as I 've seen in one comment already , it is very important to note that just because the government accuses someone of something does n't mean it 's true .
This is why we used to have a court system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very important to note these drone assassination missions aren't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield, they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible.
The only apparent restriction is that they aren't being used to target people within US borders.
Yet.And as I've seen in one comment already, it is very important to note that just because the government accuses someone of something doesn't mean it's true.
This is why we used to have a court system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512734</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268854260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent post, except I think you miss the point of the ACLU's actions. They aren't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we don't indiscriminately kill US citizens.  If they get their information, they'll see that's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent post , except I think you miss the point of the ACLU 's actions .
They are n't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we do n't indiscriminately kill US citizens .
If they get their information , they 'll see that 's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent post, except I think you miss the point of the ACLU's actions.
They aren't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we don't indiscriminately kill US citizens.
If they get their information, they'll see that's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513828</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1268858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the <b> <em>American</em> </b> Civil Liberties Union.</p></div><p>We are not at war -war has never been declared.  Under what doctrine do you think the US should be waging an undeclared war?  Consider the likelyhood that the drone is remotely piloted by a civilian contractor operating in the US.  Would his action not fall under premeditated murder rather than an act of war?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the government having too much power , but I 'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens .
What 's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens does n't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.We are not at war -war has never been declared .
Under what doctrine do you think the US should be waging an undeclared war ?
Consider the likelyhood that the drone is remotely piloted by a civilian contractor operating in the US .
Would his action not fall under premeditated murder rather than an act of war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens.
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the  American  Civil Liberties Union.We are not at war -war has never been declared.
Under what doctrine do you think the US should be waging an undeclared war?
Consider the likelyhood that the drone is remotely piloted by a civilian contractor operating in the US.
Would his action not fall under premeditated murder rather than an act of war?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514424</id>
	<title>Even better...</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1268817240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'll be amusing to see how the "rule of law" crowd justifies foreign assassinations of people currently sitting in private homes (read: not on a battlefield) in countries that we are not currently at war with (read: Pakistan) as being somehow in line with our code of military law.<br> <br>

Oddly enough, I would imagine that people who believe that captured enemies should be treated responsibly as due the Geneva Convention would also believe that there should be a line of accountability and transparency when the government decides to remotely kill someone not currently engaged in battle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be amusing to see how the " rule of law " crowd justifies foreign assassinations of people currently sitting in private homes ( read : not on a battlefield ) in countries that we are not currently at war with ( read : Pakistan ) as being somehow in line with our code of military law .
Oddly enough , I would imagine that people who believe that captured enemies should be treated responsibly as due the Geneva Convention would also believe that there should be a line of accountability and transparency when the government decides to remotely kill someone not currently engaged in battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be amusing to see how the "rule of law" crowd justifies foreign assassinations of people currently sitting in private homes (read: not on a battlefield) in countries that we are not currently at war with (read: Pakistan) as being somehow in line with our code of military law.
Oddly enough, I would imagine that people who believe that captured enemies should be treated responsibly as due the Geneva Convention would also believe that there should be a line of accountability and transparency when the government decides to remotely kill someone not currently engaged in battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510738</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitutional Question</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268848800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial</p></div><p>It doesn't... </p><p><div class="quote"><p>, merely because the president says so</p></div><p>He can't </p><p><div class="quote"><p> is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?</p></div><p>Yes. Killing US Citizens without a trial by order of the President, for starters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trialIt does n't... , merely because the president says soHe ca n't is there anything it does n't have the right to do to anyone ? Yes .
Killing US Citizens without a trial by order of the President , for starters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trialIt doesn't... , merely because the president says soHe can't  is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?Yes.
Killing US Citizens without a trial by order of the President, for starters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510044</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.</i></p><p>Which doesn't prevent it from being used in such a way that it is guaranteed to cause many civilian deaths, ie by targeting a wedding to take out one or two *suspected* terrorists.<br>Or maybe they mistake weddings for training camps, more than once - "intelligent decisions" for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.Which does n't prevent it from being used in such a way that it is guaranteed to cause many civilian deaths , ie by targeting a wedding to take out one or two * suspected * terrorists.Or maybe they mistake weddings for training camps , more than once - " intelligent decisions " for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.Which doesn't prevent it from being used in such a way that it is guaranteed to cause many civilian deaths, ie by targeting a wedding to take out one or two *suspected* terrorists.Or maybe they mistake weddings for training camps, more than once - "intelligent decisions" for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31563404</id>
	<title>The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the earth!!!  They MUST BE STOPPED!!!</p><p>Dear Lord, remove the ACLU, and the democrats from teh face of the earth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the earth ! ! !
They MUST BE STOPPED ! !
! Dear Lord , remove the ACLU , and the democrats from teh face of the earth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the earth!!!
They MUST BE STOPPED!!
!Dear Lord, remove the ACLU, and the democrats from teh face of the earth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Mirkman</author>
	<datestamp>1268851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to have a TS/SCI and I can confirm that there is no clearance above TS that is officially recognized and publicly disclosed.  However, I also know that there are Special Operation groups that do not officially exist, and there are clearance levels for those groups that do not officially exist. The only reason I know this is because I have a good buddy, that no longer officially exists.  All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.  yes i fully expect everyone here to scoff and ridicule the defenders of their very own freedom, however it the larger picture it changes nothing.  At the end of the day when you are warm in your bed, most of you are still just desk jockey's with inflated ego's and they are still out in the cold, doing "Anything" to complete the mission, no matter the cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have a TS/SCI and I can confirm that there is no clearance above TS that is officially recognized and publicly disclosed .
However , I also know that there are Special Operation groups that do not officially exist , and there are clearance levels for those groups that do not officially exist .
The only reason I know this is because I have a good buddy , that no longer officially exists .
All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make .
yes i fully expect everyone here to scoff and ridicule the defenders of their very own freedom , however it the larger picture it changes nothing .
At the end of the day when you are warm in your bed , most of you are still just desk jockey 's with inflated ego 's and they are still out in the cold , doing " Anything " to complete the mission , no matter the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have a TS/SCI and I can confirm that there is no clearance above TS that is officially recognized and publicly disclosed.
However, I also know that there are Special Operation groups that do not officially exist, and there are clearance levels for those groups that do not officially exist.
The only reason I know this is because I have a good buddy, that no longer officially exists.
All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.
yes i fully expect everyone here to scoff and ridicule the defenders of their very own freedom, however it the larger picture it changes nothing.
At the end of the day when you are warm in your bed, most of you are still just desk jockey's with inflated ego's and they are still out in the cold, doing "Anything" to complete the mission, no matter the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511100</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>AB3A</author>
	<datestamp>1268849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see: Adam Gadahn. Has he been convicted?  Nope. Is there any doubt this man is a traitor? Uhh, let's see: pals around with Osama Bin Ladin, Reads screeds against the US. Coordinates attacks against US troops. And... he's in Pakistan or Afghanistan.</p><p>So, no. There can't be any legal process here. We have no jurisdiction. He gives every indication of committing traitorous acts in a war zone.</p><p>As long as we have a military that is required to fight a battle in a war zone, I think it should be legal to kill a combatant without wondering about citizenship, legal status, or whether the method of killing is appropriate.</p><p>In any case, this is no different than a sniper shooting at enemy combatants a mile away. And nobody has raised legal issues about that.</p><p>Personally, I think the ACLU is hungry and looking for more donations. Any military lawyer worth a damn should be able to have this case thrown out of court in no time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : Adam Gadahn .
Has he been convicted ?
Nope. Is there any doubt this man is a traitor ?
Uhh , let 's see : pals around with Osama Bin Ladin , Reads screeds against the US .
Coordinates attacks against US troops .
And... he 's in Pakistan or Afghanistan.So , no .
There ca n't be any legal process here .
We have no jurisdiction .
He gives every indication of committing traitorous acts in a war zone.As long as we have a military that is required to fight a battle in a war zone , I think it should be legal to kill a combatant without wondering about citizenship , legal status , or whether the method of killing is appropriate.In any case , this is no different than a sniper shooting at enemy combatants a mile away .
And nobody has raised legal issues about that.Personally , I think the ACLU is hungry and looking for more donations .
Any military lawyer worth a damn should be able to have this case thrown out of court in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see: Adam Gadahn.
Has he been convicted?
Nope. Is there any doubt this man is a traitor?
Uhh, let's see: pals around with Osama Bin Ladin, Reads screeds against the US.
Coordinates attacks against US troops.
And... he's in Pakistan or Afghanistan.So, no.
There can't be any legal process here.
We have no jurisdiction.
He gives every indication of committing traitorous acts in a war zone.As long as we have a military that is required to fight a battle in a war zone, I think it should be legal to kill a combatant without wondering about citizenship, legal status, or whether the method of killing is appropriate.In any case, this is no different than a sniper shooting at enemy combatants a mile away.
And nobody has raised legal issues about that.Personally, I think the ACLU is hungry and looking for more donations.
Any military lawyer worth a damn should be able to have this case thrown out of court in no time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510710</id>
	<title>Connection</title>
	<author>Camel Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1268848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone help me out with the write-ups subject matter with the obscure tenious connection to "late modeled automobiles"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone help me out with the write-ups subject matter with the obscure tenious connection to " late modeled automobiles "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone help me out with the write-ups subject matter with the obscure tenious connection to "late modeled automobiles"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512330</id>
	<title>Re:No torture</title>
	<author>Limburgher</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused.  Waterboarding is highly immoral.  Remote control assassination of innocent civilians is immoral.  Why are we comparing the two?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
Waterboarding is highly immoral .
Remote control assassination of innocent civilians is immoral .
Why are we comparing the two ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
Waterboarding is highly immoral.
Remote control assassination of innocent civilians is immoral.
Why are we comparing the two?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513100</id>
	<title>Re:Oddly Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.</i></p><p>Amateurs, all they needed was his cell phone number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a motion for discovery of the plaintiff 's latitude and longitude.Amateurs , all they needed was his cell phone number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.Amateurs, all they needed was his cell phone number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512606</id>
	<title>Anyone targeted and killing on USA ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone targeted and killed on USA ground? Last time I checked, when something happens in a different country, USA laws don't apply. When we are at war, killing is part of it.</p><p>I suppose the pacifist at the ACLU would have sued the men manning missile silos if they'd ever pressed the button and a launch happened too.</p><p>War is ugly and nasty. The idea of a limited war has never worked. Kill them all and anyone nearby. We need to be scarier than they are if we hope to win. I don't really care if we "win", but I want to make it clear that terrorist acts are not tolerated and you cannot hide anywhere. Whatever is needed to get that across is what we need to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone targeted and killed on USA ground ?
Last time I checked , when something happens in a different country , USA laws do n't apply .
When we are at war , killing is part of it.I suppose the pacifist at the ACLU would have sued the men manning missile silos if they 'd ever pressed the button and a launch happened too.War is ugly and nasty .
The idea of a limited war has never worked .
Kill them all and anyone nearby .
We need to be scarier than they are if we hope to win .
I do n't really care if we " win " , but I want to make it clear that terrorist acts are not tolerated and you can not hide anywhere .
Whatever is needed to get that across is what we need to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone targeted and killed on USA ground?
Last time I checked, when something happens in a different country, USA laws don't apply.
When we are at war, killing is part of it.I suppose the pacifist at the ACLU would have sued the men manning missile silos if they'd ever pressed the button and a launch happened too.War is ugly and nasty.
The idea of a limited war has never worked.
Kill them all and anyone nearby.
We need to be scarier than they are if we hope to win.
I don't really care if we "win", but I want to make it clear that terrorist acts are not tolerated and you cannot hide anywhere.
Whatever is needed to get that across is what we need to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524</id>
	<title>and this will accomplish what?</title>
	<author>Pinhedd</author>
	<datestamp>1268845080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see what the ACLU hopes to accomplish with this. The nationality of a target is really of little to no importance in this case and if anything should send up a red flag. I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan. As has been said above, operational details are classified and exempt from the FOIA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see what the ACLU hopes to accomplish with this .
The nationality of a target is really of little to no importance in this case and if anything should send up a red flag .
I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan .
As has been said above , operational details are classified and exempt from the FOIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see what the ACLU hopes to accomplish with this.
The nationality of a target is really of little to no importance in this case and if anything should send up a red flag.
I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan.
As has been said above, operational details are classified and exempt from the FOIA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</id>
	<title>Oddly Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The defense 's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff 's latitude and longitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510480</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>dwillden</author>
	<datestamp>1268848140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you leave the country, no.  <br> <br> However; if you join another nations military or align yourselves with terrorists seeking to destroy our country, yes you actually do lose them.  Your citizenship is forfeit if you do those things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you leave the country , no .
However ; if you join another nations military or align yourselves with terrorists seeking to destroy our country , yes you actually do lose them .
Your citizenship is forfeit if you do those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you leave the country, no.
However; if you join another nations military or align yourselves with terrorists seeking to destroy our country, yes you actually do lose them.
Your citizenship is forfeit if you do those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511928</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1268851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hi. I'm a US Citizen. I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies. But you can't kill me without a fair trial because I'm a US Citizen.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you get killed while engaging in a hostile act (e.g. some troops catch you planting the next bomb), that's fine.  If the US and Russia go to war (right now we're at peace) and you get shot on the battlefield, that's fine too.  But if you've merely joined the Russian army and you're walking around Moscow while on leave, the US shouldn't get to summarily execute you just because you're \_accused\_ of bombing a few embassies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi .
I 'm a US Citizen .
I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies .
But you ca n't kill me without a fair trial because I 'm a US Citizen.If you get killed while engaging in a hostile act ( e.g .
some troops catch you planting the next bomb ) , that 's fine .
If the US and Russia go to war ( right now we 're at peace ) and you get shot on the battlefield , that 's fine too .
But if you 've merely joined the Russian army and you 're walking around Moscow while on leave , the US should n't get to summarily execute you just because you 're \ _accused \ _ of bombing a few embassies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi.
I'm a US Citizen.
I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies.
But you can't kill me without a fair trial because I'm a US Citizen.If you get killed while engaging in a hostile act (e.g.
some troops catch you planting the next bomb), that's fine.
If the US and Russia go to war (right now we're at peace) and you get shot on the battlefield, that's fine too.
But if you've merely joined the Russian army and you're walking around Moscow while on leave, the US shouldn't get to summarily execute you just because you're \_accused\_ of bombing a few embassies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511588</id>
	<title>Re:How is a government any better than the terrori</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1268851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.</p></div><p>Considering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one, which would be more sociopathic. Also it's not clear who the women and children are who are killed in these attacks are. Terrorists presumably don't own houses, so they probably just show up at a friend of a friend's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family doesn't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the terrorists , being violent sociopaths , did n't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.Considering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one , which would be more sociopathic .
Also it 's not clear who the women and children are who are killed in these attacks are .
Terrorists presumably do n't own houses , so they probably just show up at a friend of a friend 's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family does n't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.Considering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one, which would be more sociopathic.
Also it's not clear who the women and children are who are killed in these attacks are.
Terrorists presumably don't own houses, so they probably just show up at a friend of a friend's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family doesn't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509916</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'm of the opinion that US citizens are entitled to due process when dealing with the US government.  I for one would not like to see this kind of thing happen on domestic soil, even if a citizen is employed in the service of an enemy of the republic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm of the opinion that US citizens are entitled to due process when dealing with the US government .
I for one would not like to see this kind of thing happen on domestic soil , even if a citizen is employed in the service of an enemy of the republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm of the opinion that US citizens are entitled to due process when dealing with the US government.
I for one would not like to see this kind of thing happen on domestic soil, even if a citizen is employed in the service of an enemy of the republic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509576</id>
	<title>On a server buried deep in NORAD...</title>
	<author>KillaBeave</author>
	<datestamp>1268845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the following line of code just executed.<blockquote><div><p> <tt>hitList.add(new Target("Soulskill"));</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the following line of code just executed .
hitList.add ( new Target ( " Soulskill " ) ) ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the following line of code just executed.
hitList.add(new Target("Soulskill")); 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514296</id>
	<title>This is your sig:</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1268816760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.</i> <br> <br>

You fear a government that provides additional social services, but you think a government that can kill anyone they want to as long as its on foreign soil and not have to tell anyone about it should just be given the benefit of the doubt? <br> <br>

<i>The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? </i> <br> <br>

Many of these people are being killed in Pakistan.  Y'know, a country we are not currently at war with.  How about if we follow Pakistani law in those situations?  Would it be okay if we sent predator drones over the Mexican border to kill drug lords without telling anyone about it?  Are there other countries we can secretly send robotic assassins into?<br> <br>

Why should government be inherently scorned for its domestic policies and inherently trustworthy when dealing with the situation of assassinations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have .
You fear a government that provides additional social services , but you think a government that can kill anyone they want to as long as its on foreign soil and not have to tell anyone about it should just be given the benefit of the doubt ?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan , slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights ?
Many of these people are being killed in Pakistan .
Y'know , a country we are not currently at war with .
How about if we follow Pakistani law in those situations ?
Would it be okay if we sent predator drones over the Mexican border to kill drug lords without telling anyone about it ?
Are there other countries we can secretly send robotic assassins into ?
Why should government be inherently scorned for its domestic policies and inherently trustworthy when dealing with the situation of assassinations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
You fear a government that provides additional social services, but you think a government that can kill anyone they want to as long as its on foreign soil and not have to tell anyone about it should just be given the benefit of the doubt?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?
Many of these people are being killed in Pakistan.
Y'know, a country we are not currently at war with.
How about if we follow Pakistani law in those situations?
Would it be okay if we sent predator drones over the Mexican border to kill drug lords without telling anyone about it?
Are there other countries we can secretly send robotic assassins into?
Why should government be inherently scorned for its domestic policies and inherently trustworthy when dealing with the situation of assassinations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512522</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1268853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys. We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.</p></div><p>Plus it's the extra-judicial killing of American citizens. Currently, our laws support judicial killing but the whole process is open to public scrutiny. Cops are allowed to use lethal force but every action is subject to review and criminal prosecution if the cop acted illegally. While there have been some awful exceptions, generally speaking, representatives of the government can't just kill you for no good reason and get away with it. And our legal system is based on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than send one innocent man to jail. It's meant to error on the side of caution.</p><p>If we were to declare a special case for citizens who are criminals beyond the means of law enforcement to capture, who it might only be possible to kill from afar, whose continued existence threatens the lives of American citizens, the judgement call on killing them should not be held by the same people who do the killing. There should be a chance for public review and accountability. And if we're going to kill them, we'd damn well better not take out a dozen bystanders while we're at it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place. To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.</p></div><p>Yes, a thousand times yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies , so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals , to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys .
We are , after all , talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences were n't so grave.Plus it 's the extra-judicial killing of American citizens .
Currently , our laws support judicial killing but the whole process is open to public scrutiny .
Cops are allowed to use lethal force but every action is subject to review and criminal prosecution if the cop acted illegally .
While there have been some awful exceptions , generally speaking , representatives of the government ca n't just kill you for no good reason and get away with it .
And our legal system is based on the idea that it 's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than send one innocent man to jail .
It 's meant to error on the side of caution.If we were to declare a special case for citizens who are criminals beyond the means of law enforcement to capture , who it might only be possible to kill from afar , whose continued existence threatens the lives of American citizens , the judgement call on killing them should not be held by the same people who do the killing .
There should be a chance for public review and accountability .
And if we 're going to kill them , we 'd damn well better not take out a dozen bystanders while we 're at it.The failure of the " let 's just trust our leaders " model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place .
To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation 's history suggests that someone is n't paying attention to the reality on the ground , and it 's not the ACLU.Yes , a thousand times yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys.
We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.Plus it's the extra-judicial killing of American citizens.
Currently, our laws support judicial killing but the whole process is open to public scrutiny.
Cops are allowed to use lethal force but every action is subject to review and criminal prosecution if the cop acted illegally.
While there have been some awful exceptions, generally speaking, representatives of the government can't just kill you for no good reason and get away with it.
And our legal system is based on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than send one innocent man to jail.
It's meant to error on the side of caution.If we were to declare a special case for citizens who are criminals beyond the means of law enforcement to capture, who it might only be possible to kill from afar, whose continued existence threatens the lives of American citizens, the judgement call on killing them should not be held by the same people who do the killing.
There should be a chance for public review and accountability.
And if we're going to kill them, we'd damn well better not take out a dozen bystanders while we're at it.The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place.
To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.Yes, a thousand times yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511488</id>
	<title>But that is what soldiers do</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1268850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have we become so distanced from the reality of war that we forgotten that the army aims to kill people?
</p><p>You aim, you fire, you kill.
</p><p>That is why we got the police patrolling the streets and not the army. And that is why the army is not allowed out of the barracks except with extreme orders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we become so distanced from the reality of war that we forgotten that the army aims to kill people ?
You aim , you fire , you kill .
That is why we got the police patrolling the streets and not the army .
And that is why the army is not allowed out of the barracks except with extreme orders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we become so distanced from the reality of war that we forgotten that the army aims to kill people?
You aim, you fire, you kill.
That is why we got the police patrolling the streets and not the army.
And that is why the army is not allowed out of the barracks except with extreme orders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510936</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1268849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh please... your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absurd.  It would mean that anyone should be able to own a tank or a nuclear missile.

Clearly the term "militia" was inserted for a reason</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please... your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absurd .
It would mean that anyone should be able to own a tank or a nuclear missile .
Clearly the term " militia " was inserted for a reason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please... your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absurd.
It would mean that anyone should be able to own a tank or a nuclear missile.
Clearly the term "militia" was inserted for a reason</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509820</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1268846160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ACLU isn't asking them not to do this.</p><p>They are asking: what is the legal basis for doing this.</p><p>The government can just reply with "paragraph 13 of section 6, part 9 of statute 9201", assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course. Or they could say "they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to"</p><p>Or just add the ACLU to the list I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACLU is n't asking them not to do this.They are asking : what is the legal basis for doing this.The government can just reply with " paragraph 13 of section 6 , part 9 of statute 9201 " , assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course .
Or they could say " they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone 's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to " Or just add the ACLU to the list I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACLU isn't asking them not to do this.They are asking: what is the legal basis for doing this.The government can just reply with "paragraph 13 of section 6, part 9 of statute 9201", assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course.
Or they could say "they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to"Or just add the ACLU to the list I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510662</id>
	<title>Re:and this will accomplish what?</title>
	<author>kismet666</author>
	<datestamp>1268848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm, volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency's effort to provide medical care? Build schools? Install wells and sewage treatment systems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency 's effort to provide medical care ?
Build schools ?
Install wells and sewage treatment systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency's effort to provide medical care?
Build schools?
Install wells and sewage treatment systems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511474</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ACLU is asking about is the process by which the US government decides that someone is a valid target. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that if someone is an enemy combatant (i.e. carrying weapons or attacking friendly forces) they are fair game. The question becomes what happens when the target is a) not in an area of active operations b)not engaged in armed conflict and c)a US citizen. <br> <br>
Lets take a hypothetical case of a US citizen operating in Yemen who the US government believes to be funding AQ. Is it legal for the president to order the US military to kill this person? It would pretty clearly be illegal to summarily execute them if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACLU is asking about is the process by which the US government decides that someone is a valid target .
I think that pretty much everyone agrees that if someone is an enemy combatant ( i.e .
carrying weapons or attacking friendly forces ) they are fair game .
The question becomes what happens when the target is a ) not in an area of active operations b ) not engaged in armed conflict and c ) a US citizen .
Lets take a hypothetical case of a US citizen operating in Yemen who the US government believes to be funding AQ .
Is it legal for the president to order the US military to kill this person ?
It would pretty clearly be illegal to summarily execute them if they were operating out of New Jersey , but frankly is Yemen any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACLU is asking about is the process by which the US government decides that someone is a valid target.
I think that pretty much everyone agrees that if someone is an enemy combatant (i.e.
carrying weapons or attacking friendly forces) they are fair game.
The question becomes what happens when the target is a) not in an area of active operations b)not engaged in armed conflict and c)a US citizen.
Lets take a hypothetical case of a US citizen operating in Yemen who the US government believes to be funding AQ.
Is it legal for the president to order the US military to kill this person?
It would pretty clearly be illegal to summarily execute them if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511404</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction and other issues</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1268850600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.</p></div><p>So... If I launch a UAV from international waters and fly it to e.g. Miami and drop a missile on your grandmother, that's ok?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.So... If I launch a UAV from international waters and fly it to e.g .
Miami and drop a missile on your grandmother , that 's ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.So... If I launch a UAV from international waters and fly it to e.g.
Miami and drop a missile on your grandmother, that's ok?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510858</id>
	<title>Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU</title>
	<author>DaTroof</author>
	<datestamp>1268849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I imagine they have a problem with it.  As far as I know, they've never tried to defend anyone's right to blow up a skyscraper full of people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I imagine they have a problem with it .
As far as I know , they 've never tried to defend anyone 's right to blow up a skyscraper full of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I imagine they have a problem with it.
As far as I know, they've never tried to defend anyone's right to blow up a skyscraper full of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844</id>
	<title>No torture</title>
	<author>binkless</author>
	<datestamp>1268846280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be amusing to see how the "no waterboarding" crowd defends itself against this.  Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be amusing to see how the " no waterboarding " crowd defends itself against this .
Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be amusing to see how the "no waterboarding" crowd defends itself against this.
Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511168</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is nice if it's black and white.<br>But you should very well know that this is almost never the case.</p><p>sorry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is nice if it 's black and white.But you should very well know that this is almost never the case.sorry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is nice if it's black and white.But you should very well know that this is almost never the case.sorry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31521784</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268922180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?"</p><p>Yes... Yemen smells better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...if they were operating out of New Jersey , but frankly is Yemen any different ? " Yes.. .
Yemen smells better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?"Yes...
Yemen smells better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511498</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>sdguero</author>
	<datestamp>1268850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31518548</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Etriaph</author>
	<datestamp>1268841660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a US citizen, but I'm pretty certain that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse\_Comitatus\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Posse Comitatus</a> [wikipedia.org] is violated by such actions on behalf of your government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a US citizen , but I 'm pretty certain that Posse Comitatus [ wikipedia.org ] is violated by such actions on behalf of your government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a US citizen, but I'm pretty certain that Posse Comitatus [wikipedia.org] is violated by such actions on behalf of your government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513958</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1268858640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many others have asked:</p><p>A) How do we know they have aligned themselves with terrorists?<br>B) What law says that you lose your citizenship if you do?</p><p>And of course as everyone else also pointed out: there is a huge difference between individually targeting a specific individual as  a target vs more traditional warfare (we're an army shooting at the other guy's army).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many others have asked : A ) How do we know they have aligned themselves with terrorists ? B ) What law says that you lose your citizenship if you do ? And of course as everyone else also pointed out : there is a huge difference between individually targeting a specific individual as a target vs more traditional warfare ( we 're an army shooting at the other guy 's army ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many others have asked:A) How do we know they have aligned themselves with terrorists?B) What law says that you lose your citizenship if you do?And of course as everyone else also pointed out: there is a huge difference between individually targeting a specific individual as  a target vs more traditional warfare (we're an army shooting at the other guy's army).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514692</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268818140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"</p></div><p>I agree that this thing - and this particular thing only - is a real problem.</p><p>When a legal combatant kills an enemy on the battlefield, that's not murder, whether done by aiming rifle and shooting, or by pressing a button to fire a missile from UAV, and whether this happens during the "heat of the battle", or is a precalculated strike at key enemy personnel.</p><p>But a civilian shooting at anyone (note: member of armed militia clearly advertising himself as such via an identifiable badge or uniform is not a civilian anymore) - whether enemy combatant with respect to his country, or not - is committing murder, unless doing so in self-defense, and regardless of whether it happens on the territory of U.S., or abroad.</p><p>Oh, and they have contractors piloting UAVs? Seriously?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [ and possibly contractors ] are making targeting decisions , piloting drones and firing missiles " I agree that this thing - and this particular thing only - is a real problem.When a legal combatant kills an enemy on the battlefield , that 's not murder , whether done by aiming rifle and shooting , or by pressing a button to fire a missile from UAV , and whether this happens during the " heat of the battle " , or is a precalculated strike at key enemy personnel.But a civilian shooting at anyone ( note : member of armed militia clearly advertising himself as such via an identifiable badge or uniform is not a civilian anymore ) - whether enemy combatant with respect to his country , or not - is committing murder , unless doing so in self-defense , and regardless of whether it happens on the territory of U.S. , or abroad.Oh , and they have contractors piloting UAVs ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"I agree that this thing - and this particular thing only - is a real problem.When a legal combatant kills an enemy on the battlefield, that's not murder, whether done by aiming rifle and shooting, or by pressing a button to fire a missile from UAV, and whether this happens during the "heat of the battle", or is a precalculated strike at key enemy personnel.But a civilian shooting at anyone (note: member of armed militia clearly advertising himself as such via an identifiable badge or uniform is not a civilian anymore) - whether enemy combatant with respect to his country, or not - is committing murder, unless doing so in self-defense, and regardless of whether it happens on the territory of U.S., or abroad.Oh, and they have contractors piloting UAVs?
Seriously?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</id>
	<title>Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1268846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was a 1N051 with an above TS clearance during the Clinton years.  i taught LoAC stuff.</p><p>If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.  Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)</p><p>Drones/UAVs are NOT ROBOTS, they do not select targets or pull the trigger. By law they cannot.</p><p>Targeted killing is fine in combat.  Popping a cap in Mrs. Merkel's ass right now would be illegal and a bad idea for many reasons.  If we were fighting Germany, she'd be fair game because she is leader of enemy forces (civilian or not).  Germany's minister of arts or some such would NOT be.</p><p>If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason.  A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.</p><p>Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.</p><p>i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.  This smells political.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was a 1N051 with an above TS clearance during the Clinton years .
i taught LoAC stuff.If a US Citizen is an enemy , they are fair game .
Citizenship is a non-issue , enemy combatant trumps citizenship ( and rightly so ) Drones/UAVs are NOT ROBOTS , they do not select targets or pull the trigger .
By law they can not.Targeted killing is fine in combat .
Popping a cap in Mrs. Merkel 's ass right now would be illegal and a bad idea for many reasons .
If we were fighting Germany , she 'd be fair game because she is leader of enemy forces ( civilian or not ) .
Germany 's minister of arts or some such would NOT be.If the Taliban has a bomb factory ( legit target ) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage ( illegal target ) it becomes a legit target , and for good reason .
A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.Civilian ! = Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.i normally cheer for the ACLU , but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons .
This smells political .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was a 1N051 with an above TS clearance during the Clinton years.
i taught LoAC stuff.If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.
Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)Drones/UAVs are NOT ROBOTS, they do not select targets or pull the trigger.
By law they cannot.Targeted killing is fine in combat.
Popping a cap in Mrs. Merkel's ass right now would be illegal and a bad idea for many reasons.
If we were fighting Germany, she'd be fair game because she is leader of enemy forces (civilian or not).
Germany's minister of arts or some such would NOT be.If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason.
A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
This smells political.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510308</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what the hell does the ACLU want? </i></p><p>It's right there in the summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles -- commonly known as "drones" -- for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001."</p></div> </blockquote><p>If these records show that we're only killing "US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", that would be wonderful.  I'd suggest that the ACLU stop there.  If those records show that we're not only killing enemies, then there are serious questions to answer.</p><p>You can't just assume that every non-military US citizen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is helping the insurgents without some data to prove it.  All they're asking for is the data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what the hell does the ACLU want ?
It 's right there in the summary : The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles -- commonly known as " drones " -- for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11 , 2001 .
" If these records show that we 're only killing " US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil " , that would be wonderful .
I 'd suggest that the ACLU stop there .
If those records show that we 're not only killing enemies , then there are serious questions to answer.You ca n't just assume that every non-military US citizen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is helping the insurgents without some data to prove it .
All they 're asking for is the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the hell does the ACLU want?
It's right there in the summary:The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles -- commonly known as "drones" -- for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001.
" If these records show that we're only killing "US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", that would be wonderful.
I'd suggest that the ACLU stop there.
If those records show that we're not only killing enemies, then there are serious questions to answer.You can't just assume that every non-military US citizen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is helping the insurgents without some data to prove it.
All they're asking for is the data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31519176</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.</p><p>Then why is OK for Joe the Electrician to buy a semi-automatic and mow down more people than might be harmed by a pipe bomb?   What about the nuts<br>spiking tylenol with poison?   What about Glenn Beck inciting riots with his puerile bleating?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civilian ! = Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.Then why is OK for Joe the Electrician to buy a semi-automatic and mow down more people than might be harmed by a pipe bomb ?
What about the nutsspiking tylenol with poison ?
What about Glenn Beck inciting riots with his puerile bleating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.Then why is OK for Joe the Electrician to buy a semi-automatic and mow down more people than might be harmed by a pipe bomb?
What about the nutsspiking tylenol with poison?
What about Glenn Beck inciting riots with his puerile bleating?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I completely agree with them, but I thought the articles said that they thought we were targeting US citizens. My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country. I'd like to hope the US isn't just waiting for me to step into mexico to snipe me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I completely agree with them , but I thought the articles said that they thought we were targeting US citizens .
My rights as a citizen of the US should n't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country .
I 'd like to hope the US is n't just waiting for me to step into mexico to snipe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I completely agree with them, but I thought the articles said that they thought we were targeting US citizens.
My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.
I'd like to hope the US isn't just waiting for me to step into mexico to snipe me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514632</id>
	<title>All's Fair....</title>
	<author>inerlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268817900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...In Love and War.<br><br>"legal basis for use of the drones"</htmltext>
<tokenext>...In Love and War .
" legal basis for use of the drones "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...In Love and War.
"legal basis for use of the drones"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510328</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, every time an American soldier is to shoot a hostile guy on a battlefield, he is first to inquire whether the latter has U.S. citizenship?</p><p>I fail to see how drones bring anything new whatsoever to the picture. American citizens who are been fighting for Taliban have been killed by bullets and artillery fired by U.S. personnel, and by bombs and missiles from piloted U.S. planes, long before drones were first used in Afghanistan. It's how this whole "war" thing works, and how it always did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , every time an American soldier is to shoot a hostile guy on a battlefield , he is first to inquire whether the latter has U.S. citizenship ? I fail to see how drones bring anything new whatsoever to the picture .
American citizens who are been fighting for Taliban have been killed by bullets and artillery fired by U.S. personnel , and by bombs and missiles from piloted U.S. planes , long before drones were first used in Afghanistan .
It 's how this whole " war " thing works , and how it always did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, every time an American soldier is to shoot a hostile guy on a battlefield, he is first to inquire whether the latter has U.S. citizenship?I fail to see how drones bring anything new whatsoever to the picture.
American citizens who are been fighting for Taliban have been killed by bullets and artillery fired by U.S. personnel, and by bombs and missiles from piloted U.S. planes, long before drones were first used in Afghanistan.
It's how this whole "war" thing works, and how it always did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510600</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>quizzicus</author>
	<datestamp>1268848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a member, I'm okay with my organization of half a million spending more time on all the other amendments when there's an organization of 4 million (the NRA) that focuses on the second amendment alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a member , I 'm okay with my organization of half a million spending more time on all the other amendments when there 's an organization of 4 million ( the NRA ) that focuses on the second amendment alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a member, I'm okay with my organization of half a million spending more time on all the other amendments when there's an organization of 4 million (the NRA) that focuses on the second amendment alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511330</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?"</p><p>They are looking for some reasonable evaluation of the part of your sentence expressed in the word "if" at the start.  How do you know?  What goes into the decision?  What critical evidence is sufficient to justify the deadly action?</p><p>If you want to skip the part where we consider whether or not the statement is valid and just say "US Citizen X is employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", followed by "KABOOM!", fine, but even if the target is accused of the crime of treason such a summary execution isn't exactly the action of a nation of laws and with representatives that are supposed to be bound by those laws.</p><p>What it boils down to is pretty simple: even before soldiers are tossed onto the battlefield with a gun to shoot at enemies there are these things they are taught called the "rules of engagement".  There are RULES to shooting at enemies.  We know what those rules are for a regular soldier, and they fall under broader laws and are tweaked within those laws to satisfy immediate operational goals while not compromising international law regarding warfare.  They are meant to minimize such things as civilian deaths, friendly fire, and so on.  They are often pretty strict rules and soldiers can be brought up on disciplinary charges and/or legal charges if they break them, up to and including war crimes.</p><p>So, what the !#\%W!$! are the rules for getting shot at by drones?  What rules are they operating under?  That's what the ACLU is asking for.  You're basically implying that U.S. citizens on foreign soil accused of treason can be summarily executed without trial.   Is that okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ?
" They are looking for some reasonable evaluation of the part of your sentence expressed in the word " if " at the start .
How do you know ?
What goes into the decision ?
What critical evidence is sufficient to justify the deadly action ? If you want to skip the part where we consider whether or not the statement is valid and just say " US Citizen X is employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil " , followed by " KABOOM !
" , fine , but even if the target is accused of the crime of treason such a summary execution is n't exactly the action of a nation of laws and with representatives that are supposed to be bound by those laws.What it boils down to is pretty simple : even before soldiers are tossed onto the battlefield with a gun to shoot at enemies there are these things they are taught called the " rules of engagement " .
There are RULES to shooting at enemies .
We know what those rules are for a regular soldier , and they fall under broader laws and are tweaked within those laws to satisfy immediate operational goals while not compromising international law regarding warfare .
They are meant to minimize such things as civilian deaths , friendly fire , and so on .
They are often pretty strict rules and soldiers can be brought up on disciplinary charges and/or legal charges if they break them , up to and including war crimes.So , what the ! # \ % W ! $ !
are the rules for getting shot at by drones ?
What rules are they operating under ?
That 's what the ACLU is asking for .
You 're basically implying that U.S. citizens on foreign soil accused of treason can be summarily executed without trial .
Is that okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?
"They are looking for some reasonable evaluation of the part of your sentence expressed in the word "if" at the start.
How do you know?
What goes into the decision?
What critical evidence is sufficient to justify the deadly action?If you want to skip the part where we consider whether or not the statement is valid and just say "US Citizen X is employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", followed by "KABOOM!
", fine, but even if the target is accused of the crime of treason such a summary execution isn't exactly the action of a nation of laws and with representatives that are supposed to be bound by those laws.What it boils down to is pretty simple: even before soldiers are tossed onto the battlefield with a gun to shoot at enemies there are these things they are taught called the "rules of engagement".
There are RULES to shooting at enemies.
We know what those rules are for a regular soldier, and they fall under broader laws and are tweaked within those laws to satisfy immediate operational goals while not compromising international law regarding warfare.
They are meant to minimize such things as civilian deaths, friendly fire, and so on.
They are often pretty strict rules and soldiers can be brought up on disciplinary charges and/or legal charges if they break them, up to and including war crimes.So, what the !#\%W!$!
are the rules for getting shot at by drones?
What rules are they operating under?
That's what the ACLU is asking for.
You're basically implying that U.S. citizens on foreign soil accused of treason can be summarily executed without trial.
Is that okay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516144</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268823900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ACLU wants the prevent the targeting of individuals, but it's okay to bomb the enemy locations and kill 10's of thousands of people, worked well in WW2, especially in Dresden.  Someone would save a lot of money that way, just use bigger bombs instead of those expensive drones and smart bombs.</p><p>And those two biggest military disasters were Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001, both were military attacks in the course of a war, just because the American's didn't get it does not make those two attacks any less part of their respective wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACLU wants the prevent the targeting of individuals , but it 's okay to bomb the enemy locations and kill 10 's of thousands of people , worked well in WW2 , especially in Dresden .
Someone would save a lot of money that way , just use bigger bombs instead of those expensive drones and smart bombs.And those two biggest military disasters were Dec. 7 , 1941 and Sept. 11 , 2001 , both were military attacks in the course of a war , just because the American 's did n't get it does not make those two attacks any less part of their respective wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACLU wants the prevent the targeting of individuals, but it's okay to bomb the enemy locations and kill 10's of thousands of people, worked well in WW2, especially in Dresden.
Someone would save a lot of money that way, just use bigger bombs instead of those expensive drones and smart bombs.And those two biggest military disasters were Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001, both were military attacks in the course of a war, just because the American's didn't get it does not make those two attacks any less part of their respective wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31519010</id>
	<title>living in us and</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>using drones is cowardly, and can easily miss and kill innocents. some american indiginous would only kill a man after they actually touched them.
how many americans are willing to die for this cause we are fighting for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>using drones is cowardly , and can easily miss and kill innocents .
some american indiginous would only kill a man after they actually touched them .
how many americans are willing to die for this cause we are fighting for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using drones is cowardly, and can easily miss and kill innocents.
some american indiginous would only kill a man after they actually touched them.
how many americans are willing to die for this cause we are fighting for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511090</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268849820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, but your last sentence is a bit of a stretch.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This smells political.</p></div><p>They aren't defending anyone (yet).  They are just asking "what did you mean by that part about US citizens...?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , but your last sentence is a bit of a stretch.i normally cheer for the ACLU , but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons .
This smells political.They are n't defending anyone ( yet ) .
They are just asking " what did you mean by that part about US citizens... ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, but your last sentence is a bit of a stretch.i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
This smells political.They aren't defending anyone (yet).
They are just asking "what did you mean by that part about US citizens...?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509424</id>
	<title>Fishing expedition</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1268844660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DoD won't give up an operational details that they've not already given to the press.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DoD wo n't give up an operational details that they 've not already given to the press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DoD won't give up an operational details that they've not already given to the press.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511680</id>
	<title>No Skynet jokes???</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1268851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who are you, and how did you get on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are you , and how did you get on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are you, and how did you get on /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510918</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best. It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.</p><p>But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial. In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by. WTF?</p><p>Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive. But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.</p><p>How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.</p></div><p>Oh jesus christ, get a life. YOU go over there and spend a year on the ground, and see if you come back with that same attitude. Really? You expect us to not shoot at the guy that just shot an RPG at us, run over there and put him in handcuffs, and hope his buddies don't shoot us in the face?</p><p>Yes, some of these asshats may have been "citizens" at one point, but when you pick up arms against your own fucking country, all bets are off.</p><p>How is using a UAV any different than using an aircraft to drop bombs, other than the fact that it's a more accurate and reliable platform, and the guys running it get a lot more rest, and are a lot more clear headed to make those decisions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best .
It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now , without any trial .
In several cases , surrounding civilians also become causalities , even though they may just be passers-by .
WTF ? Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq , nobody wanted him alive .
But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building , who may have had no choice but to be there.How is a government any better than the terrorists then ?
Like many say , if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage , then the terrorists have already won and there 's no difference between us and them.Oh jesus christ , get a life .
YOU go over there and spend a year on the ground , and see if you come back with that same attitude .
Really ? You expect us to not shoot at the guy that just shot an RPG at us , run over there and put him in handcuffs , and hope his buddies do n't shoot us in the face ? Yes , some of these asshats may have been " citizens " at one point , but when you pick up arms against your own fucking country , all bets are off.How is using a UAV any different than using an aircraft to drop bombs , other than the fact that it 's a more accurate and reliable platform , and the guys running it get a lot more rest , and are a lot more clear headed to make those decisions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best.
It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial.
In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by.
WTF?Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive.
But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.How is a government any better than the terrorists then?
Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.Oh jesus christ, get a life.
YOU go over there and spend a year on the ground, and see if you come back with that same attitude.
Really? You expect us to not shoot at the guy that just shot an RPG at us, run over there and put him in handcuffs, and hope his buddies don't shoot us in the face?Yes, some of these asshats may have been "citizens" at one point, but when you pick up arms against your own fucking country, all bets are off.How is using a UAV any different than using an aircraft to drop bombs, other than the fact that it's a more accurate and reliable platform, and the guys running it get a lot more rest, and are a lot more clear headed to make those decisions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510246</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me spell something very important out.<br>WAR IS NOT FAIR! it is not nice, it is not a time where soldiers only fight soldiers. We used to fight like that, soldiers would line up across from eachother on a battlefield and shoot at the enemy. And we know how that worked out.<br>Oh, and you remember a little thing called the bombing of the twin towers? how many innocents died then? I pray for the souls of those innocents lost when Zarqawi was taken out, but i believe it was worth it to remove him.<br>If the drones can keep our soldiers away from harm, then I say we let them do their job because their effective at it. And technology has come such a long way from what it was. we used to have to drop thousands of bombs on whole cities where we thought enemy leaders were hiding. Now we just shoot a missile at the building they are in. Seems like a good trade when you think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me spell something very important out.WAR IS NOT FAIR !
it is not nice , it is not a time where soldiers only fight soldiers .
We used to fight like that , soldiers would line up across from eachother on a battlefield and shoot at the enemy .
And we know how that worked out.Oh , and you remember a little thing called the bombing of the twin towers ?
how many innocents died then ?
I pray for the souls of those innocents lost when Zarqawi was taken out , but i believe it was worth it to remove him.If the drones can keep our soldiers away from harm , then I say we let them do their job because their effective at it .
And technology has come such a long way from what it was .
we used to have to drop thousands of bombs on whole cities where we thought enemy leaders were hiding .
Now we just shoot a missile at the building they are in .
Seems like a good trade when you think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me spell something very important out.WAR IS NOT FAIR!
it is not nice, it is not a time where soldiers only fight soldiers.
We used to fight like that, soldiers would line up across from eachother on a battlefield and shoot at the enemy.
And we know how that worked out.Oh, and you remember a little thing called the bombing of the twin towers?
how many innocents died then?
I pray for the souls of those innocents lost when Zarqawi was taken out, but i believe it was worth it to remove him.If the drones can keep our soldiers away from harm, then I say we let them do their job because their effective at it.
And technology has come such a long way from what it was.
we used to have to drop thousands of bombs on whole cities where we thought enemy leaders were hiding.
Now we just shoot a missile at the building they are in.
Seems like a good trade when you think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510154</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>dyfet</author>
	<datestamp>1268847240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a concept in the U.S. constitution already for such circumstances.  If they are acting against people in or of the United States, it is called Treason, Section 3, Article 3, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."</p><p>One thing we learn from this is that treason (and perhaps even so called "enemy combatants") is the exclusive domain of the congress, not the executive branch.  We also learn there remains specific due process rights U.S. citizens have even if they choose to take up arms against the United States.  Now, if some U.S. citizen is "employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", but his or her actions do not involve waging war against the United States (or citizens of), then the matter is one for the laws of the nation involved to handle, not the United States.  Or do you similarly suggest that the Chinese government should be allowed to try and execute dissidents in the United States if they choose? Perhaps Chinese drones should be allowed to freely roam American skies looking for those they decide are enemies of their state too?  If one state claims this right to act lawless without it being repudiated, then all states by extension can certainly claim to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a concept in the U.S. constitution already for such circumstances .
If they are acting against people in or of the United States , it is called Treason , Section 3 , Article 3 , " Treason against the United States , shall consist only in levying War against them , or in adhering to their Enemies , giving them Aid and Comfort .
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act , or on Confession in open Court .
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason , but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood , or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted .
" One thing we learn from this is that treason ( and perhaps even so called " enemy combatants " ) is the exclusive domain of the congress , not the executive branch .
We also learn there remains specific due process rights U.S. citizens have even if they choose to take up arms against the United States .
Now , if some U.S. citizen is " employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil " , but his or her actions do not involve waging war against the United States ( or citizens of ) , then the matter is one for the laws of the nation involved to handle , not the United States .
Or do you similarly suggest that the Chinese government should be allowed to try and execute dissidents in the United States if they choose ?
Perhaps Chinese drones should be allowed to freely roam American skies looking for those they decide are enemies of their state too ?
If one state claims this right to act lawless without it being repudiated , then all states by extension can certainly claim to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a concept in the U.S. constitution already for such circumstances.
If they are acting against people in or of the United States, it is called Treason, Section 3, Article 3, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
"One thing we learn from this is that treason (and perhaps even so called "enemy combatants") is the exclusive domain of the congress, not the executive branch.
We also learn there remains specific due process rights U.S. citizens have even if they choose to take up arms against the United States.
Now, if some U.S. citizen is "employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", but his or her actions do not involve waging war against the United States (or citizens of), then the matter is one for the laws of the nation involved to handle, not the United States.
Or do you similarly suggest that the Chinese government should be allowed to try and execute dissidents in the United States if they choose?
Perhaps Chinese drones should be allowed to freely roam American skies looking for those they decide are enemies of their state too?
If one state claims this right to act lawless without it being repudiated, then all states by extension can certainly claim to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511634</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1268851260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from the actual filing:</p><p>Factual Background.<br>12. Since at least 2002, the United States government has used unmanned<br>aerial vehicles to conduct &ldquo;targeted killings&rdquo; overseas. Many of the drone strikes have<br>taken place on bona fide battlefields&mdash;for example, in Afghanistan. In 2002, however,<br>the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Yemen that killed several individuals including a<br>U.S. citizen. According to news reports, the frequency of drone strikes has increased<br>significantly over the last few years, and in particular in the last year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the actual filing : Factual Background.12 .
Since at least 2002 , the United States government has used unmannedaerial vehicles to conduct    targeted killings    overseas .
Many of the drone strikes havetaken place on bona fide battlefields    for example , in Afghanistan .
In 2002 , however,the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Yemen that killed several individuals including aU.S .
citizen. According to news reports , the frequency of drone strikes has increasedsignificantly over the last few years , and in particular in the last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the actual filing:Factual Background.12.
Since at least 2002, the United States government has used unmannedaerial vehicles to conduct “targeted killings” overseas.
Many of the drone strikes havetaken place on bona fide battlefields—for example, in Afghanistan.
In 2002, however,the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Yemen that killed several individuals including aU.S.
citizen. According to news reports, the frequency of drone strikes has increasedsignificantly over the last few years, and in particular in the last year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513986</id>
	<title>Re:Oddly Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268858760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The drones are also being represented by the ACLU because they are claiming the Drones have a moral stance of not believing in murder, since they only signed on to military contracts to be recon vehicles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The drones are also being represented by the ACLU because they are claiming the Drones have a moral stance of not believing in murder , since they only signed on to military contracts to be recon vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drones are also being represented by the ACLU because they are claiming the Drones have a moral stance of not believing in murder, since they only signed on to military contracts to be recon vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511288</id>
	<title>Skynet...</title>
	<author>bluie-</author>
	<datestamp>1268850240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is no joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is no joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is no joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511790</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>SubstormGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the <b> <em>American</em> </b> Civil Liberties Union.</p></div><p>It is easy to understand, once you realize that they are on the other side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the government having too much power , but I 'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens .
What 's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens does n't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.It is easy to understand , once you realize that they are on the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens.
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the  American  Civil Liberties Union.It is easy to understand, once you realize that they are on the other side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510754</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, since I'm not over in Afganistan, with my name changed to "Fred the American" in Arabic, training on old Russian made weapons and "kitchen improvised plastic explosives", but instead working in the Midwestern US-- I think my odds of being blown away by a preditor drone are much less than an idiot in a Prius running a stop sign while having his gas pedal get stuck.  Which, of course is almost impossible too.</p><p>So no worries here about geting "droned to death" here, dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , since I 'm not over in Afganistan , with my name changed to " Fred the American " in Arabic , training on old Russian made weapons and " kitchen improvised plastic explosives " , but instead working in the Midwestern US-- I think my odds of being blown away by a preditor drone are much less than an idiot in a Prius running a stop sign while having his gas pedal get stuck .
Which , of course is almost impossible too.So no worries here about geting " droned to death " here , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, since I'm not over in Afganistan, with my name changed to "Fred the American" in Arabic, training on old Russian made weapons and "kitchen improvised plastic explosives", but instead working in the Midwestern US-- I think my odds of being blown away by a preditor drone are much less than an idiot in a Prius running a stop sign while having his gas pedal get stuck.
Which, of course is almost impossible too.So no worries here about geting "droned to death" here, dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515796</id>
	<title>Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>TomRC</author>
	<datestamp>1268822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not weighing in on either the pro- or anti- "killing from drones" question.</p><p>But I would like to point out that drones create an opportunity that is perhaps in a blindspot for many in and out of the military.</p><p>When a soldier goes into a firefight, why must he shoot to kill?  Because the other side is shooting to kill him.  A remote controlled drone breaks that model.  The enemy cannot kill the drone operator, they can only damage the drone - a matter of expense rather than life or death.</p><p>In the sort of "war" we're now in, with enemies who hide amongst their own families and neighbors, the chances are very high that you create one new enemy for every enemy you kill, and several for every civilian.  So with drones, the military value equation is strongly tipped toward NOT killing, if you can achieve your objective in other ways.</p><p>Instead of blowing up that car full of insurgent leaders, disable it in the middle of the desert by blowing a hole through the engine block.  Develop knock-out gas bombs, or a fragmentation bomb that injects tiny frozen pellets of a knock out drug.  THEN send in your troops, or even a drone "paddy wagon".  Taze that guy who MAY have a gun, then have the drone roll over and inject him with a sedative.</p><p>Yeah, I know, it sounds all "liberal, peace-nik, kumbaya-ish".  But if it does a better job than bullets and bombs, without risking your soldiers - why not?  You can always follow up with lethal force if it doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not weighing in on either the pro- or anti- " killing from drones " question.But I would like to point out that drones create an opportunity that is perhaps in a blindspot for many in and out of the military.When a soldier goes into a firefight , why must he shoot to kill ?
Because the other side is shooting to kill him .
A remote controlled drone breaks that model .
The enemy can not kill the drone operator , they can only damage the drone - a matter of expense rather than life or death.In the sort of " war " we 're now in , with enemies who hide amongst their own families and neighbors , the chances are very high that you create one new enemy for every enemy you kill , and several for every civilian .
So with drones , the military value equation is strongly tipped toward NOT killing , if you can achieve your objective in other ways.Instead of blowing up that car full of insurgent leaders , disable it in the middle of the desert by blowing a hole through the engine block .
Develop knock-out gas bombs , or a fragmentation bomb that injects tiny frozen pellets of a knock out drug .
THEN send in your troops , or even a drone " paddy wagon " .
Taze that guy who MAY have a gun , then have the drone roll over and inject him with a sedative.Yeah , I know , it sounds all " liberal , peace-nik , kumbaya-ish " .
But if it does a better job than bullets and bombs , without risking your soldiers - why not ?
You can always follow up with lethal force if it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not weighing in on either the pro- or anti- "killing from drones" question.But I would like to point out that drones create an opportunity that is perhaps in a blindspot for many in and out of the military.When a soldier goes into a firefight, why must he shoot to kill?
Because the other side is shooting to kill him.
A remote controlled drone breaks that model.
The enemy cannot kill the drone operator, they can only damage the drone - a matter of expense rather than life or death.In the sort of "war" we're now in, with enemies who hide amongst their own families and neighbors, the chances are very high that you create one new enemy for every enemy you kill, and several for every civilian.
So with drones, the military value equation is strongly tipped toward NOT killing, if you can achieve your objective in other ways.Instead of blowing up that car full of insurgent leaders, disable it in the middle of the desert by blowing a hole through the engine block.
Develop knock-out gas bombs, or a fragmentation bomb that injects tiny frozen pellets of a knock out drug.
THEN send in your troops, or even a drone "paddy wagon".
Taze that guy who MAY have a gun, then have the drone roll over and inject him with a sedative.Yeah, I know, it sounds all "liberal, peace-nik, kumbaya-ish".
But if it does a better job than bullets and bombs, without risking your soldiers - why not?
You can always follow up with lethal force if it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511212</id>
	<title>There is no legal authority here!</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1268850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What legal basis?  This is war.  The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply since this is not a war against a country.  It doesn't matter how we get them.  It only matters that we obliterate them before they obliterate us.  We just use the rules they chose to set.  They must loose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What legal basis ?
This is war .
The Geneva Convention does n't even apply since this is not a war against a country .
It does n't matter how we get them .
It only matters that we obliterate them before they obliterate us .
We just use the rules they chose to set .
They must loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What legal basis?
This is war.
The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply since this is not a war against a country.
It doesn't matter how we get them.
It only matters that we obliterate them before they obliterate us.
We just use the rules they chose to set.
They must loose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509758</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction and other issues</title>
	<author>Pinhedd</author>
	<datestamp>1268845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was having this exact discussion with my family a few days ago. The only difference between a market full of militants and a market full of civilians is the number of guns scavenged from their corpses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was having this exact discussion with my family a few days ago .
The only difference between a market full of militants and a market full of civilians is the number of guns scavenged from their corpses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was having this exact discussion with my family a few days ago.
The only difference between a market full of militants and a market full of civilians is the number of guns scavenged from their corpses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509666</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>bdsesq</author>
	<datestamp>1268845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".</p><p>Somehow I have trouble generating sympathy for anyone who gets hurt standing next to Osama or Im-a-dinner-jacket when they get taken out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ALCU is probably looking for " due process of law " .Somehow I have trouble generating sympathy for anyone who gets hurt standing next to Osama or Im-a-dinner-jacket when they get taken out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".Somehow I have trouble generating sympathy for anyone who gets hurt standing next to Osama or Im-a-dinner-jacket when they get taken out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510434</id>
	<title>No SKYNET jokes?</title>
	<author>hoboroadie</author>
	<datestamp>1268848020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510420</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to explain the "advanced payloads that identify threats over civilians"? Because that sounds like a level of automation that would worth getting interested in - you know, weapons that choose their own targets based on threat level?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to explain the " advanced payloads that identify threats over civilians " ?
Because that sounds like a level of automation that would worth getting interested in - you know , weapons that choose their own targets based on threat level ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to explain the "advanced payloads that identify threats over civilians"?
Because that sounds like a level of automation that would worth getting interested in - you know, weapons that choose their own targets based on threat level?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>drexlor</author>
	<datestamp>1268845080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>UAVs allow operators to make intelligent decisions because they are not in the heat of battle, change shifts every hour, have someone behind them helping them make decisions, and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians.  There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UAVs allow operators to make intelligent decisions because they are not in the heat of battle , change shifts every hour , have someone behind them helping them make decisions , and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians .
There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UAVs allow operators to make intelligent decisions because they are not in the heat of battle, change shifts every hour, have someone behind them helping them make decisions, and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians.
There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509606</id>
	<title>Re:Amicus Curiae</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1268845380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, that'll be a fun meeting.

"Fellow lawyers, honored celebrity guests and bleeding heart liberals. It is so good to see so many of you in one room. We are gathered here today to stab at the heart of the neo-con agenda... hey, what's that droning noise?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , that 'll be a fun meeting .
" Fellow lawyers , honored celebrity guests and bleeding heart liberals .
It is so good to see so many of you in one room .
We are gathered here today to stab at the heart of the neo-con agenda... hey , what 's that droning noise ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, that'll be a fun meeting.
"Fellow lawyers, honored celebrity guests and bleeding heart liberals.
It is so good to see so many of you in one room.
We are gathered here today to stab at the heart of the neo-con agenda... hey, what's that droning noise?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31518896</id>
	<title>Just checking...</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1268844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of targeting US citizens, we all understand why the members of the Taliban are legitmate targets, right?  I mean look, they nearly eradicated the heroin trade in Afganistan.  NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE BUSINESS!  Bada bing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of targeting US citizens , we all understand why the members of the Taliban are legitmate targets , right ?
I mean look , they nearly eradicated the heroin trade in Afganistan .
NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE BUSINESS !
Bada bing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of targeting US citizens, we all understand why the members of the Taliban are legitmate targets, right?
I mean look, they nearly eradicated the heroin trade in Afganistan.
NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE BUSINESS!
Bada bing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the  American  Civil Liberties Union.</p></div><p>IMHO, they have no right to call themselves a "civil liberties union" as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to <a href="http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice\_prisoners-rights\_drug-law-reform\_immigrants-rights/second-amendment" title="aclu.org" rel="nofollow">cling</a> [aclu.org] to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a "collective" right.  They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that <i>"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."</i>
</p><p>What a bunch of hypocrites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens does n't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.IMHO , they have no right to call themselves a " civil liberties union " as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to cling [ aclu.org ] to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a " collective " right .
They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that " In our view , neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue .
" What a bunch of hypocrites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the  American  Civil Liberties Union.IMHO, they have no right to call themselves a "civil liberties union" as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to cling [aclu.org] to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a "collective" right.
They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
"
What a bunch of hypocrites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them.  Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period.  As for "the criminals have them."  No, they don't.  Anyone gets caught with a gun, it's to jail with them, end of story.</p><p>And for the Americans who say "But we need guns to defend ourselves against the government!"  Riiight.  Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens.  First of all, I think that's called "treason".  Second... well someone did a test run of that for us, it was called "Wako, TX".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I have to agree with them on this one , and I used to be a big donor to them .
Countries , like the one I live in now , where people ca n't own guns are safer , period .
As for " the criminals have them .
" No , they do n't .
Anyone gets caught with a gun , it 's to jail with them , end of story.And for the Americans who say " But we need guns to defend ourselves against the government !
" Riiight .
Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government , just wait and see what happens .
First of all , I think that 's called " treason " .
Second... well someone did a test run of that for us , it was called " Wako , TX " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them.
Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period.
As for "the criminals have them.
"  No, they don't.
Anyone gets caught with a gun, it's to jail with them, end of story.And for the Americans who say "But we need guns to defend ourselves against the government!
"  Riiight.
Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens.
First of all, I think that's called "treason".
Second... well someone did a test run of that for us, it was called "Wako, TX".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510684</id>
	<title>Re:and this will accomplish what?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan.</i></p><p>US Born != US citizen.  It might surprise you to learn that there are many Pakistan born US citizens.  Should going home to visit your family make you a legitimate target for a UAV?</p><p>There's also missionaries, womens rights workers, etc., etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan.US Born ! = US citizen .
It might surprise you to learn that there are many Pakistan born US citizens .
Should going home to visit your family make you a legitimate target for a UAV ? There 's also missionaries , womens rights workers , etc. , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan.US Born != US citizen.
It might surprise you to learn that there are many Pakistan born US citizens.
Should going home to visit your family make you a legitimate target for a UAV?There's also missionaries, womens rights workers, etc., etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512874</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1268854740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I would expect anything that they do to be labeled TS w/ some other acronym indicating who has access to that information.  Even if no one officially knows what that acronym means they should know they don't have access to that document.</p><p>  If I came across a document at work labeled "Above Top Secret" I'd probably have a laugh and show it to all my coworkers.  If I found a document labeled TS/ATS I would of course immediately call my security officer and made sure that the document was properly secured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I would expect anything that they do to be labeled TS w/ some other acronym indicating who has access to that information .
Even if no one officially knows what that acronym means they should know they do n't have access to that document .
If I came across a document at work labeled " Above Top Secret " I 'd probably have a laugh and show it to all my coworkers .
If I found a document labeled TS/ATS I would of course immediately call my security officer and made sure that the document was properly secured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I would expect anything that they do to be labeled TS w/ some other acronym indicating who has access to that information.
Even if no one officially knows what that acronym means they should know they don't have access to that document.
If I came across a document at work labeled "Above Top Secret" I'd probably have a laugh and show it to all my coworkers.
If I found a document labeled TS/ATS I would of course immediately call my security officer and made sure that the document was properly secured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511016</id>
	<title>Robust code</title>
	<author>inigopete</author>
	<datestamp>1268849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous... This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles</i> </p><p>However, given that all military programming should conform to the Fully Formal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">MIL-STD-948</a> [wikipedia.org] standard, it should be a good deal more robust than most civilian software.</p><p>Although, as you say, hardware issues and operator error are another matter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...risks of human and machine error are obvious , and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous... This must give pause to anyone who 's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles However , given that all military programming should conform to the Fully Formal MIL-STD-948 [ wikipedia.org ] standard , it should be a good deal more robust than most civilian software.Although , as you say , hardware issues and operator error are another matter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous... This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles However, given that all military programming should conform to the Fully Formal MIL-STD-948 [wikipedia.org] standard, it should be a good deal more robust than most civilian software.Although, as you say, hardware issues and operator error are another matter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509936</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, "this Republic" hasn't declared war on anyone but Saddam Hussein, who is now dead and deposed.  I doubt you can define who our "enemies" even are.</p><p>Secondly, US Citizens retain their rights regardless of their location or whether the military feels like assassinating them.  The Constitution defines treason for a reason.</p><p>And, yes, I'm sure the ACLU and anyone else with half a brain objects to the US military engaging in undeclared warfare targeting US citizens.</p><p>Did you eat lead paint as a child, or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , " this Republic " has n't declared war on anyone but Saddam Hussein , who is now dead and deposed .
I doubt you can define who our " enemies " even are.Secondly , US Citizens retain their rights regardless of their location or whether the military feels like assassinating them .
The Constitution defines treason for a reason.And , yes , I 'm sure the ACLU and anyone else with half a brain objects to the US military engaging in undeclared warfare targeting US citizens.Did you eat lead paint as a child , or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, "this Republic" hasn't declared war on anyone but Saddam Hussein, who is now dead and deposed.
I doubt you can define who our "enemies" even are.Secondly, US Citizens retain their rights regardless of their location or whether the military feels like assassinating them.
The Constitution defines treason for a reason.And, yes, I'm sure the ACLU and anyone else with half a brain objects to the US military engaging in undeclared warfare targeting US citizens.Did you eat lead paint as a child, or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514780</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, the geneva convention protections always apply. You are either a soldier or a civilian. A soldier is fair game on the battlefield, but cannot be punished afterwards. A civilian is the other way around. This is the plain language of the Geneva Convention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , the geneva convention protections always apply .
You are either a soldier or a civilian .
A soldier is fair game on the battlefield , but can not be punished afterwards .
A civilian is the other way around .
This is the plain language of the Geneva Convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, the geneva convention protections always apply.
You are either a soldier or a civilian.
A soldier is fair game on the battlefield, but cannot be punished afterwards.
A civilian is the other way around.
This is the plain language of the Geneva Convention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509932</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.</p></div><p>Hi.  I'm a US Citizen.  I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies.  But you can't kill me without a <i>fair trial</i> because I'm a US Citizen.</p><p>Something seems wrong with this picture.</p><p>I am not sure that US Citizenship protects you against your own actions that may make you an enemy target due to you joining a military at war with the US.  I'm not saying that necessarily is happening her, since of course I didn't read the article, but your statement seems to be painting some pretty broad strokes, as if no US Citizen can ever be killed ("executed" - a much more sensationalist term) by "the government" (the military, etc) without their rights and a court trial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.Hi .
I 'm a US Citizen .
I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies .
But you ca n't kill me without a fair trial because I 'm a US Citizen.Something seems wrong with this picture.I am not sure that US Citizenship protects you against your own actions that may make you an enemy target due to you joining a military at war with the US .
I 'm not saying that necessarily is happening her , since of course I did n't read the article , but your statement seems to be painting some pretty broad strokes , as if no US Citizen can ever be killed ( " executed " - a much more sensationalist term ) by " the government " ( the military , etc ) without their rights and a court trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.Hi.
I'm a US Citizen.
I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies.
But you can't kill me without a fair trial because I'm a US Citizen.Something seems wrong with this picture.I am not sure that US Citizenship protects you against your own actions that may make you an enemy target due to you joining a military at war with the US.
I'm not saying that necessarily is happening her, since of course I didn't read the article, but your statement seems to be painting some pretty broad strokes, as if no US Citizen can ever be killed ("executed" - a much more sensationalist term) by "the government" (the military, etc) without their rights and a court trial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510956</id>
	<title>define:treason</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1268849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext># a crime that undermines the offender's government <br>
# disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior <br>
# treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal<br>
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

<br> <br>
WTF are you guys talking about?  Are we gonna fly drones around and toss nets on these guys or attack them like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth?  Come on, be reasonable, it's fucking war, choose your side and die for it.  <br> <br>You really think these bastards who fight for Iraq expect to be flown back to the states, they are prepared to die for it or they are dumber than I could imagine.</htmltext>
<tokenext># a crime that undermines the offender 's government # disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior # treachery : an act of deliberate betrayal wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn WTF are you guys talking about ?
Are we gon na fly drones around and toss nets on these guys or attack them like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth ?
Come on , be reasonable , it 's fucking war , choose your side and die for it .
You really think these bastards who fight for Iraq expect to be flown back to the states , they are prepared to die for it or they are dumber than I could imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext># a crime that undermines the offender's government 
# disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior 
# treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 
WTF are you guys talking about?
Are we gonna fly drones around and toss nets on these guys or attack them like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth?
Come on, be reasonable, it's fucking war, choose your side and die for it.
You really think these bastards who fight for Iraq expect to be flown back to the states, they are prepared to die for it or they are dumber than I could imagine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512222</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does the ACLU get robots, death rays, and metals? Poor, poor US military industrial complex. Or did you mean Lawyers v Robots? Then the lawyers are on the offensive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the ACLU get robots , death rays , and metals ?
Poor , poor US military industrial complex .
Or did you mean Lawyers v Robots ?
Then the lawyers are on the offensive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the ACLU get robots, death rays, and metals?
Poor, poor US military industrial complex.
Or did you mean Lawyers v Robots?
Then the lawyers are on the offensive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510036</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1268846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't want to eat a Hellfire or similar, they shouldn't be consorting with the opposing forces or in their operational area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't want to eat a Hellfire or similar , they should n't be consorting with the opposing forces or in their operational area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't want to eat a Hellfire or similar, they shouldn't be consorting with the opposing forces or in their operational area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510022</id>
	<title>Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?</p></div><p>Yeah! Yo tell'em Bubba!</p><p>The stinkin Japs Bombed Pearl Harbor and I'm still pissed about that! Those two nukes weren't enough for 'em! Or those damn Viet Cong! We need to go back there and finish the job! </p><p>So what if we have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of more lives! - It's payback baby! </p><p>And those sons of bitches who got the two towers, well, we'll make them pay by killing every last innocent civilian in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and wherever else. That'll show that they can't fuck with the USA! - USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!</p><p>Eventually, we gotta bomb the shit out of the South - Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virgina for start'n the Civil War! Fucking hicks! Why they fired FIRST on Ft. Sumpter! And we lost hundreds of thousands of American lives because of those Southerners! We gotta get more payback! Yes siree!</p><p>We're the goddamn beacon of Freedom in the World and we'll bomb the fuck out of you if you don't like it!</p><p>USA! USA! USA! </p><p>You betcha!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them , or is that OK ? Yeah !
Yo tell'em Bubba ! The stinkin Japs Bombed Pearl Harbor and I 'm still pissed about that !
Those two nukes were n't enough for 'em !
Or those damn Viet Cong !
We need to go back there and finish the job !
So what if we have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of more lives !
- It 's payback baby !
And those sons of bitches who got the two towers , well , we 'll make them pay by killing every last innocent civilian in Afghanistan , Iraq , Pakistan , and wherever else .
That 'll show that they ca n't fuck with the USA !
- USA !
USA ! USA !
USA ! USA ! Eventually , we got ta bomb the shit out of the South - Georgia , the Carolinas , and Virgina for start'n the Civil War !
Fucking hicks !
Why they fired FIRST on Ft. Sumpter ! And we lost hundreds of thousands of American lives because of those Southerners !
We got ta get more payback !
Yes siree ! We 're the goddamn beacon of Freedom in the World and we 'll bomb the fuck out of you if you do n't like it ! USA !
USA ! USA !
You betcha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?Yeah!
Yo tell'em Bubba!The stinkin Japs Bombed Pearl Harbor and I'm still pissed about that!
Those two nukes weren't enough for 'em!
Or those damn Viet Cong!
We need to go back there and finish the job!
So what if we have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of more lives!
- It's payback baby!
And those sons of bitches who got the two towers, well, we'll make them pay by killing every last innocent civilian in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and wherever else.
That'll show that they can't fuck with the USA!
- USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!Eventually, we gotta bomb the shit out of the South - Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virgina for start'n the Civil War!
Fucking hicks!
Why they fired FIRST on Ft. Sumpter! And we lost hundreds of thousands of American lives because of those Southerners!
We gotta get more payback!
Yes siree!We're the goddamn beacon of Freedom in the World and we'll bomb the fuck out of you if you don't like it!USA!
USA! USA!
You betcha!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515608</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>publiclurker</author>
	<datestamp>1268821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You already have the NRA defending your right to compensate for your general cowardice and lack of manhood.  The ACLU has other fish to fry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already have the NRA defending your right to compensate for your general cowardice and lack of manhood .
The ACLU has other fish to fry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already have the NRA defending your right to compensate for your general cowardice and lack of manhood.
The ACLU has other fish to fry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510300</id>
	<title>Re:No Skynet jokes?</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1268847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also,<p><div class="quote"><p>from the skynet-jokes-are-allowed-and-encouraged dept.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>(please no Skynet jokes)</p></div><p>does not compute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also,from the skynet-jokes-are-allowed-and-encouraged dept .
( please no Skynet jokes ) does not compute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also,from the skynet-jokes-are-allowed-and-encouraged dept.
(please no Skynet jokes)does not compute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509772</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? </p></div><p>Can you prove that? Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ?
Can you prove that ?
Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?
Can you prove that?
Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514928</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1268819100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We didn't declare war on Saddam Hussein either.  Congress has not declared war since WWII.  Congress did pass a law authorizing use of force against Iraq.  For what it's worth, Osama bin Laden issued a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa\_1996.html" title="pbs.org">fatwa on behalf of Al Qaeda that amounts to a public declaration of holy war against the United States</a> [pbs.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>We did n't declare war on Saddam Hussein either .
Congress has not declared war since WWII .
Congress did pass a law authorizing use of force against Iraq .
For what it 's worth , Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa on behalf of Al Qaeda that amounts to a public declaration of holy war against the United States [ pbs.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We didn't declare war on Saddam Hussein either.
Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Congress did pass a law authorizing use of force against Iraq.
For what it's worth, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa on behalf of Al Qaeda that amounts to a public declaration of holy war against the United States [pbs.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511728</id>
	<title>Well what do ya know...</title>
	<author>Orleron</author>
	<datestamp>1268851440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Al Caida Civil Liberties Union strikes again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Al Caida Civil Liberties Union strikes again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Al Caida Civil Liberties Union strikes again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512332</id>
	<title>That's fine</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's fine, we don't have to use the drones for precision attacks, we can keep them in a surveillance only role.</p><p>We can just go back to daisy cutters and carpet bombing once the target has been spotted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fine , we do n't have to use the drones for precision attacks , we can keep them in a surveillance only role.We can just go back to daisy cutters and carpet bombing once the target has been spotted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fine, we don't have to use the drones for precision attacks, we can keep them in a surveillance only role.We can just go back to daisy cutters and carpet bombing once the target has been spotted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513102</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1268855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The second amendment is important. So are laws against cruelty to animals</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the second amendment is the \_most\_ important because its the teeth in all of the rest of them.  It is an \_individual\_ right, one which the ACLU \_does not support\_.  I am not an ACLU hater, but I do wish they were a bit more... rationally grounded in their assessment of what our inalienable rights are.  The constitution said it was one list.  The ACLU uses a different list with some overlap.</p><p>Now, on to the issue of laws against animal cruelty: those are not only unimportant, they should be repealed.</p><p>See, animals don't have intrinsic rights, and even if they do, our constitution doesn't say so, and doesn't say that it was formed to protect those rights.</p><p>The entire breadth and scope of our government's rationale is the proection if the intrinsic rights of individuals, even against the desire of their neighbors to harm them via the power of majority.</p><p>Animals don't figure into this at all.  Any law concerning animals needs to focus on property rights and food / safety issues.  As long as it's your animal and your back yard and you're not spreading a pathogen into the local ecosystem, you should be able to electrocute your dogs balls or whatever other disgusting thing you want to do.  Any laws to the contrary are ungrounded in objective reality.  Our animal cruelty laws are nothing more than the result of most americans liking some animals more than others.  Want to torture a worm?  Nobody is going to stop you, but nobody can explain why the current laws SHOULD protect dogs but SHOULDN'T protect some of the other animals that currently aren't protected.</p><p>I love being the guy on slashdot that argues that torturing your own pets should be legal.  It's not because i dislike animals, it's because all laws need to derive from self-consistent axioms, and nobody has articulated what those are as relates to protecting animals.</p><p>I know, asking for consistency in law and principles is pissing in the wind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second amendment is important .
So are laws against cruelty to animalsActually , the second amendment is the \ _most \ _ important because its the teeth in all of the rest of them .
It is an \ _individual \ _ right , one which the ACLU \ _does not support \ _ .
I am not an ACLU hater , but I do wish they were a bit more... rationally grounded in their assessment of what our inalienable rights are .
The constitution said it was one list .
The ACLU uses a different list with some overlap.Now , on to the issue of laws against animal cruelty : those are not only unimportant , they should be repealed.See , animals do n't have intrinsic rights , and even if they do , our constitution does n't say so , and does n't say that it was formed to protect those rights.The entire breadth and scope of our government 's rationale is the proection if the intrinsic rights of individuals , even against the desire of their neighbors to harm them via the power of majority.Animals do n't figure into this at all .
Any law concerning animals needs to focus on property rights and food / safety issues .
As long as it 's your animal and your back yard and you 're not spreading a pathogen into the local ecosystem , you should be able to electrocute your dogs balls or whatever other disgusting thing you want to do .
Any laws to the contrary are ungrounded in objective reality .
Our animal cruelty laws are nothing more than the result of most americans liking some animals more than others .
Want to torture a worm ?
Nobody is going to stop you , but nobody can explain why the current laws SHOULD protect dogs but SHOULD N'T protect some of the other animals that currently are n't protected.I love being the guy on slashdot that argues that torturing your own pets should be legal .
It 's not because i dislike animals , it 's because all laws need to derive from self-consistent axioms , and nobody has articulated what those are as relates to protecting animals.I know , asking for consistency in law and principles is pissing in the wind : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second amendment is important.
So are laws against cruelty to animalsActually, the second amendment is the \_most\_ important because its the teeth in all of the rest of them.
It is an \_individual\_ right, one which the ACLU \_does not support\_.
I am not an ACLU hater, but I do wish they were a bit more... rationally grounded in their assessment of what our inalienable rights are.
The constitution said it was one list.
The ACLU uses a different list with some overlap.Now, on to the issue of laws against animal cruelty: those are not only unimportant, they should be repealed.See, animals don't have intrinsic rights, and even if they do, our constitution doesn't say so, and doesn't say that it was formed to protect those rights.The entire breadth and scope of our government's rationale is the proection if the intrinsic rights of individuals, even against the desire of their neighbors to harm them via the power of majority.Animals don't figure into this at all.
Any law concerning animals needs to focus on property rights and food / safety issues.
As long as it's your animal and your back yard and you're not spreading a pathogen into the local ecosystem, you should be able to electrocute your dogs balls or whatever other disgusting thing you want to do.
Any laws to the contrary are ungrounded in objective reality.
Our animal cruelty laws are nothing more than the result of most americans liking some animals more than others.
Want to torture a worm?
Nobody is going to stop you, but nobody can explain why the current laws SHOULD protect dogs but SHOULDN'T protect some of the other animals that currently aren't protected.I love being the guy on slashdot that argues that torturing your own pets should be legal.
It's not because i dislike animals, it's because all laws need to derive from self-consistent axioms, and nobody has articulated what those are as relates to protecting animals.I know, asking for consistency in law and principles is pissing in the wind :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</id>
	<title>Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1268844720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the <b> <em>American</em> </b> Civil Liberties Union.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the government having too much power , but I 'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens .
What 's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens does n't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens.
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the  American  Civil Liberties Union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509918</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268846580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if a government builds their nuclear missle silos on the grounds of a childrens hospital we need to just stand there and say....</p><p>"Oh MAN!  CHEATERS!!!!!!"</p><p>I dont think you understand how war works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if a government builds their nuclear missle silos on the grounds of a childrens hospital we need to just stand there and say.... " Oh MAN !
CHEATERS ! ! ! ! ! ! " I dont think you understand how war works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if a government builds their nuclear missle silos on the grounds of a childrens hospital we need to just stand there and say...."Oh MAN!
CHEATERS!!!!!!"I dont think you understand how war works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510174</id>
	<title>Re:Due process and fair trial?</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1268847300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.</p></div><p> Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.</p><p>Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.</p><p>Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.</p><p>Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?</p><p>No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).</p><p>You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is a government any better than the terrorists then ?
Like many say , if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage , then the terrorists have already won and there 's no difference between us and them .
Well , for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately .
Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives .
As a political action : this is assassination .
As a military action , this is firing weapons at the enemy.Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal ?
We 've done it in every war since WWI.Perhaps your concern is that , rather than carpet bombing whole cities , we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us ?
How is that worse ? No , indeed the " you are killing the enemy " can not possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike ( or ground action ) .You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders .
It 's a silly argument , and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is a government any better than the terrorists then?
Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.
Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately.
Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives.
As a political action: this is assassination.
As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal?
We've done it in every war since WWI.Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us?
How is that worse?No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders.
It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511902</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again, the FBI is a domestic agency and do not go around to other countries arresting US citizens (see: CIA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , the FBI is a domestic agency and do not go around to other countries arresting US citizens ( see : CIA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, the FBI is a domestic agency and do not go around to other countries arresting US citizens (see: CIA).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512580</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1268853840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason. A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.</p></div><p>When did this change, after we abandoned the Geneva Conventions? I know we still operated under them in Vietnam when a tactic used by the NVA was to locate SAM sites in the courtyards of hospitals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Taliban has a bomb factory ( legit target ) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage ( illegal target ) it becomes a legit target , and for good reason .
A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.When did this change , after we abandoned the Geneva Conventions ?
I know we still operated under them in Vietnam when a tactic used by the NVA was to locate SAM sites in the courtyards of hospitals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason.
A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.When did this change, after we abandoned the Geneva Conventions?
I know we still operated under them in Vietnam when a tactic used by the NVA was to locate SAM sites in the courtyards of hospitals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</id>
	<title>Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268845560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution. Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.</p><p>Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts. The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution.  Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.  Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law , gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution .
Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts .
The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution .
Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system .
Because the men in black masks might start making local visits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution.
Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts.
The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution.
Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.
Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510548</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i am glad you don't live here anymore. the less of people like you in this country the better</htmltext>
<tokenext>i am glad you do n't live here anymore .
the less of people like you in this country the better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i am glad you don't live here anymore.
the less of people like you in this country the better</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510750</id>
	<title>Re:Oddly Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK... blowing the mod point I gave this post... I modded it Funny... apparently others went for insightful thus wasting the OP's joke...</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK... blowing the mod point I gave this post... I modded it Funny... apparently others went for insightful thus wasting the OP 's joke.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK... blowing the mod point I gave this post... I modded it Funny... apparently others went for insightful thus wasting the OP's joke...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1268845980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?</p></div><p>I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys. We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.</p><p>The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place. To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ? I do n't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies , so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals , to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys .
We are , after all , talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences were n't so grave.The failure of the " let 's just trust our leaders " model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place .
To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation 's history suggests that someone is n't paying attention to the reality on the ground , and it 's not the ACLU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys.
We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place.
To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511934</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268852040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant?  It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant ?
It 's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant?
It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509602</id>
	<title>no skynet jokes allowed?</title>
	<author>rarel</author>
	<datestamp>1268845380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone always has to ruin the fun<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone always has to ruin the fun : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone always has to ruin the fun :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510694</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1268848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[operator] Machine: orders: dot the i's, cross the t's, and kill<br>[cosmic ray strikes machine]<br>[machine] Cross the i's, dot the t's, kill, aye aye sir<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... done<br>[operator] Good work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ operator ] Machine : orders : dot the i 's , cross the t 's , and kill [ cosmic ray strikes machine ] [ machine ] Cross the i 's , dot the t 's , kill , aye aye sir ... done [ operator ] Good work ... oh , wait ... oh no .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[operator] Machine: orders: dot the i's, cross the t's, and kill[cosmic ray strikes machine][machine] Cross the i's, dot the t's, kill, aye aye sir ... done[operator] Good work ... oh, wait ... oh no ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510952</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>ReverendJ1</author>
	<datestamp>1268849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was another test run called the Revolutionary War...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was another test run called the Revolutionary War.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was another test run called the Revolutionary War...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517210</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1268830440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If we were fighting Germany"</p><p>Thats the crux of the matter.  We aren't fighting a state.  How do the terrorists ever surrender?  If I were trained as a terrorist, spotted on surveillance at some point, but decided it was wrong to pursue that path, and were later spotted in a village, targeted, and killed, is that right?</p><p>You mention the Eiffel Tower.  Why aren't we flying drones over France to get these terrorists? http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/12/paris-terrorist-arrests-continue.html Oh right... because those "collaterals" are people we actually care about?  Or is it that they have a bigger voice in the world?</p><p>There are a bunch of other issues I'd like to bring up about your post, but it all sort of boils down to the question:<br>Is it possible to wage a war against an ideology, not a state, while maintaining our laws and morals?</p><p>A war with no boundaries, no way to 'win', no way for the enemy to surrender, an enemy without uniforms, and who we apparently selectively execute death sentences for, based on location, not intent or for actually committing a crime.  Crazy bomber in NYC = cops.  Crazy bomber in Pakistan=missile strike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we were fighting Germany " Thats the crux of the matter .
We are n't fighting a state .
How do the terrorists ever surrender ?
If I were trained as a terrorist , spotted on surveillance at some point , but decided it was wrong to pursue that path , and were later spotted in a village , targeted , and killed , is that right ? You mention the Eiffel Tower .
Why are n't we flying drones over France to get these terrorists ?
http : //islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/12/paris-terrorist-arrests-continue.html Oh right... because those " collaterals " are people we actually care about ?
Or is it that they have a bigger voice in the world ? There are a bunch of other issues I 'd like to bring up about your post , but it all sort of boils down to the question : Is it possible to wage a war against an ideology , not a state , while maintaining our laws and morals ? A war with no boundaries , no way to 'win ' , no way for the enemy to surrender , an enemy without uniforms , and who we apparently selectively execute death sentences for , based on location , not intent or for actually committing a crime .
Crazy bomber in NYC = cops .
Crazy bomber in Pakistan = missile strike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we were fighting Germany"Thats the crux of the matter.
We aren't fighting a state.
How do the terrorists ever surrender?
If I were trained as a terrorist, spotted on surveillance at some point, but decided it was wrong to pursue that path, and were later spotted in a village, targeted, and killed, is that right?You mention the Eiffel Tower.
Why aren't we flying drones over France to get these terrorists?
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/12/paris-terrorist-arrests-continue.html Oh right... because those "collaterals" are people we actually care about?
Or is it that they have a bigger voice in the world?There are a bunch of other issues I'd like to bring up about your post, but it all sort of boils down to the question:Is it possible to wage a war against an ideology, not a state, while maintaining our laws and morals?A war with no boundaries, no way to 'win', no way for the enemy to surrender, an enemy without uniforms, and who we apparently selectively execute death sentences for, based on location, not intent or for actually committing a crime.
Crazy bomber in NYC = cops.
Crazy bomber in Pakistan=missile strike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509966</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1268846700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but to some point, if you are armed and dangerous and want to kill people you have no right to "legal process" just like somebody who keeps people in a robbery at gunpoint doesn't have any such rights. If you are captured or you surrender then yes, you have the rights for legal process, otherwise you are fair game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but to some point , if you are armed and dangerous and want to kill people you have no right to " legal process " just like somebody who keeps people in a robbery at gunpoint does n't have any such rights .
If you are captured or you surrender then yes , you have the rights for legal process , otherwise you are fair game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but to some point, if you are armed and dangerous and want to kill people you have no right to "legal process" just like somebody who keeps people in a robbery at gunpoint doesn't have any such rights.
If you are captured or you surrender then yes, you have the rights for legal process, otherwise you are fair game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515910</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268822940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.</p></div><p>How do you know if they're an enemy?  If a US citizen has been seen hanging around with insurgents a couple of times, maybe they're one of them; or maybe they're a reporter who's working on the scoop of his life.  The US military might have a vested interest in ignoring this distinction, even ignoring evidence that the latter case is correct, if they don't want news stories coming out of a war zone.  So it's important that there be some sort of oversight, here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a US Citizen is an enemy , they are fair game.How do you know if they 're an enemy ?
If a US citizen has been seen hanging around with insurgents a couple of times , maybe they 're one of them ; or maybe they 're a reporter who 's working on the scoop of his life .
The US military might have a vested interest in ignoring this distinction , even ignoring evidence that the latter case is correct , if they do n't want news stories coming out of a war zone .
So it 's important that there be some sort of oversight , here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.How do you know if they're an enemy?
If a US citizen has been seen hanging around with insurgents a couple of times, maybe they're one of them; or maybe they're a reporter who's working on the scoop of his life.
The US military might have a vested interest in ignoring this distinction, even ignoring evidence that the latter case is correct, if they don't want news stories coming out of a war zone.
So it's important that there be some sort of oversight, here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509634</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Surely there's enough abuse of our civil liberties domestically to keep the ACLU busy for generations.  Leave stuff like this to the human rights orgs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Surely there 's enough abuse of our civil liberties domestically to keep the ACLU busy for generations .
Leave stuff like this to the human rights orgs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Surely there's enough abuse of our civil liberties domestically to keep the ACLU busy for generations.
Leave stuff like this to the human rights orgs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512448</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>zzsmirkzz</author>
	<datestamp>1268853480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)</p></div><p>
The part you are missing is who <i>decides</i> (and how do they decide) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant. In some cases, like the ones most parroted in this thread, are cut-and-dried and dead simple. There <i>may</i> be other cases that are less so. A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU doesn't want to assume, it wants to know. What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution? They want the entire, written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens. This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand.</p><p>
Also, keep in mind, you (as well as many others) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used, inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled. When, in fact, a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President's (as well as some members of his staff's) say so. No proof, no trial, no accusation, just he's an enemy combatant said by the right person, makes it so. Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof, like witch, commie and terrorist before it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>enemy combatant trumps citizenship ( and rightly so ) The part you are missing is who decides ( and how do they decide ) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant .
In some cases , like the ones most parroted in this thread , are cut-and-dried and dead simple .
There may be other cases that are less so .
A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU does n't want to assume , it wants to know .
What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution ?
They want the entire , written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens .
This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand .
Also , keep in mind , you ( as well as many others ) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used , inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled .
When , in fact , a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President 's ( as well as some members of his staff 's ) say so .
No proof , no trial , no accusation , just he 's an enemy combatant said by the right person , makes it so .
Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof , like witch , commie and terrorist before it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)
The part you are missing is who decides (and how do they decide) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant.
In some cases, like the ones most parroted in this thread, are cut-and-dried and dead simple.
There may be other cases that are less so.
A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU doesn't want to assume, it wants to know.
What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution?
They want the entire, written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens.
This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand.
Also, keep in mind, you (as well as many others) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used, inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled.
When, in fact, a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President's (as well as some members of his staff's) say so.
No proof, no trial, no accusation, just he's an enemy combatant said by the right person, makes it so.
Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof, like witch, commie and terrorist before it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511180</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268850060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.</p></div></blockquote><p>If records are kept secret, can you be sure that this is not being planned against american citizens, on domestic soil?  If the government says, "Sure we assassinate people, but <i>it's only bad guys</i>", do you believe them out of hand, or do you want some proof?  Recall that Hoover and others very much targeted Americans in our nation.</p><p>This is not meant as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy of "omg they're killin' us!".  Rather, it's meant to ensure that it's <i>not</i> being done.  The complaint linked is because the government has specifically not done anything with the FOIA request. Normally, they must be processed (whether the request is denied or approved) within twenty days.  Sixty had passed with no response when the ACLU made their complaint.  This is (more immediately) about ensuring that the government is complying with the FOIA than it is about the drones themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens .
What 's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens does n't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.If records are kept secret , can you be sure that this is not being planned against american citizens , on domestic soil ?
If the government says , " Sure we assassinate people , but it 's only bad guys " , do you believe them out of hand , or do you want some proof ?
Recall that Hoover and others very much targeted Americans in our nation.This is not meant as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy of " omg they 're killin ' us ! " .
Rather , it 's meant to ensure that it 's not being done .
The complaint linked is because the government has specifically not done anything with the FOIA request .
Normally , they must be processed ( whether the request is denied or approved ) within twenty days .
Sixty had passed with no response when the ACLU made their complaint .
This is ( more immediately ) about ensuring that the government is complying with the FOIA than it is about the drones themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens.
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.If records are kept secret, can you be sure that this is not being planned against american citizens, on domestic soil?
If the government says, "Sure we assassinate people, but it's only bad guys", do you believe them out of hand, or do you want some proof?
Recall that Hoover and others very much targeted Americans in our nation.This is not meant as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy of "omg they're killin' us!".
Rather, it's meant to ensure that it's not being done.
The complaint linked is because the government has specifically not done anything with the FOIA request.
Normally, they must be processed (whether the request is denied or approved) within twenty days.
Sixty had passed with no response when the ACLU made their complaint.
This is (more immediately) about ensuring that the government is complying with the FOIA than it is about the drones themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511792</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what has happened to the level of knife crime in this gun-free nirvana?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what has happened to the level of knife crime in this gun-free nirvana ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what has happened to the level of knife crime in this gun-free nirvana?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511816</id>
	<title>Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution. Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.</p><p>Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts. The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution.  Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.  Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.</p></div><p>What do you propose should have been done in World War II during combat when there were a large number of German-Americans who went back to Germany to fight on the German side?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law , gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution .
Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts .
The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution .
Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system .
Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.What do you propose should have been done in World War II during combat when there were a large number of German-Americans who went back to Germany to fight on the German side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution.
Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts.
The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution.
Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.
Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.What do you propose should have been done in World War II during combat when there were a large number of German-Americans who went back to Germany to fight on the German side?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509792</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And anybody who thinks a UAV is any more remote than a cruise missile or a laser-guided bomb from a F16 is kidding themselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And anybody who thinks a UAV is any more remote than a cruise missile or a laser-guided bomb from a F16 is kidding themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And anybody who thinks a UAV is any more remote than a cruise missile or a laser-guided bomb from a F16 is kidding themselves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512604</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.</p></div><p>Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy (and an enemy of what, I might add)? Who decided they were the "wrong" people? Who proved that they were the wrong people, and to whom? That's the core of the ACLU's point: the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch. And it's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.</p></div><p>No, that's not in fact true. When <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_McVeigh" title="wikipedia.org">Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard</a> [wikipedia.org] built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building, he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including a fair and speedy trial. Why? Because it was the executive branch's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy, that they'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights, and had in fact done what they said he did.</p><p>The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US, are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization, and aren't even in or near a war zone. This is about academics being blown up in Yemen, not guys with AK-47's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a US Citizen is an enemy , they are fair game .
Citizenship is a non-issue , enemy combatant trumps citizenship ( and rightly so ) .
... I normally cheer for the ACLU , but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy ( and an enemy of what , I might add ) ?
Who decided they were the " wrong " people ?
Who proved that they were the wrong people , and to whom ?
That 's the core of the ACLU 's point : the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they 've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch .
And it 's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.No , that 's not in fact true .
When Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard [ wikipedia.org ] built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building , he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights , including a fair and speedy trial .
Why ? Because it was the executive branch 's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy , that they 'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights , and had in fact done what they said he did.The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US , are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization , and are n't even in or near a war zone .
This is about academics being blown up in Yemen , not guys with AK-47 's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.
Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so).
... I normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy (and an enemy of what, I might add)?
Who decided they were the "wrong" people?
Who proved that they were the wrong people, and to whom?
That's the core of the ACLU's point: the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch.
And it's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.No, that's not in fact true.
When Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard [wikipedia.org] built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building, he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including a fair and speedy trial.
Why? Because it was the executive branch's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy, that they'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights, and had in fact done what they said he did.The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US, are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization, and aren't even in or near a war zone.
This is about academics being blown up in Yemen, not guys with AK-47's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511894</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>yacc143</author>
	<datestamp>1268851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the problem is not collateral damages.</p><p>It's the problem that a government in peacetime (despite all rethorics, the US is not at war, war on terrorism is the legal equivalent of war on drugs and other PR stunts) has death lists of people that it intends to murder.</p><p>So who decides who is allowed live?</p><p>(Btw, you DO REALIZE that the Nazis that laws on the books that authorized them to murder "inferior races". Guess it's better that the US has death lists of people "wanted dead" without any legal base.)</p><p>A completely secondary thing is up to which point collateral is acceptable, but that's not the point of the ACLU action.</p><p>The ACLU is targeting the part that some part of the executive branch of the US government, decides who gets killed, in secret. Without any review.)</p><p>Where is the difference to some rogue dictatorship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the problem is not collateral damages.It 's the problem that a government in peacetime ( despite all rethorics , the US is not at war , war on terrorism is the legal equivalent of war on drugs and other PR stunts ) has death lists of people that it intends to murder.So who decides who is allowed live ?
( Btw , you DO REALIZE that the Nazis that laws on the books that authorized them to murder " inferior races " .
Guess it 's better that the US has death lists of people " wanted dead " without any legal base .
) A completely secondary thing is up to which point collateral is acceptable , but that 's not the point of the ACLU action.The ACLU is targeting the part that some part of the executive branch of the US government , decides who gets killed , in secret .
Without any review .
) Where is the difference to some rogue dictatorship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the problem is not collateral damages.It's the problem that a government in peacetime (despite all rethorics, the US is not at war, war on terrorism is the legal equivalent of war on drugs and other PR stunts) has death lists of people that it intends to murder.So who decides who is allowed live?
(Btw, you DO REALIZE that the Nazis that laws on the books that authorized them to murder "inferior races".
Guess it's better that the US has death lists of people "wanted dead" without any legal base.
)A completely secondary thing is up to which point collateral is acceptable, but that's not the point of the ACLU action.The ACLU is targeting the part that some part of the executive branch of the US government, decides who gets killed, in secret.
Without any review.
)Where is the difference to some rogue dictatorship?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514548</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268817660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should change their acronym to AIACLU - Americans <i>in America</i> Civil Liberties Union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should change their acronym to AIACLU - Americans in America Civil Liberties Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should change their acronym to AIACLU - Americans in America Civil Liberties Union.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511008</id>
	<title>Re:Oddly Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this " insightful " .
Should n't this be " funny " ?
Or , possibly " sickly funny " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this "insightful".
Shouldn't this be "funny"?
Or, possibly "sickly funny"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1268849280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you have an above TS clearance? Do you mean to say that you had TS clearance with additional classifications? Because there is nothing above TS and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you have an above TS clearance ?
Do you mean to say that you had TS clearance with additional classifications ?
Because there is nothing above TS and of course at all levels there is the " need to know " rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you have an above TS clearance?
Do you mean to say that you had TS clearance with additional classifications?
Because there is nothing above TS and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510570</id>
	<title>How is a government any better than the terrorists</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1268848380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists' political gain.<br>The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace. If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger, they would not have been around their families. However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists ' political gain.The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace .
If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger , they would not have been around their families .
However , the terrorists , being violent sociopaths , did n't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists' political gain.The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace.
If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger, they would not have been around their families.
However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510650</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1268848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm of a practical mindset. The NRA can look out for the second amendment. The ALCU looks out for the other 26. Rational people can disagree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of a practical mindset .
The NRA can look out for the second amendment .
The ALCU looks out for the other 26 .
Rational people can disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of a practical mindset.
The NRA can look out for the second amendment.
The ALCU looks out for the other 26.
Rational people can disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</id>
	<title>US Citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?  The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?  What the hell?
</p><p>Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil , then what the hell does the ACLU want ?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan , slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights ?
What the hell ?
Next up : ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare , suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?
What the hell?
Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408</id>
	<title>The Reliably obtuse ACLU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them , or is that OK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510686</id>
	<title>Is there a difference...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if an F-16 Pilot shoots his missiles at the target or if a UAV operator does the same?  I guess if the ACLU wants to complain about the legality of the military killing people, then they need to extend their complaint to M-16s, F-16s and M-1 Tanks in addition to UAVs.  I mean if you are dead, you are dead, right?  Does it really matter how you got there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if an F-16 Pilot shoots his missiles at the target or if a UAV operator does the same ?
I guess if the ACLU wants to complain about the legality of the military killing people , then they need to extend their complaint to M-16s , F-16s and M-1 Tanks in addition to UAVs .
I mean if you are dead , you are dead , right ?
Does it really matter how you got there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if an F-16 Pilot shoots his missiles at the target or if a UAV operator does the same?
I guess if the ACLU wants to complain about the legality of the military killing people, then they need to extend their complaint to M-16s, F-16s and M-1 Tanks in addition to UAVs.
I mean if you are dead, you are dead, right?
Does it really matter how you got there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512452</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a difference...</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1268853480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. The pilot is a human being and has the option to disobey if the order is botched or unconstitutional. A machine isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
The pilot is a human being and has the option to disobey if the order is botched or unconstitutional .
A machine is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
The pilot is a human being and has the option to disobey if the order is botched or unconstitutional.
A machine isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction and other issues</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1268845380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.<br>Plus they are the American Civil Liberties Union, Not only are the targets NOT american, the dont really have Civil Liberties either.</p><p>Im assuming the pilots behind the UAVs have target criteria, and need to provide evidence of said criteria to receive permission to eliminate the target.</p><p>Excuse me for the muslims to not respect the geneva convention, not be uniformed, and the fact they take pleasure in hiding behind their families or neighbors, sick, injured or children. When a few individuals fire at you from a crowded market, you want me to just sit there and deal with being shot at and possibly die, FU ACLU.</p><p>Also, whats the word we can take from those countries that they were actually civilians? Someone carrying a gun is militia, someone who died carrying a gun was a soldier, but in the time it takes to get a team in there to confirm kills, those guns disappear and now proof of militia is gone and so they are just civilians now. I doubt the Civilian casualties are actually as high as they are perceived. I think it usually is militia, but someone else picks up the gun and takes their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.Plus they are the American Civil Liberties Union , Not only are the targets NOT american , the dont really have Civil Liberties either.Im assuming the pilots behind the UAVs have target criteria , and need to provide evidence of said criteria to receive permission to eliminate the target.Excuse me for the muslims to not respect the geneva convention , not be uniformed , and the fact they take pleasure in hiding behind their families or neighbors , sick , injured or children .
When a few individuals fire at you from a crowded market , you want me to just sit there and deal with being shot at and possibly die , FU ACLU.Also , whats the word we can take from those countries that they were actually civilians ?
Someone carrying a gun is militia , someone who died carrying a gun was a soldier , but in the time it takes to get a team in there to confirm kills , those guns disappear and now proof of militia is gone and so they are just civilians now .
I doubt the Civilian casualties are actually as high as they are perceived .
I think it usually is militia , but someone else picks up the gun and takes their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.Plus they are the American Civil Liberties Union, Not only are the targets NOT american, the dont really have Civil Liberties either.Im assuming the pilots behind the UAVs have target criteria, and need to provide evidence of said criteria to receive permission to eliminate the target.Excuse me for the muslims to not respect the geneva convention, not be uniformed, and the fact they take pleasure in hiding behind their families or neighbors, sick, injured or children.
When a few individuals fire at you from a crowded market, you want me to just sit there and deal with being shot at and possibly die, FU ACLU.Also, whats the word we can take from those countries that they were actually civilians?
Someone carrying a gun is militia, someone who died carrying a gun was a soldier, but in the time it takes to get a team in there to confirm kills, those guns disappear and now proof of militia is gone and so they are just civilians now.
I doubt the Civilian casualties are actually as high as they are perceived.
I think it usually is militia, but someone else picks up the gun and takes their place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509556</id>
	<title>Time to jack bauer them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to jack bauer them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to jack bauer them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to jack bauer them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509740</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1268845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, innocents are always left in peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , innocents are always left in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, innocents are always left in peace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509842</id>
	<title>Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1268846280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because they defend innocents from dying unmanned drones, you think they might not care when people die from manned airplanes bombing skyscrapers?</p><p>I don't think they want either action to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because they defend innocents from dying unmanned drones , you think they might not care when people die from manned airplanes bombing skyscrapers ? I do n't think they want either action to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because they defend innocents from dying unmanned drones, you think they might not care when people die from manned airplanes bombing skyscrapers?I don't think they want either action to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517010</id>
	<title>Re:US Citizens</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1268829060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?"</p><p>Exactly.  Like, if I left the USA because I hated it and decided I believed some foreigner's ideology that the west is Evil, and I choose to fly into Paris and plan and attack an embassy, we should certainly use F16s or drones with hellfire missiles to strike my Paris apartment building.........</p><p>Now you might say, well of course we wouldn't do that in Paris.  Too many collateral casualties, some of the people in the apartment might be pro-western/friendly, etc...</p><p>At what point would the ratio of unfriendly to friendly become favorable to dropping a laser guided bomb in Paris?</p><p>It is certainly easier to drop a missile than it is to arrest someone, it doesn't make it right.  The only way we are getting away with drones in the first place, is because the villages and countries that they are landing on have very little voice in the world.</p><p>The main problem is that this is not a war.  These are not soldiers we are fighting.  They are mixed in with friendly targets nearly all the time.  They do not have a central figure or state that can ever surrender.  There are no battlefield boundaries, and no where for the general populace to retreat to.</p><p>Of course, I'm pretty sure that the military is very careful about minimizing collateral damages, but are any collateral damages acceptable when this isn't a war, these aren't soldiers, they can (as a ideological group) never surrender?  For that matter, is planning or thoughts/speeches criminal?  What if I, as a US citizen, go to some western hating village and train and train and train but never do anything?  Is just hanging out in a village criminal and deserving of death?</p><p>There are way too many grey areas for this to be as simple as "bomb" or "don't bomb".  The ACLU is right to examine the policies behind drones, especially when it concerns US citizens.  I wish someone was examining it for non-US citizens also.  Like for instance, these Pakistanis. http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/10/civilians-among-17-killed-in-latest-us-drone-strikes/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what the hell does the ACLU want ?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan , slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights ?
What the hell ? " Exactly .
Like , if I left the USA because I hated it and decided I believed some foreigner 's ideology that the west is Evil , and I choose to fly into Paris and plan and attack an embassy , we should certainly use F16s or drones with hellfire missiles to strike my Paris apartment building.........Now you might say , well of course we would n't do that in Paris .
Too many collateral casualties , some of the people in the apartment might be pro-western/friendly , etc...At what point would the ratio of unfriendly to friendly become favorable to dropping a laser guided bomb in Paris ? It is certainly easier to drop a missile than it is to arrest someone , it does n't make it right .
The only way we are getting away with drones in the first place , is because the villages and countries that they are landing on have very little voice in the world.The main problem is that this is not a war .
These are not soldiers we are fighting .
They are mixed in with friendly targets nearly all the time .
They do not have a central figure or state that can ever surrender .
There are no battlefield boundaries , and no where for the general populace to retreat to.Of course , I 'm pretty sure that the military is very careful about minimizing collateral damages , but are any collateral damages acceptable when this is n't a war , these are n't soldiers , they can ( as a ideological group ) never surrender ?
For that matter , is planning or thoughts/speeches criminal ?
What if I , as a US citizen , go to some western hating village and train and train and train but never do anything ?
Is just hanging out in a village criminal and deserving of death ? There are way too many grey areas for this to be as simple as " bomb " or " do n't bomb " .
The ACLU is right to examine the policies behind drones , especially when it concerns US citizens .
I wish someone was examining it for non-US citizens also .
Like for instance , these Pakistanis .
http : //news.antiwar.com/2010/03/10/civilians-among-17-killed-in-latest-us-drone-strikes/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what the hell does the ACLU want?
The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?
What the hell?"Exactly.
Like, if I left the USA because I hated it and decided I believed some foreigner's ideology that the west is Evil, and I choose to fly into Paris and plan and attack an embassy, we should certainly use F16s or drones with hellfire missiles to strike my Paris apartment building.........Now you might say, well of course we wouldn't do that in Paris.
Too many collateral casualties, some of the people in the apartment might be pro-western/friendly, etc...At what point would the ratio of unfriendly to friendly become favorable to dropping a laser guided bomb in Paris?It is certainly easier to drop a missile than it is to arrest someone, it doesn't make it right.
The only way we are getting away with drones in the first place, is because the villages and countries that they are landing on have very little voice in the world.The main problem is that this is not a war.
These are not soldiers we are fighting.
They are mixed in with friendly targets nearly all the time.
They do not have a central figure or state that can ever surrender.
There are no battlefield boundaries, and no where for the general populace to retreat to.Of course, I'm pretty sure that the military is very careful about minimizing collateral damages, but are any collateral damages acceptable when this isn't a war, these aren't soldiers, they can (as a ideological group) never surrender?
For that matter, is planning or thoughts/speeches criminal?
What if I, as a US citizen, go to some western hating village and train and train and train but never do anything?
Is just hanging out in a village criminal and deserving of death?There are way too many grey areas for this to be as simple as "bomb" or "don't bomb".
The ACLU is right to examine the policies behind drones, especially when it concerns US citizens.
I wish someone was examining it for non-US citizens also.
Like for instance, these Pakistanis.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/10/civilians-among-17-killed-in-latest-us-drone-strikes/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510038</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1268847000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, they are deliberately targeting American civilians, in cold blood. Premeditated. With someone behind them helping them make decisions.</p><p>Do you even realize how heinous that is? For the love of God, I hope you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they are deliberately targeting American civilians , in cold blood .
Premeditated. With someone behind them helping them make decisions.Do you even realize how heinous that is ?
For the love of God , I hope you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they are deliberately targeting American civilians, in cold blood.
Premeditated. With someone behind them helping them make decisions.Do you even realize how heinous that is?
For the love of God, I hope you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513496</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1268856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you just being obtuse or can't you comprehend that there is a difference between uniformed soldiers of a recognized state actor directly participating in active battle against other uniformed soldiers of another recognized state actor under a formal declaration of war and using drones, with no declared war, against non-state actors without the consent of the targeted country, to kill specific people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you just being obtuse or ca n't you comprehend that there is a difference between uniformed soldiers of a recognized state actor directly participating in active battle against other uniformed soldiers of another recognized state actor under a formal declaration of war and using drones , with no declared war , against non-state actors without the consent of the targeted country , to kill specific people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you just being obtuse or can't you comprehend that there is a difference between uniformed soldiers of a recognized state actor directly participating in active battle against other uniformed soldiers of another recognized state actor under a formal declaration of war and using drones, with no declared war, against non-state actors without the consent of the targeted country, to kill specific people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509672</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1268845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"""<br>Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones<br>"""</p><p>It's in the damn summary, for fuck sake.</p><p>Now that mightn't be the case, but it's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " " Recent reports , including public statements from the director of national intelligence , indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones " " " It 's in the damn summary , for fuck sake.Now that might n't be the case , but it 's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"""Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones"""It's in the damn summary, for fuck sake.Now that mightn't be the case, but it's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512036</id>
	<title>Not This Time!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Although I usually like causes taken up by the ACLU this cause sounds really dumb. Weapons of war always take innocents along with combatants. Make no mistake there were nursing homes and kindergartens at Hiroshima and just about every other city that we have bombed in our various wars.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The real question is whether drones will kill of unusual numbers of innocents compared to other weapons of war. I suspect that drones are part of the notion of kinder and gentler warfare.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As to targeting American citizens in war zones, well sure, if they are aiding the enemy then they are fair game.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And keep in mind that using drones keeps our own soldiers and airmen out of harms way. If we are lucky we may be able to create an entirely robotic military in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I usually like causes taken up by the ACLU this cause sounds really dumb .
Weapons of war always take innocents along with combatants .
Make no mistake there were nursing homes and kindergartens at Hiroshima and just about every other city that we have bombed in our various wars .
            The real question is whether drones will kill of unusual numbers of innocents compared to other weapons of war .
I suspect that drones are part of the notion of kinder and gentler warfare .
              As to targeting American citizens in war zones , well sure , if they are aiding the enemy then they are fair game .
              And keep in mind that using drones keeps our own soldiers and airmen out of harms way .
If we are lucky we may be able to create an entirely robotic military in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Although I usually like causes taken up by the ACLU this cause sounds really dumb.
Weapons of war always take innocents along with combatants.
Make no mistake there were nursing homes and kindergartens at Hiroshima and just about every other city that we have bombed in our various wars.
            The real question is whether drones will kill of unusual numbers of innocents compared to other weapons of war.
I suspect that drones are part of the notion of kinder and gentler warfare.
              As to targeting American citizens in war zones, well sure, if they are aiding the enemy then they are fair game.
              And keep in mind that using drones keeps our own soldiers and airmen out of harms way.
If we are lucky we may be able to create an entirely robotic military in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514470</id>
	<title>Re:There is no legal authority here!</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1268817360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is war!  So we have to do everything we can!  But it's not a war!  So we can do anything we want to!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...What?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is war !
So we have to do everything we can !
But it 's not a war !
So we can do anything we want to !
...What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is war!
So we have to do everything we can!
But it's not a war!
So we can do anything we want to!
...What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31530968</id>
	<title>WTF...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties' Union have to do with foreigners and/or their removal? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler? Beuler?</p><p>One has to wonder whom put the ACLU up to this sort of mischief, as normally, they seem to be quite responsible in restricting themselves to domestic matters... for good or ill.</p><p>(FAGASS CAPTCHA SHIT!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... .. does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties ' Union have to do with foreigners and/or their removal ?
Anyone ? Anyone ?
Beuler ? Beuler ? One has to wonder whom put the ACLU up to this sort of mischief , as normally , they seem to be quite responsible in restricting themselves to domestic matters... for good or ill. ( FAGASS CAPTCHA SHIT !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... .. does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties' Union have to do with foreigners and/or their removal?
Anyone? Anyone?
Beuler? Beuler?One has to wonder whom put the ACLU up to this sort of mischief, as normally, they seem to be quite responsible in restricting themselves to domestic matters... for good or ill.(FAGASS CAPTCHA SHIT!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509590</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I know reading TFA is verboten, but could you at least read the summary?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.'</p> </div><p>So, they're asking about what is being done TO American civilians. And your country's pressed its stance of "Our citizens are our citizens no matter where they go, and are still subject to our law and no other" often enough that just because it's being done on foreign soil doesn't exempt them now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I know reading TFA is verboten , but could you at least read the summary ?
The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports , including public statements from the director of national intelligence , indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones .
' So , they 're asking about what is being done TO American civilians .
And your country 's pressed its stance of " Our citizens are our citizens no matter where they go , and are still subject to our law and no other " often enough that just because it 's being done on foreign soil does n't exempt them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I know reading TFA is verboten, but could you at least read the summary?
The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.
' So, they're asking about what is being done TO American civilians.
And your country's pressed its stance of "Our citizens are our citizens no matter where they go, and are still subject to our law and no other" often enough that just because it's being done on foreign soil doesn't exempt them now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514576</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268817780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them. Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period.</p></div><p>What does this even have to do with "safer"?</p><p>You know what is the safest kind of society? A totalitarian one where every step of every citizen is tracked and monitored, and everyone who's so much as indicating the desire to stir up trouble is "disappeared" immediately. That is a very safe arrangement for 99\% of the citizens - they have absolutely nothing to fear!</p><p>So why don't we do it, then?</p><p>You can't evaluate practicality of basic rights from a purely utilitarian approach, unless you also want to discard the rights to free speech, association etc. And the right to self defense <em>is</em> a basic right.</p><p>But you know what? It still doesn't matter, because whether you like it or not, it's still in the Constitution, and is thus a right Americans should enjoy today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens. First of all, I think that's called "treason".</p></div><p>No, not really:</p><p>"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."</p><p>Historically, an armed uprising was considered "levying War", but conspiracy to one was not (because the Constitutional definition doesn't include that, and it sets strict bounds on what can be considered treason). So stockpiling weapons, even if you explicitly state goal as "to facilitate overthrowing of some hypothetical future oppressive U.S. government" is not treason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I have to agree with them on this one , and I used to be a big donor to them .
Countries , like the one I live in now , where people ca n't own guns are safer , period.What does this even have to do with " safer " ? You know what is the safest kind of society ?
A totalitarian one where every step of every citizen is tracked and monitored , and everyone who 's so much as indicating the desire to stir up trouble is " disappeared " immediately .
That is a very safe arrangement for 99 \ % of the citizens - they have absolutely nothing to fear ! So why do n't we do it , then ? You ca n't evaluate practicality of basic rights from a purely utilitarian approach , unless you also want to discard the rights to free speech , association etc .
And the right to self defense is a basic right.But you know what ?
It still does n't matter , because whether you like it or not , it 's still in the Constitution , and is thus a right Americans should enjoy today.Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government , just wait and see what happens .
First of all , I think that 's called " treason " .No , not really : " Treason against the United States , shall consist only in levying War against them , or in adhering to their Enemies , giving them Aid and Comfort .
" Historically , an armed uprising was considered " levying War " , but conspiracy to one was not ( because the Constitutional definition does n't include that , and it sets strict bounds on what can be considered treason ) .
So stockpiling weapons , even if you explicitly state goal as " to facilitate overthrowing of some hypothetical future oppressive U.S. government " is not treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them.
Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period.What does this even have to do with "safer"?You know what is the safest kind of society?
A totalitarian one where every step of every citizen is tracked and monitored, and everyone who's so much as indicating the desire to stir up trouble is "disappeared" immediately.
That is a very safe arrangement for 99\% of the citizens - they have absolutely nothing to fear!So why don't we do it, then?You can't evaluate practicality of basic rights from a purely utilitarian approach, unless you also want to discard the rights to free speech, association etc.
And the right to self defense is a basic right.But you know what?
It still doesn't matter, because whether you like it or not, it's still in the Constitution, and is thus a right Americans should enjoy today.Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens.
First of all, I think that's called "treason".No, not really:"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
"Historically, an armed uprising was considered "levying War", but conspiracy to one was not (because the Constitutional definition doesn't include that, and it sets strict bounds on what can be considered treason).
So stockpiling weapons, even if you explicitly state goal as "to facilitate overthrowing of some hypothetical future oppressive U.S. government" is not treason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512980</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic vs. Foreign</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1268855160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship, unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizen". The constitution usually uses a passive tense, and the rights enumerated are in the form "the government shall not", not "citizens have the right of".</p><p>Most specifically relevant here:</p><p>"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"</p><p>These assassinations off the battlefield, regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders, is clearly unconstitutional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone , regardless of citizenship , unless the constitution specifically mentions " citizen " .
The constitution usually uses a passive tense , and the rights enumerated are in the form " the government shall not " , not " citizens have the right of " .Most specifically relevant here : " No person shall be .
. .
deprived of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law " These assassinations off the battlefield , regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders , is clearly unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship, unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizen".
The constitution usually uses a passive tense, and the rights enumerated are in the form "the government shall not", not "citizens have the right of".Most specifically relevant here:"No person shall be .
. .
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"These assassinations off the battlefield, regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders, is clearly unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438</id>
	<title>No Skynet jokes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary, emphasis mine:<blockquote><div><p> Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous <b>(please no Skynet jokes)</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Resistance is futile.  This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot, and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not.<br> <br>There.  A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one... <br> <br>
Bet you didn't see that coming, submitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary , emphasis mine : Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft , risks of human and machine error are obvious , and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous ( please no Skynet jokes ) Resistance is futile .
This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot , and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not .
There. A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one.. . Bet you did n't see that coming , submitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary, emphasis mine: Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes) Resistance is futile.
This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot, and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not.
There.  A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one...  
Bet you didn't see that coming, submitter.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510312</id>
	<title>Re:No Skynet jokes?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have stuffed in an "I for one welcome our murderous unmanned aerial overlords" for good measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have stuffed in an " I for one welcome our murderous unmanned aerial overlords " for good measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have stuffed in an "I for one welcome our murderous unmanned aerial overlords" for good measure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514654</id>
	<title>Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1268817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.</i></p><p>You mean making tapes of our troops having phone sex with their wives back home?</p><p>We're surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations.  We've only faced one invasion in our country's entire history.  The Soviet Union is long gone.</p><p>Our actual defense needs are pretty minuscule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.You mean making tapes of our troops having phone sex with their wives back home ? We 're surrounded by the world 's largest oceans and two large , friendly nations .
We 've only faced one invasion in our country 's entire history .
The Soviet Union is long gone.Our actual defense needs are pretty minuscule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.You mean making tapes of our troops having phone sex with their wives back home?We're surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations.
We've only faced one invasion in our country's entire history.
The Soviet Union is long gone.Our actual defense needs are pretty minuscule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510460</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitutional Question</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1268848080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, that is not what is going on here. Specifically, those targeted are enemy combatants. They are not being targeted "merely because the president says so", but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , that is not what is going on here .
Specifically , those targeted are enemy combatants .
They are not being targeted " merely because the president says so " , but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, that is not what is going on here.
Specifically, those targeted are enemy combatants.
They are not being targeted "merely because the president says so", but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514118</id>
	<title>Re:and this will accomplish what?</title>
	<author>Lithdren</author>
	<datestamp>1268859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when was it against the law to travel outside the US?  The problem with your argument is where do you draw the line?  First its "You cant travel to the warzone citizen!" then its "You cant travel to the non-preapproved vacation spot, citizen!" then its "you cant leave the US, citizen!" and eventually you'll end up at "Its past 5:45PM local time, you cant leave your house, citizen!"<br> <br>

We're not dealing with a "Guy from jersy picks up an AK, flys to Afganistan, and opens fire on a checkpoint" situation.  This is a "A guy from jersy has been spotted in Afganistan, and we think he's with the enemy" situation.  What if we're wrong?  What if he is there for some actual reason?  should we be wary of the guy?  Hell yes!  should we drop a bomb on the house he's in?  err...no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when was it against the law to travel outside the US ?
The problem with your argument is where do you draw the line ?
First its " You cant travel to the warzone citizen !
" then its " You cant travel to the non-preapproved vacation spot , citizen !
" then its " you cant leave the US , citizen !
" and eventually you 'll end up at " Its past 5 : 45PM local time , you cant leave your house , citizen !
" We 're not dealing with a " Guy from jersy picks up an AK , flys to Afganistan , and opens fire on a checkpoint " situation .
This is a " A guy from jersy has been spotted in Afganistan , and we think he 's with the enemy " situation .
What if we 're wrong ?
What if he is there for some actual reason ?
should we be wary of the guy ?
Hell yes !
should we drop a bomb on the house he 's in ?
err...no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when was it against the law to travel outside the US?
The problem with your argument is where do you draw the line?
First its "You cant travel to the warzone citizen!
" then its "You cant travel to the non-preapproved vacation spot, citizen!
" then its "you cant leave the US, citizen!
" and eventually you'll end up at "Its past 5:45PM local time, you cant leave your house, citizen!
" 

We're not dealing with a "Guy from jersy picks up an AK, flys to Afganistan, and opens fire on a checkpoint" situation.
This is a "A guy from jersy has been spotted in Afganistan, and we think he's with the enemy" situation.
What if we're wrong?
What if he is there for some actual reason?
should we be wary of the guy?
Hell yes!
should we drop a bomb on the house he's in?
err...no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510566</id>
	<title>Re:No torture</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268848380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me try. There are 3 cases to consider here:</p><p>1. The person affected by collateral damage is himself a legitimate military target. Not a problem.</p><p>2. The person is not a legitimate target, but is aware that the guy residing nearby is (Taliban officer etc). We have a candidate for a Darwin award here, no sympathy from me.</p><p>3. The person is a not legitimate target, but is not aware that they are residing near something or someone that is. Definitely not a good situation to be in, but the catch is that we (as in, Western society/culture) generally don't consider such casualties proper, and try to avoid them as much as possible. Among other things, by laws of war, you cannot, for example, do a missile strike on a legitimate target if you <em>know</em> that this will inevitably cause significant collateral damage.</p><p>The difference with waterboarding is that you cannot "accidentally" waterboard someone. It's always a deliberate, intentional act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me try .
There are 3 cases to consider here : 1 .
The person affected by collateral damage is himself a legitimate military target .
Not a problem.2 .
The person is not a legitimate target , but is aware that the guy residing nearby is ( Taliban officer etc ) .
We have a candidate for a Darwin award here , no sympathy from me.3 .
The person is a not legitimate target , but is not aware that they are residing near something or someone that is .
Definitely not a good situation to be in , but the catch is that we ( as in , Western society/culture ) generally do n't consider such casualties proper , and try to avoid them as much as possible .
Among other things , by laws of war , you can not , for example , do a missile strike on a legitimate target if you know that this will inevitably cause significant collateral damage.The difference with waterboarding is that you can not " accidentally " waterboard someone .
It 's always a deliberate , intentional act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me try.
There are 3 cases to consider here:1.
The person affected by collateral damage is himself a legitimate military target.
Not a problem.2.
The person is not a legitimate target, but is aware that the guy residing nearby is (Taliban officer etc).
We have a candidate for a Darwin award here, no sympathy from me.3.
The person is a not legitimate target, but is not aware that they are residing near something or someone that is.
Definitely not a good situation to be in, but the catch is that we (as in, Western society/culture) generally don't consider such casualties proper, and try to avoid them as much as possible.
Among other things, by laws of war, you cannot, for example, do a missile strike on a legitimate target if you know that this will inevitably cause significant collateral damage.The difference with waterboarding is that you cannot "accidentally" waterboard someone.
It's always a deliberate, intentional act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510632</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitutional Question</title>
	<author>the\_fat\_kid</author>
	<datestamp>1268848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>listen, if the President does it, it's legal.<br>Right?<br>isn't that what nixon taught us?</p><p>Damn socialist schools teaching crazy things like the rule of law, unalienable rights, due process.<br>Balderdash.<br>the CIA would never abuse the power to kill US citizens with out a trial.<br>or the USCIS,<br>or homeland security,<br>or the FBI,<br>or Blackwater,<br>or the LAPD...</p><p>is that a terrorist that you're hidding there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>listen , if the President does it , it 's legal.Right ? is n't that what nixon taught us ? Damn socialist schools teaching crazy things like the rule of law , unalienable rights , due process.Balderdash.the CIA would never abuse the power to kill US citizens with out a trial.or the USCIS,or homeland security,or the FBI,or Blackwater,or the LAPD...is that a terrorist that you 're hidding there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>listen, if the President does it, it's legal.Right?isn't that what nixon taught us?Damn socialist schools teaching crazy things like the rule of law, unalienable rights, due process.Balderdash.the CIA would never abuse the power to kill US citizens with out a trial.or the USCIS,or homeland security,or the FBI,or Blackwater,or the LAPD...is that a terrorist that you're hidding there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31521784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31519176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_155220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510548
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513496
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31515910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31519176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31521784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31513986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_155220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31516144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31512522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31514692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31509772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31510308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31517010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_155220.31511902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
