:: Re: [unSYSTEM] TeaMp0isoN member ki…
Inizio della pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autore: odinn
Data:  
To: System undo crew
Oggetto: Re: [unSYSTEM] TeaMp0isoN member killed in Syrian drone strike
I've seen a lot of reporting on this. What occurred is unsurprising
(if we assume that he was helping ISIS). It's entirely possible he
simply became a horrible person helping ISIS, but that's not I want to
write about. I'm not going to get into a whole "why was he helping
ISIS or not" thing here, nor am I going to get into a debate about
what some people like to call "laws of war."

What should be concerning is that it's relatively easy for some
("three-letter agency" of "government X") to accuse someone of being
associated with ("designated "terrorist group Y"") and thus make that
someone immediately subject to ("law Z") ~ where that law either
expressly contains a death penalty or a statement that the person is
not afforded rights any longer at that point in the traditional sense
(depending on the country, the law will be worded differently, but
with the intention of the same end results). The end result to which
I refer is that we'll see increasing numbers of people being dead by
drone without any due process at all ~ in no small part because
countries like the USA have abandoned due process anyway:

In the detention and due process context (which I argue was the
critical level at which failure to continue to uphold due process in
essence meant at that point the state or its agents had clearly
abandoned the system of law (or legal protections) upon which it
actually relies):
1) http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/detention-challenge-denied/

In a long post here (dated Sept. 8, 2014), I have argued that at the
stage of the decision in Hedges v. Obama, the US government actually
rendered the entirety of US law invalid. For my reasoning on this
subject, please see:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s8t6v4

In the death by drone context (by this point if it was not already
apparent, it should be obvious that you can be killed in such a manner
without due process even if you have done absolutely zero to harm
anyone, and US courts will simply dismiss the cases:
2)
https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-
killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings

3) One could also insert here any manner of ways in which the state
kills innocent people, which have resulted in popular unrest, e.g.,
Ferguson, etc.
http://killedbypolice.net/
In general, there is no recourse when this happens, or if an avenue
exists in the courts it routinely results in dismissal of the case or
a decision which exonerates the killer.

The cumulative effect of these corporation-state decisions is that it
turns people away from having any faith they might have had in the
legal system as we know it. It's easy to say that we hate ISIS or
that we think that the antiquated corporation-state model (US, UK
being typical examples) are not desireable and are simply no longer
solutions for the modern world; it's harder to find viable
replacements for such systems because it takes a lot of work, but the
answers are out there.

Present day notions of governance, an observation:

"The truth of the matter is that all things must eventually end. The
modern state, lubricated by 1700s-era orts of Hegelian romantic
nationalism, is no exception. Within this context, which has been
carried forward from the 1700s to the modern day, the state attempts
to assert a political legitimacy based primarily upon the concept of
unity of a people within certain fictitious boundaries, which are
primarily defended not through reason, but through violence and
coercion (imposed upon those inside and outside the modern state's
fictitious geographic boundaries). The notion of 'representation,'
considered revolutionary and generally new and interesting at the time
of the French Revolution, is now antiquated and does not provide an
adequate framework for newer social and technological developments
that have ensued well past the emergence of French constitutional
monarchy and the United States of America in the period of 1776-1789.
Indeed, by 1989, just 200 years after the beginning of the French
Revolution, it was apparent that the notion of a strong, unified
state, controlled by a leader or leaders that everyone would be
required to follow, was (with more than a little finality) cast into
doubt, and the notion of "citizenship" as something defined by the
state was likewise in the early process of being discarded, as
communities began to form online with the development of the internet.
The notion that current systems of "government" should be preserved
and maintained is nothing more than a desperate grasp at living in the
past -- a past which we are now removed from by over 200 years!"

Tim Patrick:
> Wasn't he helping ISIS?
>
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015, psy <epsylon@???> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.csoonline.com/article/2976282/cyber-attacks-espionage/repo

rts-ex-teamp0ison-member-killed-in-syrian-drone-strike.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>


- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn