pap

stu0x - you make a lot of decent points, but is this the way that democracy conducts itself in response? Is this the limit of our wit? Have we ever stopped terrorists by simply killing them all? Is it your belief that Al Qaeda and its stated motives are so implacable that the only way that we can win is by killing them all?

Or as is more likely, a massive scare campaign in which the yes campaign tricks the public into staying in. If business wants to stay in the EU, I daresay we will.

It's harder than you think. But don't let the facts get in the way of something you think "must be true". It'll make future extra-judicial killings easier to bear.

Oh, and the legal justification? Obama can possibly be impeached for Awlaki's death. Executive Order 12233, put into law by Reagan and never repealed, specifically forbids it.

Same world, different standards. OBL should have gone to an International Court and tried for crimes against humanity.

Alright, stu0x - where's the proof that would hold up in court? Where are you getting your facts from? The man has never been indicted on criminal charges, and never been proven to be involved in a terrorist conspiracy. So what are we left with? Well, the man said things that could have inspired others to commit acts of terrorism. Where are we now? Those things still remain said, but in committing extrajudicial punishment, they carry a lot more weight to those who would have listened to him in the first place. There are plenty of 'ifs' and 'buts'. Are we that scared of what someone says that we kill them for it? Fairly dangerous position to be in. Where is "the line"? What about Nick Griffin? Or even worse, what about people on the far far right who advocate killing people because of their ethnicity? When do you think it is okay to kill your own citizens for the things they say, because as far as I can work out, his rantings are the only evidence that have been produced so far. Even the US Government have been very careful to use phrases like "may have been involved with the underwear bomber". No, and to be honest, this entire piece of your argument is suspect - because that's not the point I'm making at all. I don't know the details of every murderer in the country, but I do know that when they are charged, they are prosecuted to a criminal standard based on evidence.

No, it's not right that a government can, without due process, decide that one of its own citizens needs to be killed and not be accountable to anyone. I really don't think you have got it, Wes. And therein lies the rub. We have courts and juries to deem who is "bad enough to qualify", and rightly so. As to your question, would anyone on this forum qualify? Right now, probably not. Times have a habit of changing though. Twenty-five years ago, it was the Russians, now it's Islamic fundamentalists, who knows who it could be in another 25 years. We have the rule of law for a reason, Wes. When people are punished, the accused has a chance to defend himself and a majority of a jury is "satisfied so that they are sure" that the accused has committed the crime, returning a guilty verdict. I'm sorry, but its not really any different from what authoritarian governments of the past have done. If you're happy with that, fair play to you. Personally, I tend to hold the institution of justice in slightly higher regard.

Three of the EFTA members are also members of the European Economic Area, which participates in the single market without the financial burden of being in the EU. Not a perfect solution, but it frees up areas such as agriculture or fishing. You're quite right to point out the comparatively lowly stature of those states, though chaps. I don't necessarily believe we need to be part of anything so large. We're a financial and cultural centre, and I believe that we've got the ingenuity to do things for ourselves and the clout to negotiate favourable terms with the EU if we decided to leave. Good thread so far, btw. Was interested to hear pedg's explanation of how EU laws trickle down into local legal systems and was also good to get an insight into the mechanics of the voting process.

Chicken burger to look forward to afterward.

The formula is exactly this :- ( Number of people in 50 mile radius / Number Of Teams in 100 mile radius ) minus Number of glory hunters minus People who don't like football minus Disgruntled ex-fans with agendas against chairman / current manager / parking charges minus People physically unable to the ground (elderly, infirm, people tied to planks, etc.) plus small collection of Irishmen living through the consequences of a wild drunken claim. plus children of parents who've moved to another area, and have been brainwashed into supporting their parent's team. equals catchment area. HTH.

Isn't the putting the horse before the cart though, Andy? Political constructs like the European Union and trustee democracy are not inviolable. They're mechanisms for achieving certain tasks. If a mechanism is broken, we assess where it is going wrong, repair it or consider alternatives. Our ancestors weren't satisfied with "that's the way it is" - and nor should we be. The European Union has made some commendable achievements in its brief history, but it has also made some bad decisions and creates social problems. Ultimately, it's a question of whether it is worth the trouble. The problem is that no-one has ever bothered asking us, and I believe that the reason for that is that they already know the answer they would get.

I know, but people do love to frame people that have questions about Europe as right wingers.

An interesting link there, Andy, and I while I would support a lot of the points on there, I think they're grasping when they have to mention cheaper phone calls. Is political union a pre-requisite for all of them to have been achieved? I'm not so sure. I also don't agree with the assessment that it is a left-vs-right thing. It comes down to having a say in how you are governed, and on the issue of Europe, we've had very little say. We agreed to a common market. We didn't agree to political union, because we have never been asked.

So why EU specifically? Why not EFTA?

No-one is going to deny that certain sections of the press have been guilty of peddling crap or using hyperbole to boost sales. That said, they get away with it because there is very little public awareness of the issues, and very little criticism from the mainstream political parties. The most that you tend to get from them is that Europe is a major trading partner, along with the implication that membership of the EU is the only way we can retain that trading relationship. If the public don't have a good idea of what being in the EU entails, then we need to ask why. For what it's worth, I recognise that there are a lot of positives that membership confers, but also, the arrangement comes with a lot of strings attached. The Tories went on about immigration caps during the election, yet the fact is that theoretically, we could have 500 million people legally move into the country. Ok, that's an extreme example and is not really on the cards, but membership of the EU places plenty of strain on all aspects of British life, whether it's competition in the labour market or the additional resources required to deal with the social consequences of allowing hundreds of thousands of people to come to this country to live and work. Ultimately, this country has a lot of problems to address. We should be asking whether the EU is a help or a hindrance in resolving these difficulties, and have a balanced debate with the best interests of the country at the forefront.

Those are laudable sentiments, but we have tried similar approaches in other areas. Take a look at Labour's review of drug policy for example. They put together a team of people to come up with a fresh assessment, then completely ignored that assessment because it wasn't the answer that they wanted to hear. I'd argue that a referendum is the sole mechanism through which we can make a decision on the European Union. Cameron is on the record as not wanting his party members to "obsess" over the issue. Blair and Brown dithered over the issue. Parliament just doesn't seem interested in addressing the question. Now, I'm not a fan of the Daily Express - and my skepticism on the European project has taken a very long time to gestate. Ten years ago, I was firmly in the pro-European camp. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm alarmed at the amount of legislation that is being created, especially as very few media outlets want to shine a light on some of the shadier aspects of the EU. Too much stuff happens away from the public eye, lacks proper scrutiny and the EU has shown that it is not afraid to pull a fast one when it really wants to get its own way. The EU Constitution/EU Treaty is a very good example of this. The EU couldn't achieve its objectives through the mechanism of constitutional change, so bundled up the same vision into a series of treaty changes, and then asked countries to vote again when they "got it wrong", as happened in Ireland. If we leave it to our elected MPs, the EU project will just grow in scope unchecked. History backs me up on this, as this is precisely what we've done, and precisely what has happened.

That's not exactly true though, is it. For starters, many of us never got to vote on that referendum, on account of being too young or not born, etc. Also, what you voted for back in the 70s was not what we have now. If people had been told that in 40 odd years, a consequence of European Union would have been a massive influx of people from Eastern Europe, competing for UK jobs, you'd have been lucky to get one third saying yes. So in answer to your question, I'm not saying we should ignore the outcome of a referendum, but equally, we can't have things set in stone. A lot has changed since the referendum of the 1970s, enough to warrant a re-examination of the question. As for the Irish referendum, it's not even the same thing. The Irish re-voted on essentially the same package of measures, largely because, as you point out, the people in Brussels didn't like the original outcome. It's not the same as suggesting that we reexamine a decision that was taken almost forty years ago, particularly when the landscape has changed so much.

Yeah, the Lib Dems promised a lot before the election. They were in a good position to do so, as they never thought they'd have to deliver on any of it They also promised a referendum on the European Constitution, but wriggled out of their convictions when it was reworked into a series of treaty additions ( but still essentially amounted the same thing ). Have you heard of the European Stability Fund?

I would be surprised if it gets as far as a referendum. Even if it does, we haven't really shown ourselves to be capable of running a referendum with any sense of decorum, and it is still legal to lie through your teeth during referenda ( ASA doesn't apply ). In short, the British people should be able to vote on this issue, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

You got me bang to rights on that one, Inspector Hamilton Saint I do hope you'll consider the following evidence before passing judgement. a) it was tongue-in-cheek b) Ewood Park was the first ground I'd heard this at, some years ago, while we were in the Prem. Their PA announcer also wouldn't shut up that day. c) Venkys [video=youtube;v6euXX-pkCA]

Ron Paul's take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXsgTRzBePw

A lot of people had blood on their hands during the Troubles. It is interesting that you mention that though. As you'll remember, we did not stop the Troubles by shooting terrorists. Eventually difficult decisions had to be made, previously irreconcilable parties had to work together and people that were beyond the pale had to be brought back into the fold. I spent three years of my life there, and still visit a lot. In answer to your question, I do not see McGuinness as a hero - but I am glad that the process of reconciliation is making the North of Ireland a better and safer place to live.

The US forces were able to subdue Osama bin Laden, so even your crack team has been proven to work. But it's not really about feasibility, is it? They don't actually want to prosecute people through the legal system. They got OBL cowering, unarmed and in his nightclothes. At that point, it would have been perfectly feasible to have taken him for trial. I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the average American. Although they are not the hottest on international affairs, they are keenly aware of their own rights and constitution. The US has put terrorists on trial before. A fear of bias hasn't stopped them before. Even if all you say is true, OBL would have stood a much better chance if he'd gone to trial in the US than he did when he was gunned down in his nightie. So would AAA. This incident might seem comparatively small in isolation, but remember that we've already had the wonders of detention without charge, Guantanamo Bay, torture and extraordinary rendition. The US doesn't even have a good track record in finding the right people extrajudicially - most Guantanamo detainees are innocent. So yes, a trial would be difficult, but not impossible. And while this more expedient approach has certainly gotten results quickly, it lacks any public oversight and is in direct contravention with our supposed values. It diminishes the moral authority of the West and provides the motivation for future generations of terrorists. We're not actually solving any problems here, we're just kicking one immediate threat into the grass only to face a bigger one down the road.

The difference is that Obama has demonstrated that it will kill its own citizens if it perceives them as a threat to national security. Ok, it is very clearly delineated now. It's the war against Al-Qaeda, right? What if the enemy changes? What if it's suddenly some white supremacists from Georgia who are designated enemies of the state. As I asked another poster, what if you were designated an enemy of the state. If the government accused you of doing some very bad things, would it be okay to just kill you if they were especially bad?

If he is guilty of all he is charged of, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and punished. No-one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is that we seemed to have skipped all that tricky capture and legal stuff. It's a dangerous road to travel down. His dead body may not be able to orchestrate terrorist activities, but his death will inspire others to join the cause. To some ears, it'll be proof to every would-be jihadist that the West is exactly as described by those seeking to undermine it, that it's unjust and will just rip up its own principles for convenience. That it'll even kill its own citizens if that is more convenient than a fair trial. The US may have killed one terrorist, but actions like this only validate extremism for those that are on the fence. The US have suspended due process and illegally killed one of its own citizens. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and these are the guys were are supposed to look up to. The guys who showed us how democracy was supposed to work. What is the rest of the West supposed to think when the US says "yep, we killed him. But he was a BAD man. "? How would you feel if it were you that were targeted as an enemy of the state? Wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself?