Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

National "Do Not Kill Registry" Launched In Response To Drone Kill List

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the sign-me-up dept.

Idle 484

First time accepted submitter crtitheories writes "In response to the national kill list revealed by the New York Times a few weeks ago, an online "Do Not Kill" Registry has been launched where users can sign up to avoid being mistakenly added. From the Do Not Kill website: 'Through an active collaboration between the Do not Kill Registry, the brave pilots and operators of the U.S. drone program, and the American public, we believe that we can find the political and moral solutions needed to both protect the security of the United States while also satisfying the concerns of the broader global community'. "

cancel ×

484 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (5, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363847)

Aren't you a little late for April Fools Day?

Re:What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363901)

Nah, Americans are stupid all year long.

Re:What? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363939)

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
White lists are black lists.
Murder is heroic.
Lies are truth.

Welcome to the USA, sir.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363953)

Yea remind me of that morons called "hero" because he sniped 255 civilians, what a fucking assholes country.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364261)

And if you manage to find out that you happen to be placed on this 'Do Kill' list [say, by a drone strike that misses you], and believe you are being mistakenly targeted, there is a defined process that you can go through.

Present yourself, in person, with complete documentation as to who you are, including birth certificates, passports, lists of friends, workplaces, acquaintances, all computers you own or have used recently, residences and anything else you consider relevant, to the nearest American Embassy. You must completely enter the embassy and request to speak to the security officer, who will look over your information and quickly render his/her judgement on your case.

And if you are not satisfied with their judgement, your family and/or acquaintances outside of the Embassy can file a formal protest with their government, requesting that you be returned from wherever you are taken to.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364275)

Some useless dreck for you to get high to.

Yeah, so what? (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363871)

The commander in chief of the most powerful army, navy, and air force in the world has a list of people he wants dead? STOP THE PRESSES! Targeting specific people is not news... it's war. People die when they're killed. Derp.

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363893)

We are not at war with another nation-state, thus we are not at war.

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363937)

Eastasia has always not been a nation-state

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364087)

War did not exist before the Treaty of Westphalia?

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364121)

Which is like claiming that the US is the only nation that issues driver's licenses. There were states of various types before that, and they went to war. Just because there was a formalized treaty that recognized states doesn't mean they didn't exist before that. You might as well claim that time didn't exist until the first clock was made.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364269)

You miss the point of the question. He appears to assume that war only exists between nation-states. Need I elaborate further.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364165)

Actually -- we are at war with North Korea -- just saying.

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Insightful)

Anonyme Connard (218057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363963)

As an European, let me say that the president of a democracy should not have a list of people he wants dead. Arrested, maybe, although such a list should better be established by Justice, but not dead.

Re:Yeah, so what? (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363997)

Well, sure - in a European democracy that would not be good... they usually aren't supposed to have such powers. In the US, the President is also the head of the military (but in turn not connected to the legislature like a typical Prime Minister) - so naturally he would have final say over anyone the military is trying to kill, and in general this list should be restricted to people outside of the US courts' various jurisdictions (i.e. Yemen).

In the US, I'd be a lot more concerned if the President were not the one with final say over what the military is up to.

Re:Yeah, so what? (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364089)

>>>In the US, I'd be a lot more concerned if the President were not the one with final say over what the military is up to.

What you SHOULD be concerned about is the President already ordered the execution of 3 U.S. citizens, including an underage minor. I didn't realize the death penalty could be applied without a right to trial (or against juveniles... I thought they were exempt). We live in dangerous days.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364145)

Who? You might as well finish your post.

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364215)

I am concerned that the President has ordered a capture or kill order that will most likely result in kill, rather than capture, on three US citizens.

I am also concerned that there are three US citizens that most likely are dangerous enough to warrant such an order.

I am much less concerned by who makes this decision at the moment. Right now, for the first time in my life, the sitting President of the United States, an elected official, is personally reviewing the data on terrorists and personally deciding whether or not to attempt to take these people out. He's not handing the job to an analyst or to an assistant-to-an-undersecretary or some other unknown, non-elected bureaucrat. He is personally taking the responsibility and accepting the ramifications of these decisions.

These individuals are members of an organization that has successfully attacked us in the past and that has pledged to attack us in the future. There is no practical way to bring them to legal justice, as they operate as a de facto government in territory that they control. In that sense they nearly are members of a nation-state and the rules of war can be found to apply to them as lieutenants in that de facto government's military structure.

I think that the situation is a terrible, horrible one. But, I also have less qualms about how this is being run than I do about the entire detention/torture system that was in place before it.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364333)

Right now, for the first time in my life, the sitting President of the United States, an elected official, is personally reviewing the data on terrorists and personally deciding whether or not to attempt to take these people out. He's not handing the job to an analyst or to an assistant-to-an-undersecretary or some other unknown, non-elected bureaucrat. He is personally taking the responsibility and accepting the ramifications of these decisions.

Unless he also created said data from the start to the end you cannot be sure he will make the right decision since that data might be wrong. What IS happening is they are giving him the responsability s.t. he will take the fall if shit hits the fan, i.e. he is the scapegoat as always was the case with presidents. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a choice, he only gets "instructions".

You will say that that is just a conspiracy theory, it might be but think about Bush, surely they knew how dumb he was yet they chose him as a candidate... They wanted him to be elected so he would get all the shit. It's his fault for the wars, the economy, etc. It's not the banks', the oil companies' or the weapons companies' fault.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364331)

Citation please....

I've never heart about that. It's almost unbelievable, but then again, the Patriot Act was passed..

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364287)

President is also considered to be the supreme commander of armed forces in many European countries, as well - France is a good example.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

ad1217 (2418196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363999)

Well, it is technically a democratic republic (not that it makes it any better).

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364137)

Thank God the US isn't a democracy.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364321)

As an European, let me say that the president of a democracy should not have a list of people he wants dead.

That would depend on the circumstances. During WW2, leaders of democratic Western countries did not have any qualms about targeting high-ranged Reich functionaries. Sure, those that survived the end of the war were given some pretense of due process, but before that, do you think, say, Churchill wouldn't have ordered a bombing of the exact place he'd have known Himmler or Goring to reside in at that particular moment?

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363981)

Killing foreigners? Okay. Killing Americans? A violation of the president's oath to uphold Constituional Law: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A kill list may exist, but a kill list that includes Americans citizens is tyrannical.

Re:Yeah, so what? (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364019)

Killing foreigners? Okay.

This bit is absolutely right; but it doesn't agree with the bit of the constitution you claimed to quote. I think you must have done a misquote. The constitution actually reads:

"No person who is for sure 100% known to have American citizenship shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (or being mistaken for a foreigner); nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (except for foreign property)."

It's shocking the way that people make these kinds of basic mistake.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364151)

What point are you trying to make? That killing foreign soldiers is a crime? What bullshit. For example: The moment the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they all forfeited their right to life (upto the day they surrendered). War is hell but to just rollover and refuse to fight when foreigners are shooting at you, or bombing you, is stupid. The president has the authority to order the military to kill these foreign persons from the moment war is declared, or the country invaded, until the end of the war.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364181)

So why do american think the entire world should be in silence when a stupid american soldiers die like he deserved to ?

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364293)

So what about all the prisoners of the "War on Terror"?

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364177)

at least one person "100% known to have American citizenship" has been intentionally targeted and killed by a drone. it took them a month to figure out that they "could" kill him, and then apparently 1.5 years to seal the deal. and then they killed his son, also an american citizen.

also, your formulation is funny. how can the american gov't not be 100% sure whether someone is american or not? it's fairly simple. or are you saying that if i close my eyes and fire into a crowd, that this somehow mitigates my legal responsibility since i didn't really know whether i was shooting anyone?

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364279)

When you live outside of the US and are actively being treasonous, I'm sure a FISA court or military court could hear the case without it being public. The media might not like it, and the evidence might not be exposed to the public, but it happens.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364023)

Due process doesn't necessarily mean courts, especially when we're talking about unlawful combatants in a war zone.

Re:Yeah, so what? (-1, Troll)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364025)

The fact that Obama hasn't been impeached yet is the most damning indictment of our political system I could imagine. He has utterly failed in his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364133)

You're right that Obama should be impeached for killing 2 American citizens without making the slightest attempt at due process. Anwar al-Awlaki was arguably a Bad Person, but his son Abdulrahman was also targeted and killed 2 weeks later for what I can only assume was the sole crime of being the son of Anwar.

Dick Cheney should also have been impeached and tried for war crimes: The United States declared that ordering waterboarding was a crime against humanity back in 1945-6, and Dick Cheney proudly proclaimed that he had ordered waterboarding on national television.

Basically, top officials of the US are now above the law, and know it.

Re:Yeah, so what? (4, Insightful)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364189)

The fact that Obama hasn't been impeached yet is the most damning indictment of our political system I could imagine. He has utterly failed in his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Pass the tea, please.

Seriously, people said this through 12 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Reagan. The side not in power always whines that the President is not upholding the constitution while doing everything in Congress possible to prevent work from getting done. The reality is that most of the HSA, TSA and health care actions taken by this administration (by it's own choice) have origins in either the Bush administration or conservative thinkers. Suddenly it's against the Constitution because it's a Democrat wanting to do it.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364257)

Okay, I'll bite.

Please give me specific examples of where he has failed to follow the rules as set out in the Constitution.

Has he taken your guns?

Has he quartered any troops in your house or on your land?

Has he taken any more powers "reserved for the states" than his predecessors? If yes, I want specifics, including how the courts have ruled on the matter(s).

Has he prohibited assembly, or speech? Has he endorsed a state-sponsored religion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Yeah, so what? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364091)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Actually, note that it says "person" not citizen. This was intentional (you can see to how many times they note "citizen" in the constitution), and so it applies to all people, including foreigners.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364111)

And a kill list that includes everyone else is not? The difference here is really that it's not unconstitutional to have a kill list with 5 billion people on it as long as they're not american, the tyrannical or amoral or just plain-ridiculous-as-expected-from-politics are determined by entirely different criteria than a text that pretends to be a law of nature in some book that is selectively ignored for most of the time.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

EvilElk (2664953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364313)

And a kill list that includes everyone else is not? The difference here is really that it's not unconstitutional to have a kill list with 5 billion people on it as long as they're not american, the tyrannical or amoral or just plain-ridiculous-as-expected-from-politics are determined by entirely different criteria than a text that pretends to be a law of nature in some book that is selectively ignored for most of the time.

It's easy, it's a little bit like a Jihad.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2, Informative)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364125)

That part of the Constitution says 'no person', not 'no American citizen'. The right to due process does not depend on being a citizen of any particular country.

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364187)

... though it has to be said, these rights originally did not apply to non-citizens such as black people, so it might be argued they don't fully apply to people who are not US citizens today. No doubt there is a rich body of case law on the topic.

Re:Yeah, so what? (5, Insightful)

DVega (211997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364175)

I've never understood this concept, that moral rights only apply to American citizens. May be I am not smart enough to grasp the idea.

It seems to be Ok to kill any non-american without due process or self-defense. Even to kill anyone including (or around) his family/kids. It seems also fine to detain and torture foreigners for an undetermined amount of time as long it is done outside USA soil.

Can someone explain it to me? Does it mean, for example, that I can own a slave, as long is not American?

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364213)

I'm probably a little biased since I'm not an American, so forgive me if this comes off sounding rude, but fuck you.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364255)

Killing foreigners? Okay.

Perhaps American soldiers and politicians are also fully accepting to be arrested during holidays..Oh, they had this immunity contract protecting them. But then how can the US be a part of the UN since they clearly don't agree on the principles of the universal human rights? Questions, question..

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364265)

Enlisting in a hostile foreign enemy is an automatic revocation of one's citizenship. Al Qaeda arguably is a de facto foreign power, a hostile foreign enemy.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364317)

The case of Michael Townly.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364349)

Not sure if your post is satirical, but it has been modded ‘interesting’.
I think it’s monstrous that anyone could consider that killing foreigners without due process is any less bad than killing ones own citizens without it.

Wars are a special case obviously— but INITIATING war is pretty fucking tyrannical in the first place.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364033)

Officially there was a ban on political assassinations by the US starting with Ford but it was ended by Clinton.

Assassination was one of those things that "We just did not do anymore." and that we were morally past it, but realities changed and now it is necessary again.

Re:Yeah, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364067)

The most fucked-up thing is, that you think this is normal.
Brainwashing at its best.

-- A white hat social engineer

Re:Yeah, so what? (1, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364131)

I know this is probably news to you, but the American civil war ended in 1865, which was 147 years ago. There should not be any American citizens being targeted by the US army, since we stopped fighting a war against American citizens 147 years ago. Yet here we are, looking at a list of American citizens to be executed without trial.

Re:Yeah, so what? (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364251)

Except that these are not all soldiers in a foreign military belonging to a hostile state. In some cases they are even our own Citizens. These people are by and large accused criminals, violent ones maybe but criminals not uniform soldiers.

We passed laws decades against our intelligence services assassinating people.

We are supposed to have rights, in the case of citizens at least, to face our accuser, have the decision on our guilt be made by a jury of our peers if we desire, have the burden of proof be placed on the state.

Some how we have let that slip, and now the President and some of his yes men get together in a room, and order the execution of whoever they want! If we are not fighting to protect our freedom and the rule of our law, why are fighting at all? The president has flaunted the law consistently since he was in office. The harm Obama has done to this nation is beyond measure. Bush made some bone headed moves, and the PATRIOT Act sucks, but at least he largely operated within our legal frame work. Obama is a dangerous criminal who should himself be on the execution block for treason, well after a fair trial and if convicted anyway

Re:Yeah, so what? (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364367)

The president has flaunted the law consistently
"Flouted", not "flaunted"

Sure. . . (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363873)

Sounds legit. . .

Ooops? (4, Interesting)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363885)

After a quick WHOIS search, and a bit of googling, I found that this is registered to an individual who worked in 2009 as a San Francisco Art Institute teaching assistant.

It's a joke site.

Re:Ooops? (3, Funny)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363955)

No, really? It's just an art student's project? You don't say.jpg

Re:Ooops? (5, Funny)

kanto (1851816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363961)

After a quick WHOIS search, and a bit of googling, I found that this is registered to an individual who worked in 2009 as a San Francisco Art Institute teaching assistant.

It's a joke site.

Now you tell me, I already enrolled Schrödinger's cat... not because I care about this overused meme, but because I've got money on the outcome.

Re:Ooops? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363965)

How does that make it a "joke" site instead of site trying to bring attention to the matter?

Re:Ooops? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363993)

Put out by
This guy [ianalanpaul.com]

Re:Ooops? (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364035)

>>>this is registered to an individual who worked in 2009 as a San Francisco Art Institute teaching assistant.

So?
Art teachers or students don't have a right to make a political statement? How Hitlerian of you. Next I suppose you'll want this site thrown on a book-burning pile because it's "degenerate" art.

Re:Ooops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364201)

How Hitlerian of you

Exactly. Hitler used to love calmly pointing out facts, and making no judgemental statements, or anything misleading at all. That crazy Hitler... always telling people informative things after a few minutes research.

Re:Ooops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364229)

Godwin's law invoked, thread invalid.

Re:Ooops? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364155)

Really?!?!?

Re:Ooops? (4, Insightful)

markjhood2003 (779923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364173)

It's not a joke, it's political satire. And as such it is just as serious as it is entertaining.

Sure.... (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363909)

Because the Do Not Call list worked out so well

Re:Sure.... (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364055)

Wha? I added myself to that list and it cut my sales calls down considerably. Now I only get obviously fraudulent calls from spoofed caller ids, and far fewer of them.

Re:Sure.... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364061)

Worked for me. Got a few "free" cruises on my work phone. Added my number to DNC, haven't gotten another one in the year-plus since. Co-worker complained about getting one a month or so back so I know they're still doing it.

Re:Sure.... (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364107)

Because the Do Not Call list worked out so well

I'm curious, what are the penalties for the second violation and third violation of killing someone on the list? Are they as sever as the Do Not Call list penalties?

Re:Sure.... (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364109)

And like the Do Not Call list, this one would surely have exceptions that politicians, charities, and companies you've dealt with in the last year could ignore.

I'm not sure how I feel about a charity participating in an extrajudicial execution.

Is this a joke? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363921)

Seriously, is this a joke?

It is almost ridiculous enough to be funny, but it also sounds just plausible enough to be real.

Re:Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364007)

Seriously, it is. Serious it isn't.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

markjhood2003 (779923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364197)

Are slashdotters really this blind to obvious satire? Geez, what do you guys do when you encounter the Colbert Report?

remember the 3 sarah conners? (1)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363927)

Not sure that this will work very well. If you accidentially end up on a kill list of an automated hunter-killer, any redress list probably won't appear in the phone book listing... ;^)

Should read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363967)

Where reads: "Democracy and Free Enterprise"
Should read: "Demokrazy and Free Enterprize"
or: "Free Enterprize and Free Enterprize"

It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363969)

All lists should be Opt-In by default. So If I don't want to be teased, called, spammed etc I have to get on so many lists. Let's strike a deal and have One lust to rule them all -- "Don't put me on any List" list.

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (5, Insightful)

nwf (25607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364095)

"Don't put me on any List" list.

That list couldn't exist, obviously.

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (2)

Fortran IV (737299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364329)

"Don't put me on any List" list.

That list couldn't exist, obviously.

Will the real Douglas R. Hofstadter please stand up?

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364361)

"Don't put me on any List" list.

That list couldn't exist, obviously.

Sure it could, but it's opt out. The list starts with everybody's name and you sign up by removing your name from the list.

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (0)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364375)

awesome

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364263)

One lust to rule them all

I would like to thank you, sir,. for one of the best typos I've seen in a long, long time.

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364337)

>>>One lust to rule them all

I like how you think.
I have a massive lust and can't wait to rule all (women). Or maybe I'll just settle for OWNing them all (a terabyte nudie collection).

Re:It should be Opt-In, not Opt-Out. (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364365)

All lists should be Opt-In by default.

You are free to start a "Please kill me now" list. ;-)

We need another site (5, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363975)

Can we have a "Please Kill" list as well. I have a neighbor with a dog that barks all night that's just itching for a drone attack.

Re:We need another site (3, Funny)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364097)

You should use this drone [slashdot.org] .

Re:We need another site (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364103)

Can we have a "Please Kill" list as well. I have a neighbor with a dog that barks all night that's just itching for a drone attack.

As long as you are aware that there is often collateral damage in a drone attack, normally the neighbors of the target.

Re:We need another site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364159)

I believe the observed, correct method is to call in a tip about well armed drug dealers living there, at which point, agents arrive, shoot the dog, ransack the home, imprison the occupant, and maybe he gets out in a day or two, but no more dog! LaaaAAnd of the Freeeee, and the Hoooome of the Brrraaaave.

Re:We need another site (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364369)

Reminds me of the old joke about the old Italian man. He wrote to his son in prison saying that he wouldn't be able to plant the tomatoes this year because he couldn't dig up the plot and that he wished his son were there to help. The son wrote back that he shouldn't dig there anyway because that's where the bodies were buried. After the agents swarmed in and dug up the garden, his son wrote another letter saying, "Sorry for the agents, but it was the best I could do."

Re:We need another site (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364327)

Actually, there's something much, much better than a drone if you really want to be sure: OADS. [impsec.org] Let the anvils ring!

This list doesn't agree with my religious beliefs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40363985)

I am required to smite the heretic and the infidel.

This is a deeply-held religious conviction.

As such, I must be accommodated by law.

Accordingly, a Do-Kill-List must be started.

BTW, it is a heresy not to use your turn signals. Let the slaughter begin. God shall know his own.

Site Blocked at Work (3, Funny)

IgnacioB (687913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40363989)

The site is blocked here at a major international corporation! Should I worry that my employer has blocked the site and I can't sign up? Does that mean they've pre-protected me and already signed me up with a special corporate agreement or that I need to start looking up and over my shoulder for funny looking planes orbiting my position?

genius (5, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364005)

it's a scam by the CIA, trying to tempt terrorists to fill in their name and whereabouts thinking they'll be safer.

also beware of the "do not steal my identity list", send name, address, SSN, mother's maiden name, bank details to apply

Ob. Star Trek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364009)

"No Kill I"

YALFSATLA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364029)

Yet Another List For Spy Agencies To Look At.

Security (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364057)

Stop pissing everyone off to the point they want to attack you! It's not rocket science, if you keep walking into other countries ( or flying ) and pushing them around like the bully at school, then one day someone will come to school with a gun and your going to pay.

So you want the solution, just admit you've been a complete ass-hole to everyone, take what's coming and what you deserve and then play nice.

Re:Security (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364139)

I suppose you also believe everybody plays by the same rules.

well, there's an election coming... (1)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364105)

Let's keep this in mind for the upcoming election, and let's see what the two major candidates have to say about it. And don't complain that you didn't have a choice... there were primary candidates who strongly opposed these kinds of foreign adventures by the US government.

Re:well, there's an election coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364185)

Yes, but they were all racist authoritarian scumbags who want to use the force of government to control my body. How about some _real_ choices?

Should have named the site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364115)

"Don't kill me bro"

Tomorrow's announcement (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364143)

Unfortunately, due to some misplaced punctuation, everyone on the Do Not Kill registry was accidentally added to the Kill list. Our programmers are working hard to correct this error, and we extend our greatest sympathies to the relatives of those who have accidentally been killed already.

Modifying list (1)

IsaacD (1376213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40364245)

Who do I contact to have someone removed from that list?

Alternate methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40364309)

Doesn't being filmed eating pork with an official time-stamp every X hours accomplish the same thing?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?