Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?

[fj1200]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill-americans-031832960.html)
Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."
...
But what does "an associated force" mean? It seems like the guy who sells the terrorists bomb supplies would probably qualify, but what about the unknowing neighbor or the hired hand? Can we just kill them too in good conscience? Quite unfortunately, the government isn't exactly sure. The memo suggests that anyone who "present[s] an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States" qualifies for assassination "a lawful killing in self defense," but that "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." In other words, an "informed, high-level" official can order the killing of any American citizen that was "recently" involved in threatening "activities." As Isikoff points out, the memo fails to define both of those terms.

"This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."

[fj1200]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

[revelarts]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill-americans-031832960.html)



Yep, and He's already killed over 100 childre... i mean collateral damage... who were not a threat.

ANYBODY can be a freaking "threat"?
i . .I.. I don't even know where to start to say how bad this is anymore.

I think i can safely say that George Washington and all of the founders would not approve of the president ASSUMING this kind of authority.
the power is NOT found anywhere in the constitution.


And the threat is welp...arrg ar don't get me started.

[revelarts]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

that's right.
it's called murder or assassination.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill-americans-031832960.html)



When the authority to execute an American citizen is deliberately made to be this broad and given to solely one person(the president) we must rightly determine that it is both Unconstitutional and absolutely dictatorial!
That would mean illegal and therefore =murder IMHO..
TOLD YOU PEOPLE THIS GUY IS SO DAMN SMUG BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS DICTATORIAL POWERS!!! -Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

Why?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

^^^ I agree with that. However my post deals with the authority granted and the fact that it does not limit such action to war only or even to location. -Tyr

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr

Why?


Why... TOO BROAD, TOO DICTATORIAL AND SUCH AUTHORITY AS WRITTEN SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
TO ANY ONE MAN IMHO. DEFINITELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMHO... --Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

So Obama is allowing the TARGETED ASSASSINATION of American Citizens...

And you support him because.......?

[gabosaurus]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

[Robert A Whit]

Yep, and He's already killed over 100 childre... i mean collateral damage... who were not a threat.

ANYBODY can be a freaking "threat"?
i . .I.. I don't even know where to start to say how bad this is anymore.

I think i can safely say that George Washington and all of the founders would not approve of the president ASSUMING this kind of authority.
the power is NOT found anywhere in the constitution.


And the threat is welp...arrg ar don't get me started.

You are not supposed to call him president.

You are supposed to call him dictator. Stop wising off by saying president.

Thank you. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

Who specifically?

[Robert A Whit]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

Your task that you will instantly refuse to do, for the day, is to provide the following.
1. A name that matches your claim. Please not from the Inquirer if you don't mind.
2. Proof that it was the Bush administration that had said citizen arrested with no warrant.

BTW, is it possible that it was the Congress that crafted some law, however imperfect, that Bush signed in order to focus in on terrorists?

3. Name one that was not heard from again.

[gabosaurus]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

[jimnyc]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

I did, nothing. Besides, YOU stated it happened, the least you can do is provide proof. I am doubting your story, prove me wrong, if you can.

[Robert A Whit]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

Gabby rule number 1.

Gabby makes a wild claim.

WE then are all to rush all over hell and back to prove she is telling the truth.

Any of you want to help her that way?

Gabby rule number 2.

Only for left wingers is everything you find on the internet the absolute truth.

[Little-Acorn]

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr

Unfortunately wwe don't always have the luxury of choosing where the battlefiled is, and isn't.

Anywhere these traitors are making war against the United States, IS the battlefield. It's their choice. And the U.S. Armed Services ARE authorized to make war against them, as they make war against us, regardless of where the traitors have chosen to do it.

Letting them hide by choosing the "wrong" location, is equivalent to giving up. It's a ludicrous suggestion.

Do you think WAR is a place for niceties and parlor games, played with an enemy when he is actively trying to kill you?

[fj1200]

So Obama is allowing the TARGETED ASSASSINATION of American Citizens...

And you support him because.......?

Please point out where I support him?

[fj1200]

Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

Why?

Liberals huh? I thought those who desired adherence to the Constitution were conservative. Besides, who said a sniper was any different?

We're not talking about citizens who happened to have joined an opposing army and were killed in the course of battle, we're talking about a specific action against specific citizens who have not been afforded their rights. It's amazing how some conveniently forget that difference in the name of safety.


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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder) of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nowhere is the Executive granted the ability to act alone. Treason must be brought to the Judicial and Congress sets the punishment. This is a clear overreach by the administration.

[Little-Acorn]

We're not talking about citizens who happened to have joined an opposing army and were killed in the course of battle,
That is EXACTLY who we are talking about. The fact that that opposing army doesn't wear pretty uniforms with all the correct buttons and epaulets, and march in established formations, is completely irrelevant.


we're talking about a specific action against specific citizens who have not been afforded their rights.
We're talking about citizens who have made, and are actively making WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

For several posts now you have ignored as hard as you can, the fact of WAR.

We can, and will, treat them exactly the same as we treated the Japanese and Germans in WWII. If you see 'em, shoot 'em. These are people who are not under our control, who have weapons or easy access to same, and who are actively and voluntarily making war against us, killing Americans when and where they can.

What part of WAR don't you understand?


It's amazing how some conveniently forget that difference in the name of safety.
You have no idea. Unfortunately.


Nowhere is the Executive granted the ability to act alone.
Already refuted earlier in this thread.

[gabosaurus]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27/citizen-recalls-humiliating-post-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

[jimnyc]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27/citizen-recalls-humiliating-post-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

I wouldn't doubt the CIA having remote camps and such. It's the "disappeared" part I doubt. Can you just point out those, or link, where people just disappeared?

[fj1200]

That is EXACTLY who we are talking about. The fact that that opposing army doesn't wear pretty uniforms with all the correct buttons and epaulets, and march in established formations, is completely irrelevant.

Incorrect. No one made any mention of pretty uniforms. I do love it when "conservatives" argue the liberal line though. ;)


We're talking about citizens who have made, and are actively making WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

For several posts now you have ignored as hard as you can, the fact of WAR.

We can, and will, treat them exactly the same as we treated the Japanese and Germans in WWII. If you see 'em, shoot 'em. These are people who are not under our control, who have weapons or easy access to same, and who are actively and voluntarily making war against us, killing Americans when and where they can.

What part of WAR don't you understand?

The only thing I've ignored is a strawman. What you apparently are in favor of is unchecked power held in one branch of government; that branch which you currently have great issue with, or so I thought.


You have no idea. Unfortunately.

Great argument there. :rolleyes:


Already refuted earlier in this thread.

You refuted the Constitution earlier in this thread? Do tell.

[Little-Acorn]

I see that little fj1200 is trying as hard as he can to either misunderstand or ignore what I say. So, not much point in talking to him any more.

Back to the subject:
Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.

In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.

This has been true for as long as war has existed.

Did somebody change it recently?

[fj1200]

(states irrelevant obviousness)

Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.

In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.

This has been true for as long as war has existed.

Did somebody change it recently?

fify No changes though, we've always had that "damn" Constitution getting in the way.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27/citizen-recalls-humiliating-post-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

Please provide your proof or shut the hell up...

Where are these WIKILEAKS papers?

LINK US TO THEM or Stop making claims you cant support.....

[fj1200]

I see that little fj1200 is not sucking down my facile logic. So, not much point in talking to him any more.

Always seems to be that way huh?

Gotta hand it to you though, four posts in one thread is almost a record for you.

[aboutime]

I wouldn't doubt the CIA having remote camps and such. It's the "disappeared" part I doubt. Can you just point out those, or link, where people just disappeared?




jimnyc. Obviously Gabby has no proof. And all of us are witnesses to how wrong she is.

After all. GABBY IS STILL HERE! So the "disappeared" part...just isn't true.

[taft2012]

fify No changes though, we've always had that "damn" Constitution getting in the way.

Yes, but doesn't that same Constitution also give the President immense powers as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to order firing on people overseas? :salute:

I gotta go with Little Acorn on this one.

[revelarts]

I see that little fj1200 is trying as hard as he can to either misunderstand or ignore what I say. So, not much point in talking to him any more.
Back to the subject:
Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.
In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.
This has been true for as long as war has existed.
Did somebody change it recently?

Well we've got a war on "terror"
A war on "drugs"
A war on "cancer"
A war on "poverty"


All declared unilaterally by Presidents, not congress
All of them are vaporous and unending and ultimately unwinnable.
all of which congress weakly and tepidly gave some baptism too with a bit of law or resolution.

Yet NONE of those laws gave the president the power -to kill anybody he wants to, anywhere in the world as he sees fit- and even less for potential threats.

You don't blow up a house or a funeral procession for 1 man talking about killing others acorn. That's not "war" that assassination and mass slaughter.


show me a declaration of war if you want to talk war powers. and even there there are rules of engagement, even if YOU don't like to acknowledge them

[fj1200]

Yes, but doesn't that same Constitution also give the President immense powers as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to order firing on people overseas? :salute:

I gotta go with Little Acorn on this one.

So you're going with the Constitutional convenience angle too?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr




Unfortunately wwe don't always have the luxury of choosing where the battlefiled is, and isn't.

Anywhere these traitors are making war against the United States, IS the battlefield. It's their choice. And the U.S. Armed Services ARE authorized to make war against them, as they make war against us, regardless of where the traitors have chosen to do it.

Letting them hide by choosing the "wrong" location, is equivalent to giving up. It's a ludicrous suggestion.

Do you think WAR is a place for niceties and parlor games, played with an enemy when he is actively trying to kill you?

I am talking purely about the need to limit the authority as it is defined now not the general application of how its applied to terrorists be they abroad or here in country. As it is written it is Unconstitutional in m opinion. The fact that its so broad ---gives almost limitless power , ripe for abuse and that is Unconstitutional. -Tyr

[taft2012]

So you're going with the Constitutional convenience angle too?

I would consider an argument that attempts to endow enemy combatants overseas with due process rights, regardless of citizenship, as more of an argument of Constitutional convenience...

... than one that affirms the President's authority to blow the living shit out of enemy combatants overseas, regardless of citizenship, who happen to be actively working to kill our troops.

Do I think Obama is an outrageously hypocritical piece of shit, who hyperventilated about foreign enemy combatants being waterboarded overseas, but now is OK with bombing to smithereens American citizens who happen to also be enemy combatants/agents?

Yes, but I am not about to allow his inconsistency to impact my personal consistency. Yes, I think he is perfectly authorized to do this, and yes, I think he's a hypocritical piece of shit.

On a side note; Obviously they have someone identified who is doing something VERY bad. Feck 'im.

[Kathianne]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27/citizen-recalls-humiliating-post-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

I went to the Fox site first, 'cutting edge' sounding a bit dubious. A question, why would an AP file date be in February 2011, the story being post 9/11? Something wrong there.

[fj1200]

I would consider an argument that attempts to endow enemy combatants overseas with due process rights, regardless of citizenship, as more of an argument of Constitutional convenience...

... than one that affirms the President's authority to blow the living shit out of enemy combatants overseas, regardless of citizenship, who happen to be actively working to kill our troops.

Nobody is endowing anyone with anything; the issue is an American citizen who is already "endowed" with those rights. And as far as those actively working to kill our troops SCOTUS has determined 60? years ago that citizens opposing the US on the battle field do not have the right to not be shot.


Do I think Obama is an outrageously hypocritical piece of shit, who hyperventilated about foreign enemy combatants being waterboarded overseas, but now is OK with bombing to smithereens American citizens who happen to also be enemy combatants/agents?

Yes, but I am not about to allow his inconsistency to impact my personal consistency. Yes, I think he is perfectly authorized to do this, and yes, I think he's a hypocritical piece of shit.

That would require a Constitutional authorization.


On a side note; Obviously they have someone identified who is doing something VERY bad. Feck 'im.

I'm all for having the ability to take out these types of people but we shouldn't be willing to sell out the Constitution to make it happen especially vesting all power in one branch.

[taft2012]

Nobody is endowing anyone with anything; the issue is an American citizen who is already "endowed" with those rights. And as far as those actively working to kill our troops SCOTUS has determined 60? years ago that citizens opposing the US on the battle field do not have the right to not be shot.

OK then, if this was already decided, what's the issue?

Edit: or did you just happen to mangle a double negative there?

[revelarts]

It's ditatorial powers.
and if we weren't the big kid on the block none of this crap would fly internationally.

Can we go into China and drone strike? or send a team in to kill a "potential" threat.
What about Russia?
North Korea? Iran?

IF China said -"we have secret intel we can never show anyone" - that there were Buddhist terrorist in the U.S. that want to bomb the Temimen square and they drone struck a few homes in Texas and Vermont -that happened to kill a few kids-.
And the Chiniese gov't sad sorry but we are "at war".

how would that fly? We'd call it BS. and it would mean real war.
There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

[taft2012]

That would require a Constitutional authorization.

The authorization is in the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces status.



I'm all for having the ability to take out these types of people but we shouldn't be willing to sell out the Constitution to make it happen especially vesting all power in one branch.

I'm all for taking them out too, and it's in the Constitution.


It's ditatorial powers.
and if we weren't the big kid on the block none of this crap would fly internationally.

Can we go into China and drone strike? or send a team in to kill a "potential" threat.
What about Russia?
North Korea? Iran?

IF China said -"we have secret intel we can never show anyone" - that there were Buddhist terrorist in the U.S. that want to bomb the Temimen square and they drone struck a few homes in Texas and Vermont -that happened to kill a few kids-.
And the Chiniese gov't sad sorry but we are "at war".

how would that fly? We'd call it BS. and it would mean real war.
There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

In the abstract, that's a compelling argument.

In real life, we have the ability to assist any nation to capture such an individual anywhere within our borders. Pakistan, for instance, admitted themselves they had no such control of the situation in many places within their borders.

We're not doing drone attacks on London because Scotland Yard is quite accommodating when needed.



There is no real war on potential someday maybe terrorist. it's just ad hoc assassination and slaughter .

If you could please refresh my memory: what exactly was the intended military target at the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001, and what steps did the attackers take to avoid collateral damage and slaughter of innocents?

[fj1200]

OK then, if this was already decided, what's the issue?

Edit: or did you just happen to mangle a double negative there?

No double negative there, you just have to read it properly. This case hasn't been decided, battlefield actions have been.


The authorization is in the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces status.

I'm all for taking them out too, and it's in the Constitution.

Your desire for it to be does not make it so. Your justification is so broad that almost anything that happens by directed military action is "in the Constitution" but so far no one has taken up the cause of the "associated force." Almost by definition that person is not on the field of battle. It sucks but citizens have rights that are not to be taken away lightly and especially by the actions of one branch of government.

[revelarts]

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Kill_list_victim_zps6d4a6b49.jpg

[fj1200]

^I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, drone strikes create an image of an imperial force that acts with little regard to borders/consequences.

[Little-Acorn]

^I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, drone strikes create an image of an imperial force that acts with little regard to borders/consequences.

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

[fj1200]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

Perhaps you could dispense with the strawmen arguments and address the unfortunate fact that a select few, which is really what's at issue here, are citizens. I also see that you failed to address the "associated force" argument.


I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

Perhaps if you were actually as good at this as you think in your head...

[Kathianne]

I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok to kill indiscriminately. Innocents are being killed at a faster rate than the terrorists and that makes the US no different than the terrorists.

[fj1200]

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

Yes, he would. But you avoided him being targeted on a kill list and as "associated force."

[revelarts]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

was Alwalki ARMED and firing at Americans or with his finger on a bomb trigger when he was drone struck?

Was his SON ARMED and firing at Americans?

what part of War don't you understand.
driving pdwn the road in your car is not and ACT of WAR or a fire fight Acorn.
Standing a Funeral is not WAR.

What part of your Brain Conflates those acts with a Germans shooting across a beach?
you've got the problem Acorn, take off the war glasses and see what going on here.

[Drummond]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.:clap::clap::clap:

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap:

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !


The One, and Only question was asked: "ARE YOU PEOPLE RIGHT IN THE HEAD?"

Nothing more needs to be said. Seems like the entire country has become a tidal wave of Idiots who are in competition with EACH OTHER to prove...They are Better at being IDIOTS than everyone else.

And sadly. "THEY ALL WIN!"

[Kathianne]

"Targeting an individual" should involve sniper, not a bomb. Thus we have so many innocents killed. I can see such for a bin Laden target, when it's 'a sure thing' to get him/her, but not the way it's being used on near weekly or less basis. Too many dead, that shouldn't be.

[fj1200]

:clap::clap::clap:

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !

Yup, the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude you express. Are you going to ignore the "associated force" aspect too?

[taft2012]

I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok to kill indiscriminately.

Are you speaking of the 9-11 terrorists or the American citizens who are working to help them kill more innocents?

[taft2012]

was Alwalki ARMED and firing at Americans or with his finger on a bomb trigger when he was drone struck?

Was his SON ARMED and firing at Americans?

what part of War don't you understand.
driving pdwn the road in your car is not and ACT of WAR or a fire fight Acorn.
Standing a Funeral is not WAR.

What part of your Brain Conflates those acts with a Germans shooting across a beach?
you've got the problem Acorn, take off the war glasses and see what going on here.

You do realize, don't you, that your prerequisite for 100% fail safe assurances against collateral damage disqualifies any military action whatsoever? That's not even really an issue worth discussing.

But I understand your genuine concern; domestic drones discovering illegal marijuana fields. So your cost may rise a little, chill out. You can fly to Colorado and Washington State to load up.

[fj1200]

You do realize, don't you, that your prerequisite for 100% fail safe assurances against collateral damage disqualifies any military action whatsoever? That's not even really an issue worth discussing.

But I understand your genuine concern; domestic drones discovering illegal marijuana fields. So your cost may rise a little, chill out. You can fly to Colorado and Washington State to load up.

:rolleyes:

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."

[taft2012]

:rolleyes:

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."

One example was provided, and there's only one number less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.

That's rather simple math and logic there....

[fj1200]

One example was provided, and there's only one number less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.

That's rather simple math and logic there....

Incorrect. You misread especially as the example here is who are citizens.

[taft2012]

Incorrect. You misread especially as the example here is who are citizens.

I apologize. Please fill me in on the other American citizens droned discussed here other than the one I see Rev posted:

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Kill_list_victim_zps6d4a6b49.jpg

[fj1200]

I apologize. Please fill me in on the other American citizens droned discussed here other than the one I see Rev posted:

No need to apologize but you're attributing statements not made. We're talking about assurances that citizens won't be targeted by drones without due process; it should be easy to not target.

[aboutime]

:rolleyes:

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."


fj. The prerequisite you are looking for...made easier for you to understand, would be YOU, going to the bathroom, and forgetting to WIPE.

[fj1200]

fj. The prerequisite you are looking for...made easier for you to understand, would be YOU, going to the bathroom, and forgetting to WIPE.

You're really not that smart are you?

[Drummond]

Yup, the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude you express. Are you going to ignore the "associated force" aspect too?

What I am going to ignore is the typically Left-wing attitude which invents all the excuses it can possibly come up with for minimal force, minimal remedial actions, against terrorists and suspected terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi


Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered



Now, the individual you're discussing, I understand, was the son of an American born, but nonetheless loyal AL QAEDA TERRORIST. At the time he was killed, the son was in the immediate vicinity of another Al Qaeda terrorist, and a senior one at that. I ask: HOW COME, if he was such an 'innocent' ?

[B]Try joining the dots here.

Besides ... if authorities such as the US military first found it necessary to exhaustively analyse not only the whereabouts of their enemies, but to identify and research anyone and everyone nearby before attacks were launched, THEY'D NEVER LAUNCH ANY AT ALL !!

Is this what you'd hope for ? If not ... then try applying a practical approach.

[aboutime]

You're really not that smart are you?


Darn. You caught me Imitating you again! So I guess you are correct.

[fj1200]

Darn. You caught me Imitating you again! So I guess you are correct.

The box of rocks called; they said thanks to you, they have someone to laugh at.

[fj1200]

What I am going to ignore is the typically Left-wing attitude which invents all the excuses it can possibly come up with for minimal force, minimal remedial actions, against terrorists and suspected terrorists.

I already know that you will ignore anything that disagrees with your worldview which I've already stated quite accurately. But thanks for falling into the stereotype of demonizing anything/anyone that doesn't goose-step in line as "typically left-wing."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi


... Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time..."



Congratulations, you found a Wikipedia link that states what I already stated two pages ago.


^I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, do you have any new information to add other than what you understand from Wikipedia?


Now, the individual you're discussing, I understand, was the son of an American born, but nonetheless loyal AL QAEDA TERRORIST. At the time he was killed, the son was in the immediate vicinity of another Al Qaeda terrorist, and a senior one at that. I ask: HOW COME, if he was such an 'innocent' ?

[B]Try joining the dots here.

Besides ... if authorities such as the US military first found it necessary to exhaustively analyse not only the whereabouts of their enemies, but to identify and research anyone and everyone nearby before attacks were launched, THEY'D NEVER LAUNCH ANY AT ALL !!

Is this what you'd hope for ? If not ... then try applying a practical approach.

Now that you've successfully NOT laid out my position and have erected a strawman to argue against an imaginary version of me let me point out that you have now lined up your position squarely behind Obama. Congratulations, you have continued your stance that grants the State excessive power over the individual. Good on 'ya mate.

[Robert A Whit]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

You are very talented. I seldom run into a promiscious woman that lies so much.

[Kathianne]

You are very talented. I seldom run into a promiscious woman that lies so much.

There is no reason at all, for using 'promiscuous' in your reply. Nothing in any post I've read from Gabby would lead to such a description. It's just rude and uncalled for.

[Robert A Whit]

There is no reason at all, for using 'promiscuous' in your reply. Nothing in any post I've read from Gabby would lead to such a description. It's just rude and uncalled for.

No, you simply missed the post where she told me. What is rude is you calling me out without you knowing the entire story.

[Kathianne]

No, you simply missed the post where she told me. What is rude is you calling me out without you knowing the entire story.

She told you she was promiscuous? Link up, please.

[Kathianne]

Robert, I've had you on ignore going on a month now, I'd like to think that some issues have been addressed. This type of attack on Gabby, from my point of view, is so wrong. Now you are saying she posted something to justify your attack on her character. So post the link or admit that your temper at her posts, made you malign her character, something that can happen to the best of us.

[Robert A Whit]

She told you she was promiscuous? Link up, please.

Since this is not your concern, and you stated you don't want to pick a fight, let's drop it huh!

Set this one out if you don't mind.

[taft2012]

No need to apologize but you're attributing statements not made. We're talking about assurances that citizens won't be targeted by drones without due process; it should be easy to not target.

It must have been statements like these throughout the thread that gave me a different impression:


Yep, and He's already killed over 100 childre... i mean collateral damage... who were not a threat.


I do think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, drone strikes create an image of an imperial force that acts with little regard to borders/consequences.


You don't blow up a house or a funeral procession for 1 man talking about killing others acorn. That's not "war" that assassination and mass slaughter.


I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok to kill indiscriminately. Innocents are being killed at a faster rate than the terrorists and that makes the US no different than the terrorists.


was Alwalki ARMED and firing at Americans or with his finger on a bomb trigger when he was drone struck?

Was his SON ARMED and firing at Americans?


Thus we have so many innocents killed. I can see such for a bin Laden target, when it's 'a sure thing' to get him/her, but not the way it's being used on near weekly or less basis. Too many dead, that shouldn't be.

...and from you, yourself:


Yup, the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude you express. Are you going to ignore the "associated force" aspect too?

Please try to keep up with what's going on in your own thread, before dressing down (and failing in doing so) others.

[revelarts]

CIA drones are reportedly reviving the use of highly-controversial tactics that target rescuers and funeral-goers.
On Monday US drones attacked rescuers in Waziristan in western Pakistan minutes after an initial strike, killing 16 people in total according to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18320431). On May 28, drones were also reported to have returned to the attack (http://tribune.com.pk/story/385600/within-24-hours-three-suspected-militants-killed-in-drone-attacks/) in Khassokhel near Mir Ali.
And on Sunday, a CIA drone strike targeted people gathered for funeral prayers of militant victims killed in an earlier attack. The intended Taliban targets appear to have survived (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-15090-10-killed-in-two-South-Waziristan-drone-attacks), although up to ten people died. A mosque was also struck last week (http://www.channel4.com/news/us-drone-attack-hits-pakistan-mosque) – possibly accidentally – killing at least three civilian worshippers.
The tactics may not be confined to Pakistan. In the Yemeni city of Jaar on May 15, a possible return US drone strike killed between 8 and 26 civilians (http://www.tallahassee.com/usatoday/article/55047454?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7Cfrontpage %7Cs), according to a USA Today report.
The deliberate targeting of rescuers and mourners by CIA drones was first exposed by the Bureau in February 2012, in a major joint investigation with the Sunday Times (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/). On more than a dozen occasions between 2009 and June 2011, the CIA attacked rescuers as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured. Although Taliban members were killed on almost every occasion, so too were civilians – many of whom the Bureau’s field investigators were able to name. The investigation also reported that on at least three occasions the CIA had struck funeral-goers.


http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/04/cia-revives-attacks-on-rescuers-in-pakistan/


U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/)

A new amply documented report demonstrates the use of American tactics that are almost certainly war crimes




On December 30 of last year, ABC News reported on (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tariq-khan-killed-cia-drone/story?id=15258659#.Ty6WdVxAaYg) a 16-year-old Pakistani boy, Tariq Khan, who was killed with his 12-year-old cousin when a car in which he was riding was hit with a missile fired by a U.S. drone. As I noted at the time (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/matt_taibbi_on_the_2012_election/), the report contained this extraordinary passage buried in the middle:
Asked for documentation of Tariq and Waheed’s deaths, Akbar did not provide pictures of the missile strike scene. Virtually none exist, since drones often target people who show up at the scene of an attack.

What made that sentence so amazing was that it basically amounts to a report that the U.S. first kills people with drones, then fires on the rescuers and others who arrive at the scene where the new corpses and injured victims lie.
In a just-released, richly documented report (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/), the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, on behalf of the Sunday Times, documents that this is exactly what the U.S. is doing — and worse:
The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.
The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”. . . .
A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.
There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days.

As I indicated, there have been scattered, mostly buried indications in the American media that drones have been targeting and killing rescuers. As the Bureau put it: “Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world), CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-28/world/pakistan.drone.strike_1_drone-strikes-drone-attack-tribal-region?_s=PM:WORLD), Associated Press (http://www.dailyamericannews.com/newsnow/x1738176407/Suspected-US-missiles-strikes-kill-11-in-Pakistan), ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12489739) and Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/01/20101613294018697.html).” Killing civilians attending the funerals of drone victims is also well-documented by the Bureau’s new report:
Other tactics are also raising concerns. On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban.
“A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,” according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Triple-Agent-Al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated/dp/0385534183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324291025&sr=1-1). “True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.”
The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. . . .
Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?ref=global-home), killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders.

The Bureau quotes several experts stating the obvious (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/): that targeting rescuers and funeral attendees is patently illegal and almost certainly constitutes war crimes:
Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes “are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.”
Christof Heyns, a South African law professor who is United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra- judicial Executions, agrees. “Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying”, he said. ‘To target civilians would be crimes of war.” Heyns is calling for an investigation into the Bureau’s findings.

What makes this even more striking is how conservative — almost to the point of inaccuracy — is the Bureau’s methodology and reporting. Its last news-making report, issued last July, was designed to prove (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/) (and unquestionably did prove) that top Obama counter-Terrorism adviser John Brennan lied when he said this about drone strikes in Pakistan: “in the last year, ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.” The Bureau’s July, 2011 report (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/07/18/washingtons-untrue-claims-no-civilian-deaths-in-pakistan-drone-strikes/)concluded that Brennan’s claim was patently false: “a detailed examination by the Bureau of 116 CIA ‘secret’ drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2010 has uncovered at least 10 individual attacks in which 45 or more civilians appear to have died.”...
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/


CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013 (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/obama-2013-pakistan-drone-strikes)

Total US strikes: <big>364</big>
Obama strikes: <big>312 </big>
Total reported killed: <big>2,640-3,474</big>
Civilians reported killed: <big>473-893</big>
Children reported killed: <big>176</big>
Total reported injured: <big>1,270-1,433</big>

US Covert Action in Yemen 2002–2013 (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/yemen-reported-us-covert-actions-2013/)

Total confirmed US operations (all): <big>54-64</big>
Total confirmed US drone strikes: <big>42-52</big>
Possible extra US operations: <big>135-157</big>
Possible extra US drone strikes: <big>77-93</big>
Total reported killed (all): <big>374-1,112</big>
Total civilians killed (all): <big>72-178</big>
Children killed (all): <big>27-37</big>

US Covert Action in Somalia 2007–2013 (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/22/get-the-data-somalias-hidden-war/)

Total US strikes: <big>10-23</big>
Total US drone strikes: <big>3-9</big>
Total reported killed: <big>58-170</big>
Civilians reported killed: <big>11-57</big>
Children reported killed: <big>1-3</big>




And this is what can be gathered, on people Obama tells us are enemies of the U.S..
No data on the other 3 to 4 countries we are using drones to kill people in.

[taft2012]

The numbers fail to impress.

You start a conflict with an attack deliberately targeting innocent civilians, refuse to fight conventionally in military units with military uniforms and command structures, and hide among the civilian population...

... you forfeit all rights to bemoan civilian casualties, and so do your allies within the USA.

[revelarts]

The numbers fail to impress.

You start a conflict with an attack deliberately targeting innocent civilians, refuse to fight conventionally in military units with military uniforms and command structures, and hide among the civilian population...

... you forfeit all rights to bemoan civilian casualties, and so do your allies within the USA.

so the numbers of dead children and other civilians aren't big enough
and we do whatever the heck we want we're America. 911.
i hear ya Taft

[taft2012]

so the numbers of dead children and other civilians aren't big enough
and we do whatever the heck we want we're America. 911.
i hear ya Taft

Yeah, our civilian casualty count was plenty high on 9-11.

Our drone technology strikes are infinitely more surgical than, say, Bill Clinton's mile-high bombing of Kosovoa. Do you remember that? Where we didn't want to take any military casualties ourselves so we waged an air campaign from a mile high?

Where we hit the Chinese Embassy? When our intelligence failed to notice that location was the Chinese Embassy, in spite of the fact that it was listed in the phone book?

For the comparatively short period of military action, the civilian casualties were much more atrocious. Where was the outrage then?

Today's drones dramatically reduce that which you claim to despise; civilian casualties. To bemoan this advancement only indicates you resent America for its technological superiority.

I won't get concerned until our civilian casualty count at their hands outweighs theirs at our hands.

Yeah, we can do whatever the heck we want to protect the American people. Pakistan can do whatever they need to do to protect their people as well, which should include action a little bit more decisive than fence sitting between the USA and Al Qaeda.

But we all know what truly lays behind your opposition to drones; domestic marijuana field detection.

[revelarts]

Yeah, our civilian casualty count was plenty high on 9-11.
Our drone technology strikes are infinitely more surgical than, say, Bill Clinton's mile-high bombing of Kosovoa. Do you remember that? Where we didn't want to take any military casualties ourselves so we waged an air campaign from a mile high?

Where we hit the Chinese Embassy? When our intelligence failed to notice that location was the Chinese Embassy, in spite of the fact that it was listed in the phone book?

For the comparatively short period of military action, the civilian casualties were much more atrocious. Where was the outrage then?

Today's drones dramatically reduce that which you claim to despise; civilian casualties. To bemoan this advancement only indicates you resent America for its technological superiority.

I won't get concerned until our civilian casualty count at their hands outweighs theirs at our hands.

Yeah, we can do whatever the heck we want to protect the American people. Pakistan can do whatever they need to do to protect their people as well, which should include action a little bit more decisive than fence sitting between the USA and Al Qaeda.

But we all know what truly lays behind your opposition to drones; domestic marijuana field detection.

Taft you keep bringing up 911

Bin laden and those that committed that are long dead, in prison or unknown.
with the 10yrs of killing in the Afghanistan war, 7 years in Iraq (saddam talk to alqueada ya-know wink wink) and killing people in 7 other countries i think we've killed at least as many "enemies" and other people. many if not most not directly associated with the slaughter on 9-11.

And these so-called horrible -the U.S. will crumble to dust if we don't kill them 1st- terrorist enemies today, many of them were probably in their TEENS in 2001 and had NOTHING to do with 9-11 at all.
how much blood is t going to take before were done Taft?

there's that,
And here's my problem that you consistently ignore,
the president has NO legal authority to target people who he thinks MIGHT attack ONE DAY. It's not in ANY legal document in the US. period. 911 is not a legal blank check to do the same to anyone we THINK might try it.
And add to that those he knows are innocent are being killed as well and it just takes the whole operation into an area of serial killing and war crimes.

[jimnyc]

You are very talented. I seldom run into a promiscious woman that lies so much.

Please don't address Gabby as such, that's not cool. At the very least, take it to the thread where it emanated from. Even then, that's a rather harsh label for someone you don't know, based on half of a sentence she wrote rather jokingly.

[taft2012]

President Bush told us in an address to a joint session of Congress in September 2001 that this would be a different kind of war, that it was not against any particular country, which would take us to many different countries over the course of many years. Some victories we would hear about, some we wouldn't.

Did he lie to us? Or is it all playing out exactly as it was presented to us, which had all of our elected officials on their feet applauding?

Any objections, Constitutional or otherwise, should have been voiced at that point.

It doesn't matter who in this movement is dead, the fact is that it's still a movement working against us. I want the front line of this battle as far away from American civilians as possible.

How much blood is it going to take? I don't know, how much are they willing to shed? Can you answer that? When they cease attacking our troops, that would be a sign of good will.

How many of those who attacked Benghazi do you reckon were teenagers on 9/11? Is that relevant?

That "they may attack us one day" is irrelevant. They *ARE* attacking us, and show no sign of letting up. And the Commander-in-Chief has every right, and indeed, the DUTY, to use the means he has available to protect his troops in the field and the American people.

Feck 'em.... launch every friggin' drone we can put in the air.

And fly 'em over this country too and spot them marijuana fields.

[fj1200]

It must have been statements like these throughout the thread that gave me a different impression:

Thank you for finding all those quotes that demonstrate the overstatement that you made.


... less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.


...and from you, yourself:

I see the problem now, if you can't recognize tongue-in-cheek...


Please try to keep up with what's going on in your own thread, before dressing down (and failing in doing so) others.

I know what's going on in "my" thread; There are those apparent constitutionalists who drop their allegiance when it comes to smokin' a few baddies and then there's the rest of us.


That "they may attack us one day" is irrelevant. They *ARE* attacking us, and show no sign of letting up. And the Commander-in-Chief has every right, and indeed, the DUTY, to use the means he has available to protect his troops in the field and the American people.

Duty?


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please don't address Gabby as such, that's not cool. At the very least, take it to the thread where it emanated from. Even then, that's a rather harsh label for someone you don't know, based on half of a sentence she wrote rather jokingly.

^^^^^^ Have to agree with this..
Gabby is just a blowhard that likes to spew forth liberal/leftist propaganda while mixing in a few lame insults to those she knows are are superior to her! Such insecure jealousy should be laughed at and shown for its silliness IMHO.
And bear in mind that I am very far indeed from being a fan of hers.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing (http://news.yahoo.com/u-must-disclose-version-drone-memo-appeals-court-154454435.html)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.
These included a Justice Department "white paper," as well as speeches or statements by officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and former Obama administration counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, endorsing the practice.

[jimnyc]

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing (http://news.yahoo.com/u-must-disclose-version-drone-memo-appeals-court-154454435.html)



This should be interesting. I still stand by my original stance - that the elder Awlaki sealed his own fate by becoming a terrorist and planning attacks abroad. It would appear that his son dying was a different animal, by being along for the ride with other known terrorists in his Dad's clique.

But I do agree with them coming clean on justification. IMO, it should be easy concerning killing a known terrorist, planning attacks against our troops and other interests while in a foreign land. IMO, he should be treated like every other terrorist out there. But my opinion is one thing, and them justifying the specifics is another.