Drone strike on 4 Americans - Rev is gonna lose his mind!

[jimnyc]

U.S. Admits for First Time Drones Killed 4 AmericansWASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

While rumors of Mr. Mohammed’s death had appeared in local news reports in Raleigh, N.C., where he lived, his death had not been confirmed by the United States government until Wednesday.

According to former acquaintances of Mr. Mohammed in North Carolina, he appears to have been killed in a November 2011 drone strike in South Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal area. Mr. Mohammed’s wife, whom he had met and married in Pakistan, subsequently called his mother in North Carolina to tell her of his death, the friends say.

Mr. Holder, in a speech at Northwestern University Law School last year, laid out the administration’s basic legal thinking that American citizens who are deemed to be operational terrorists, who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” and whose capture is infeasible may be targeted. That abstract legal thinking — including an elastic definition of what counts as “imminent” — was further laid out in an unclassified white paper provided to Congress last year, which was leaked earlier this year.

But Mr. Holder’s letter went further in discussing the death of Mr. Awlaki in particular, an operation the administration had previously refused to publicly acknowledge. He said it was not Mr. Awlaki’s words urging violent attacks against Americans that led the United States to target him, but direct actions in planning attacks.

Mr. Holder alleged that Mr. Awlaki not only “planned” the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009, a claim that has been widely discussed in court documents and elsewhere, but also “played a key role” in an October 2010 plot to bomb cargo planes bound for the United States, including taking “part in the development and testing” of the bombs.

“Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences Awlaki’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed,” Mr. Holder wrote.

He added, “The decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0

[aboutime]

U.S. Admits for First Time Drones Killed 4 Americans

WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

While rumors of Mr. Mohammed’s death had appeared in local news reports in Raleigh, N.C., where he lived, his death had not been confirmed by the United States government until Wednesday.

According to former acquaintances of Mr. Mohammed in North Carolina, he appears to have been killed in a November 2011 drone strike in South Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal area. Mr. Mohammed’s wife, whom he had met and married in Pakistan, subsequently called his mother in North Carolina to tell her of his death, the friends say.

Mr. Holder, in a speech at Northwestern University Law School last year, laid out the administration’s basic legal thinking that American citizens who are deemed to be operational terrorists, who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” and whose capture is infeasible may be targeted. That abstract legal thinking — including an elastic definition of what counts as “imminent” — was further laid out in an unclassified white paper provided to Congress last year, which was leaked earlier this year.

But Mr. Holder’s letter went further in discussing the death of Mr. Awlaki in particular, an operation the administration had previously refused to publicly acknowledge. He said it was not Mr. Awlaki’s words urging violent attacks against Americans that led the United States to target him, but direct actions in planning attacks.

Mr. Holder alleged that Mr. Awlaki not only “planned” the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009, a claim that has been widely discussed in court documents and elsewhere, but also “played a key role” in an October 2010 plot to bomb cargo planes bound for the United States, including taking “part in the development and testing” of the bombs.

“Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences Awlaki’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed,” Mr. Holder wrote.

He added, “The decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0



OH NO! Wonder what those 4 Americans were doing there? And, I wonder...what did they look like with LONG BEARDS, and turbins...I mean Towels on their heads????

[BillyBob]

It's hard to have any sympathy for them when they were killed in a foreign land as enemies of the US.

[jimnyc]

It's hard to have any sympathy for them when they were killed in a foreign land as enemies of the US.

And as to any constitutional rights they are deserving of, or due process, as American citizens? Just curious!

[BillyBob]

And as to any constitutional rights they are deserving of, or due process, as American citizens? Just curious!


Yeah, I know.

If a citizen's Constitutional rights don't end when they take up arms against the US then when do they? They obviously end when they commit a domestic crime, or at least after they have been convicted of that crime.

[BillyBob]

Get caught selling weed, end of Constitutional rights.
Drive without a license, end of Constitutional rights.

Declare Jihad against the US....?

[jafar00]

It's hard to have any sympathy for them when they were killed in a foreign land as enemies of the US.

There is no indication in the story that the Americans killed were up to no good. Are American citizens now considered enemies of their own country if they dare travel overseas?

[aboutime]

It's hard to have any sympathy for them when they were killed in a foreign land as enemies of the US.


Actually. It's not hard at all. I didn't, and won't lose any sleep over their demise.

[aboutime]

There is no indication in the story that the Americans killed were up to no good. Are American citizens now considered enemies of their own country if they dare travel overseas?


Oh sure, jafar. Denouncing your own country, and speaking against your fellow citizens in a known terrorist haven makes them Innocent babies who deserve YOUR LOVE.

[jimnyc]

There is no indication in the story that the Americans killed were up to no good. Are American citizens now considered enemies of their own country if they dare travel overseas?

Awlaki was one of the leaders in Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula. Samir Khan was with him. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Jude Kenan Mohammed - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035828/9-11-threat-Jude-Kenan-Mohammad-FBI-10-Most-wanted-list-anniversary-plot.html

The other 2 were killed in strikes targeted at the terrorists they were traveling with.

[aboutime]

Awlaki was one of the leaders in Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula. Samir Khan was with him. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Jude Kenan Mohammed - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035828/9-11-threat-Jude-Kenan-Mohammad-FBI-10-Most-wanted-list-anniversary-plot.html

The other 2 were killed in strikes targeted at the terrorists they were traveling with.


Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't!

If you lay down with (pardon the perfect expression) pigs, you come up smelling like them....JAFAR.

[BillyBob]

He will not be missed.

[aboutime]

He will not be missed.


And I can prove it. "WHO?"

[Gaffer]

There is no indication in the story that the Americans killed were up to no good. Are American citizens now considered enemies of their own country if they dare travel overseas?

DHS considers tea party, patriots, Constitutionalists, Veterans and Christians to be enemies of the state. Draw your own conclusion.

[jafar00]

Awlaki was one of the leaders in Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula. Samir Khan was with him. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Jude Kenan Mohammed - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035828/9-11-threat-Jude-Kenan-Mohammad-FBI-10-Most-wanted-list-anniversary-plot.html

The other 2 were killed in strikes targeted at the terrorists they were traveling with.

Thanks for the info.

Now, how do you feel about the US making strikes in countries they are not at war with in violation of international treaties?

And what of the thousands of innocents killed in US drone strikes? Surely that fact alone is breeding more "terrorists" rather than dealing with the problem.

Imagine your friends and family who are innocent of any wrong doing were dying for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by North Korean or Iranian drones in US cities. You would be screaming for blood.

[red states rule]

Thanks for the info.

Now, how do you feel about the US making strikes in countries they are not at war with in violation of international treaties?

And what of the thousands of innocents killed in US drone strikes? Surely that fact alone is breeding more "terrorists" rather than dealing with the problem.

Imagine your friends and family who are innocent of any wrong doing were dying for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by North Korean or Iranian drones in US cities. You would be screaming for blood.

Jafar, you change positions faster then a nude dancer on stage. They were terrorists and got was coming to them

[taft2012]

Rev's response will be sort of:

"Oh, I see. So now your [sic] all saying its fine for the government to summarily execute any American citizen, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, and not be accountable to the American people in any manner? Your [sic] all out of your minds!"

Rev occupies a rather rundown bungalow on the fringes of reality, and anyone residing beyond his garden fence fits neatly into a world of insanity.

[fj1200]

And as to any constitutional rights they are deserving of, or due process, as American citizens? Just curious!

You're just a crazy, pot-smokin' hippie who only feigns concern for the Constitution when it comes to gettin' your fix on. (did I get the lingo right?)


Yeah, I know.

If a citizen's Constitutional rights don't end when they take up arms against the US then when do they? They obviously end when they commit a domestic crime, or at least after they have been convicted of that crime.

I didn't think a citizens Constitutional rights ever ended, they just reap the punishment of what they sowed. But let's ignore the Constitutional provisions of treason (the only crime listed in the Constitution iirc) and separation of powers, checks and balances, and other crazy Founding Fathers type things. They are waaaaaaaayyy behind the times.


Actually. It's not hard at all. I didn't, and won't lose any sleep over their demise.

I just lose sleep over the Constitutional demise... or has your oath officially ended?

[fj1200]

Rev's response will be sort of:

"Oh, I see. So now your [sic] all saying its fine for the government to summarily execute any American citizen, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, and not be accountable to the American people in any manner? Your [sic] all out of your minds!"

Rev occupies a rather rundown bungalow on the fringes of reality, and anyone residing beyond his garden fence fits neatly into a world of insanity.

Haven't been able to give out your Constitutionally directed billy-club beat down today yet?

/rhetorical device

[BillyBob]

I didn't think a citizens Constitutional rights ever ended, they just reap the punishment of what they sowed. But let's ignore the Constitutional provisions of treason (the only crime listed in the Constitution iirc) and separation of powers, checks and balances, and other crazy Founding Fathers type things. They are waaaaaaaayyy behind the times.



I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that an ex-con loses his 2nd amendment rights. Can an excon vote? I am of the mindset that once a criminal does his time and pays his debt to society his Constitutional rights should be fully reinstated.

[fj1200]

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that an ex-con loses his 2nd amendment rights. Can an excon vote? I am of the mindset that once a criminal does his time and pays his debt to society his Constitutional rights should be fully reinstated.

Which doesn't mean he's lost his Constitutional rights. The right to vote? Can be denied via the 14th apparently and varies by state.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

U.S. Admits for First Time Drones Killed 4 Americans

WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

While rumors of Mr. Mohammed’s death had appeared in local news reports in Raleigh, N.C., where he lived, his death had not been confirmed by the United States government until Wednesday.

According to former acquaintances of Mr. Mohammed in North Carolina, he appears to have been killed in a November 2011 drone strike in South Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal area. Mr. Mohammed’s wife, whom he had met and married in Pakistan, subsequently called his mother in North Carolina to tell her of his death, the friends say.

Mr. Holder, in a speech at Northwestern University Law School last year, laid out the administration’s basic legal thinking that American citizens who are deemed to be operational terrorists, who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” and whose capture is infeasible may be targeted. That abstract legal thinking — including an elastic definition of what counts as “imminent” — was further laid out in an unclassified white paper provided to Congress last year, which was leaked earlier this year.

But Mr. Holder’s letter went further in discussing the death of Mr. Awlaki in particular, an operation the administration had previously refused to publicly acknowledge. He said it was not Mr. Awlaki’s words urging violent attacks against Americans that led the United States to target him, but direct actions in planning attacks.

Mr. Holder alleged that Mr. Awlaki not only “planned” the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009, a claim that has been widely discussed in court documents and elsewhere, but also “played a key role” in an October 2010 plot to bomb cargo planes bound for the United States, including taking “part in the development and testing” of the bombs.

“Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences Awlaki’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed,” Mr. Holder wrote.

He added, “The decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0

Any American citizen overseas in a war zone engaging in actions against this nation should be subject to any military strike. Complete and utter nonsense to demand that they be convicted in a court of law before swift and decisive action be taken to prevent them having success at harming this nation and its citizens. Same goes for any dumbasses that go over there to present themselves as human sheilds. I think they should be targeted specificly for a direct hit ....
However this use of deadly dronestrikes against American citizens WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL BORDERS OF USA must be soundly rejected because the high potential for government abuse of such power is a far greater threat than the actions of any American citizens that they may target. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=jafar00;640800]Thanks for the info.

Now, how do you feel about the US making strikes in countries they are not at war with in violation of international treaties?

And what of the thousands of innocents killed in US drone strikes? Surely that fact alone is breeding more "terrorists" rather than dealing with the problem. QUOTE]

As if the Koran and the muslim religious leaders need such actions in order to teach hatred of nonbelievers, murder of infidels and Jihad ... They are a core part of the Koran regardless of any action taken or not taken by we infidels and you damn well know it... You lie and feel so smug in your fath that Allah rewards you for your lies. I am here to tell you that your damn lies will be rewarded but not by God. You will get your reward from the Master of all liars... -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the info.

Now, how do you feel about the US making strikes in countries they are not at war with in violation of international treaties?

And what of the thousands of innocents killed in US drone strikes? Surely that fact alone is breeding more "terrorists" rather than dealing with the problem.

Imagine your friends and family who are innocent of any wrong doing were dying for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by North Korean or Iranian drones in US cities. You would be screaming for blood.

Good question. When you say thousands of innocents killed - are we talking within war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, or when they target known terrorists in places like Yemen or Pakistan? If the latter, I would like to read more proof of that. I do know the estimates are anywhere from the 2,000-4,000 range, but I remember a CIA report awhile back listing civilian deaths from the drones at less than 300. I believe they said the civilian death rate from drone use was less than 2%. I would love to see that number at zero as much as the next guy - but what is the alternative, letting the terrorists say "we win" because they often hide in residential and other civilian areas? And what about the countries these terrorists are hiding in, don't they bear any responsibility? If they would try to bring in these scumbags the traditional way, maybe the US wouldn't have to attack before these terrorists plan or execute their next attack. Terrorists can't hide behind treaties either, especially when the other person under the treaty isn't actively stopping them.

I see what you're saying, but sorry, the killing of these vermin shouldn't stop simply because others won't do the job and stop these terror scum.

[fj1200]

As if the Koran and the muslim religious leaders need such actions in order to teach hatred of nonbelievers, murder of infidels and Jihad ...

So we should help them along?


Good question. When you say thousands of innocents killed - are we talking within war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, or when they target known terrorists in places like Yemen or Pakistan? ...

I see what you're saying, but sorry, the killing of these vermin shouldn't stop simply because others won't do the job and stop these terror scum.

I'm not sure there's any source that will be accepted across the board:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes)


(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.The study by Stanford

Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."

It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."

But the question should be what level of casualties should we accept in order to make us safer.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So we should help them along?

We already do that by not killing the bastards all out. By lying for them and presenting they are not the great threat that they are. You lead the way in crap like that and your philosophy of appeasement Mr. FJ Chamberlain.--Tyr



I'm not sure there's any source that will be accepted across the board:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes)



But the question should be what level of casualties should we accept in order to make us safer.

How about we just ignore it until it is too late. History seems to support that policy so well..right? I mean you constantly preach dont piss them off . So how about we just decide to let them kill as they please until they kill us all. --Dumbass....-Tyr

[revelarts]

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that an ex-con loses his 2nd amendment rights. Can an excon vote? I am of the mindset that once a criminal does his time and pays his debt to society his Constitutional rights should be fully reinstated.

EX-con implies he had all his right before he became a convict. he was arrested, tried, and convicted.
not killed with a bolt from the blue by order of a cop, sheriff, mayor or governor.

And even as an excon some rights may be taken as part of the conviction. but his right to LIVE, has not been.


Any American citizen overseas in a war zone engaging in actions against this nation should be subject to any military strike. Complete and utter nonsense to demand that they be convicted in a court of law before swift and decisive action be taken to prevent them having success at harming this nation and its citizens. Same goes for any dumbasses that go over there to present themselves as human sheilds. I think they should be targeted specificly for a direct hit ....
However this use of deadly dronestrikes against American citizens WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL BORDERS OF USA must be soundly rejected because the high potential for government abuse of such power is a far greater threat than the actions of any American citizens that they may target. -Tyr

Tyr as pointed out but reps of the joint chiefs to the senate arms committee.
the president can strike with military forces anywhere from "Boston to the Middle East"

Our last 2 presidents both agree that the whole world is the war zone Tyr.




Rev's response will be sort of:
"Oh, I see. So now your [sic] all saying its fine for the government to summarily execute any American citizen, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, and not be accountable to the American people in any manner? Your [sic] all out of your minds!"
Rev occupies a rather rundown bungalow on the fringes of reality, and anyone residing beyond his garden fence fits neatly into a world of insanity.

not quite more like...
Oh, I see. So now ur all saying its fine for the gov't to summarily execute any American citizen, anywhere THEY SAY they have to, at any time they say they have to, And any reason they give you you'll believe without question. because the gov't never lies or targets people for political reasons or otherwise...

And Taft the president is in fact not accountable to the American people in any manner on drone strikes.
If so Taft, please tell me who he's accountable to and by what law. Obviously it's not the constitution. If they can read war powers into this and fuzzy definitions of "imminent". No judge, or congressman or law is above or even can question his decision NONE.
Obama was going to allow some oversight to be written up before the election but decided not to because he realized he was probably going to win. So God forbid his flexibility be tied, but if the other presidents were in control THEY'D need some oversight. Can't trust them with the same powers. that'd be to risky.

he has absolutely ZERO accountability to anyone. and doesn't even have to tell us who they've assassinated. Holders speech was a courtesy (warning?) not a legally necessity.
And We, of course, just have to trust them to kill the right people, American citizen or not, in the US. or outside of the US. He's got the authority.
No check, no balance, none.

and None of the ideas, assumptions, beliefs or personal convictions of the posters here, of who or where it's Constitutional -n- proper to kill has to be taken into account AT ALL. NONE.
But you all seem to assume that YOUR standards are what guides Obama and future presidents in killing people.

Whose crazy here?

[fj1200]

We already do that by not killing the bastards all out. By lying for them and presenting they are not the great threat that they are. You lead the way in crap like that and your philosophy of appeasement Mr. FJ Chamberlain.--Tyr

Translation: Blah, blah, blah; kill 'em all.


How about we just ignore it until it is too late. History seems to support that policy so well..right? I mean you constantly preach dont piss them off . So how about we just decide to let them kill as they please until they kill us all. --Dumbass....-Tyr

Translation: Blah, blah, blah; kill 'em all.

Or you could attempt an actual conversation.

[cadet]

We need a new section of posts. We should call it "How to know when you live in a tyrannical gov't"

When the gov't can willy nilly take you out because you're suspicious looking, your gov't is too damn big.

[jimnyc]

So we should help them along?



I'm not sure there's any source that will be accepted across the board:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes)



But the question should be what level of casualties should we accept in order to make us safer.

Similar to what I found - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Well, leaving terrorists roaming around that want to plan an execute attacks against us surely won't make us safer. No amount of civilian casualties will make us safer - but do we stop going after terrorists whenever they hide in the civilian population, like Hamas as well? It's a sad fact of war, always has been and always will be.

[revelarts]

We need a new section of posts. We should call it "How to know when you live in a tyrannical gov't"
When the gov't can willy nilly take you out because you're suspicious looking, your gov't is too damn big.
well if the gov't says your dangerous then, THEY MUST have a reason!!
They are just doing there job. keeping people safe. You don't know what secret info they have own you or your neighbor that shows how dangerous you/they are.
Gov't has to be big to keep us safe. liberty is not the gov'ts main concern anymore.



Well, leaving terrorists roaming around that want to plan an execute attacks against us surely won't make us safer. No amount of civilian casualties will make us safer - but do we stop going after terrorists whenever they hide in the civilian population, like Hamas as well? It's a sad fact of war, always has been and always will be.

If the amount of people harmed were more than furniture deaths the preemptive model your proposition might make sense. (not really)
but killing half as many innocents and fomenting more animosity and enemies is counter productive. Not to mention aiding and arming with the same so called terrorist in other countries when it suits our purposes.

War on terror's full of BS jim.

[fj1200]

Well, leaving terrorists roaming around that want to plan an execute attacks against us surely won't make us safer. No amount of civilian casualties will make us safer - but do we stop going after terrorists whenever they hide in the civilian population, like Hamas as well? It's a sad fact of war, always has been and always will be.

"Safer" is nebulous especially if we ignore the downstream effects of our own actions. Government is never very good at identifying unseen effects.

Not an exact analogy of course but I remember watching a show about colonialism around WWI, President Wilson, etc. and how Pol Pot showed up at a conference where Wilson talked about a post-colonialist world and such which encouraged Pol Pot that we wouldn't support France's claims on Indochina; of course we backtracked on that which led to his disillusionment. (sure hope I got those details correct :eek: )

[jimnyc]

If the amount of people harmed were more than furniture deaths the preemptive model your proposition might make sense. (not really)
but killing half as many innocents and fomenting more animosity and enemies is counter productive. Not to mention aiding and arming with the same so called terrorist in other countries when it suits our purposes.

War on terror's full of BS jim.

It's BS? Would you like to say that to the thousands dead at the result of terrorism? Or the thousands, if not more, that have been saved due to attacks stopped due to the war on terror? And bringing up "furniture deaths" is retarded. We should not try and stem terrorism - because more people die in retarded ways? Maybe we should close up shop, and open up shop to deter furniture instead? You need a new analogy, as diminishing terrorism and their victims falls very flat, IMO.

[jimnyc]

"Safer" is nebulous especially if we ignore the downstream effects of our own actions. Government is never very good at identifying unseen effects.

Not an exact analogy of course but I remember watching a show about colonialism around WWI, President Wilson, etc. and how Pol Pot showed up at a conference where Wilson talked about a post-colonialist world and such which encouraged Pol Pot that we wouldn't support France's claims on Indochina; of course we backtracked on that which led to his disillusionment. (sure hope I got those details correct :eek: )

I guess my point is, that while we may be able to fine tune efforts and aim for better results - stopping going after terrorists/terrorism should not be an option even on the table. Does it create more terrorists when we drop a bomb and kill other terrorists? Perhaps, but should we then not fight terror, as people might illegally join up to fight back with terrorism? That doesn't add up to me. Will there be unseen effects? Absolutely, every type of war has some sort of consequences. That would be the fine tuning I refer to. Maybe they can learn from the past and apply different technologies and intel when attacking. I can think of various things they can do to increase their precision, hopefully have less civilians killed and maybe even slow down new terrorists being created - but IMO, none of it entails slowing down or stopping our fight on terror, or allowing them to hide amongst civilians or in hard to reach places.

If we completely ignore terrorists and terrorism, we won't be safer, and that's my point. I believe that if we don't take the fight to them, they will be sitting in these hard to reach places planning attacks, or executing attacks, against us or our allies. I don't think their desire to kill us or our allies changes at all, whether we sit back or we fight. Every time there seems to be any sense of a lull in terrorism, we find out not long after that they are regrouping somewhere.

I'm no General and don't claim to have detailed answers, but I don't think backing off of them in any way at all will make us safer.

[aboutime]

It's BS? Would you like to say that to the thousands dead at the result of terrorism? Or the thousands, if not more, that have been saved due to attacks stopped due to the war on terror? And bringing up "furniture deaths" is retarded. We should not try and stem terrorism - because more people die in retarded ways? Maybe we should close up shop, and open up shop to deter furniture instead? You need a new analogy, as diminishing terrorism and their victims falls very flat, IMO.


jimnyc: I know you don't want to hear this. But the rev. is just proving...once again. How IGNORANCE...really is Bliss.

[jimnyc]

jimnyc: I know you don't want to hear this. But the rev. is just proving...once again. How IGNORANCE...really is Bliss.

I don't know about being ignorant, but I think he's trying to use an analogy to "show that it's so little that even furniture deaths beat it out" (my quote, not his). While it may be factually true, one has nothing to do with the other, nor should affect the other. How many people die every year from lung cancer or lung disease? Should we ignore that problem, put it on the back burner, diminish it, or anything like that because heart attacks or heart disease are much, much worse? It's silly to make an analogy like he did, IMO.

[revelarts]

It's BS? Would you like to say that to the thousands dead at the result of terrorism? Or the thousands, if not more, that have been saved due to attacks stopped due to the war on terror? And bringing up "furniture deaths" is retarded. We should not try and stem terrorism - because more people die in retarded ways? Maybe we should close up shop, and open up shop to deter furniture instead? You need a new analogy, as diminishing terrorism and their victims falls very flat, IMO.

You have not addresses our support for terrorist here Jim . WHY?
And the numbers do count Jim.
and i said "PREEMPTIVE" strikes. of people planning is what i'm talikng about. killing people as drive along as they go to funnerels etc.
And of course we should stop imminent violence, if we use the dictionary old definition of the the word.
troops on the boarder. Yes it's time to do something.
2 guys talking on the phone. thinking about buying bomb material. buying electronics.
No. you don't kill these people Jim.

If you know released bank robbers are buying shovels and drills and walking around banks taking measurements. you can't throw them in jail for that. you can't shoot them for that. you have to wait. until you have enough to convict them of "atempted" bank robbery.

Same principals apply. i know many here don't like that.
and prefer the only good injuns a dead injun approach but that's not how the law is suppose to work is it?

[fj1200]

I guess my point is, that while we may be able to fine tune efforts and aim for better results - stopping going after terrorists/terrorism should not be an option even on the table. Does it create more terrorists when we drop a bomb and kill other terrorists? Perhaps, but should we then not fight terror, as people might illegally join up to fight back with terrorism?

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that but we have to be aware of any harmful effects our policy creates.

The Most Influential Voice Yet Warned Obama About 'Blowback' From Drones

This is a whopping "I told you so" moment for a decent handful of pundits and analysts: Army Gen. James E. Cartwright has expressed worry to Obama that drone strikes may cause "blowback."Mark Mazzetti (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html) and Scott Shane (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_shane/index.html) of The New York Times (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/the-new-york-times) write (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/influential-ex-aide-to-obama-voices-concern-on-drone-strikes.html?ref=us&_r=1&) "[Cartwright] is the latest and perhaps the most influential former member of Mr. Obama’s national security team to publicly express concerns."
From the Times:
“We’re seeing that blowback,” General Cartwright, who is retired from the military, said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.”
The general's terminology here is crucial.
"Blowback" specifically refers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)) to attacks on Americans that are caused by covert policy decisions or operations, little information of which reaches the general American populace.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-strikes-could-cause-blowback-2013-3#ixzz2U8pJ2CIn

Almost anything can be justified when we can just claim to be "getting the bad guys" but doesn't leave any room for analysis into the positives and negatives of the program.

[gabosaurus]

Drones are a very effective way of eliminating terrorists. Previous presidents had to bribe governments and hire hit squads.
Never thought I would see the day when DP would go soft on terrorism. :eek:

[fj1200]

Who's soft of terrorism?

[aboutime]

Who's soft of terrorism?


fj. I think she was speaking about Grey matter.

[gabosaurus]

Who's soft of terrorism?

Anyone who is not in favor of any method possible of taking out terrorists and prevent them from killing Americans. :salute:

[BillyBob]

Which doesn't mean he's lost his Constitutional rights. The right to vote? Can be denied via the 14th apparently and varies by state.


Being forbidden to own a gun is the loss of a Constitutional right.

[aboutime]

Being forbidden to own a gun is the loss of a Constitutional right.


Sure thing BillyBob. So you think the 2nd amendment should be twisted, and not logically controlled in order to allow Mentally Unstable, or Convicts to carry. Therefore...not taking away such a constitutional right??
When you break known laws. You lose certain access to rights...Like your freedom to walk the streets, and have any weapons in your possession.

[BillyBob]

EX-con implies he had all his right before he became a convict. he was arrested, tried, and convicted.
not killed with a bolt from the blue by order of a cop, sheriff, mayor or governor.

And even as an excon some rights may be taken as part of the conviction. but his right to LIVE, has not been.




Unless, of course, he has been sentenced to death.

[BillyBob]

Sure thing BillyBob. So you think the 2nd amendment should be twisted, and not logically controlled in order to allow Mentally Unstable, or Convicts to carry. Therefore...not taking away such a constitutional right??
When you break known laws. You lose certain access to rights...Like your freedom to walk the streets, and have any weapons in your possession.


I don't think the 2nd amendment should be twisted at all. It should not be limited to only those US citizens the current government declares worthy of it's protection. At that point in ceases being a right and becomes reduced to a [government controlled] privilege.

[BillyBob]

Drones are a very effective way of eliminating terrorists. Previous presidents had to bribe governments and hire hit squads.
Never thought I would see the day when DP would go soft on terrorism. :eek:


Every morning I wake up hard on terrorism.

[fj1200]

Anyone who is not in favor of any method possible of taking out terrorists and prevent them from killing Americans. :salute:

I didn't know you were in the Nuke Mecca camp.

[fj1200]

Being forbidden to own a gun is the loss of a Constitutional right.

But lost via a Constitutional method. Rights can be taken away.

[revelarts]

But lost via a Constitutional method. Rights can be taken away.

Only if you've broken the law I believe, or are reasonable suspected of doing the same.
The burden is on the Gov't to give cause to take away a 'God given', inalienable right.

Due Process.

eminent domain is closest thing i can think of to the idea of taking guns away.
Gov't taking property for the good of the community.

I'm not a real fan of eminet domain either but even it has to be specific and limited.
the gov't doesn't claim all the land belongs to the feds for your safety... at least not yet.

[aboutime]

Only if you've broken the law I believe, or are reasonable suspected of doing the same.
The burden is on the Gov't to give cause to take away a 'God given', inalienable right.

Due Process.

eminent domain is closest thing i can think of to the idea of taking guns away.
Gov't taking property for the good of the community.

I'm not a real fan of eminet domain either but even it has to be specific and limited.
the gov't doesn't claim all the land belongs to the feds for your safety... at least not yet.


rev. The least you could do is learn to at least spell EMINENT Domain properly. That might give you a little more credibility, if
that is what you would like the rest of us to believe about you.
Spelling, at least makes whatever you say, or are trying to say. A little more understandable.

[revelarts]

"December 02, 2011 -"Greeley Gazette (http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12127)" - A pair of lawyers for the Obama administration said the president has sole discretion to define who is an enemy and that U.S. citizens with that designation are legitimate military targets....

While not directly addressing the al-Awlaki case, the lawyers said any U.S. citizen who takes up arms with al-Qaida is a legitimate military target.
They went on to say that when it came to deciding who is an enemy, the executive branch, not the courts had sole authority to make that distinction.
...
In 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo warning law-enforcement about terrorist groups. The memo's list of terrorist indicators included returning vets, people who support state authority over federal authority and those who are dedicated to a single issue such as abortion or immigration. The memo also listed Christians who believe in “end time prophecies” such as the "Rapture" as portrayed in the Left Behind series of books and movies.

DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano, issued a statement saying she stood by the report. Critics have said the memo's description of terrorist also applies to many tea party members.

The Missouri Highway Patrol was given a similar report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups with terrorists. The report said terrorist indicators included support for third-party candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Other characteristics included opposition to illegal immigration, abortion and federal income taxes. The Missouri Highway Patrol disavowed the report after news of it had been made public.

Soldiers taking the Department of Defense’s Annual Level I Antiterrorism Awareness Training, in 2009, were asked the question
“which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?”

The choices were
attacking the pentagon,
IEDs,
hate crimes against racial groups,
and protests.
To answer the question correctly on the knowledge check, the examinee had to select the answer “Protests.”
Following the complaint, the DOD withdrew the question from the training manual."
.................................................. ......................

no worries it was just a mistake.

[BillyBob]

But lost via a Constitutional method. Rights can be taken away.


Not always Constitutionally. There are plenty of arrogant, over-reaching tyrants at the federal, state and local government levels that are more than happy to separate you from your rights and until a court hears the arguments and makes a decision, your rights remain violated. And the courts don't always rule in favor of your rights.

[fj1200]

Not always Constitutionally. There are plenty of arrogant, over-reaching tyrants at the federal, state and local government levels that are more than happy to separate you from your rights and until a court hears the arguments and makes a decision, your rights remain violated. And the courts don't always rule in favor of your rights.

The extreme doesn't disprove the rule.

[BillyBob]

The extreme doesn't disprove the rule.


The extreme proves that the rules are not adhered to.

[fj1200]

The extreme proves that the rules are not adhered to.

I've learned to be very careful when using examples of extreme to illustrate a point about the normal.

[BillyBob]

I've learned to be very careful when using examples of extreme to illustrate a point about the normal.


Take gun laws, for example. Any law preventing a US citizen from having a gun on his person is unConstitutional. Yet there are countless numbers of such laws.