Ecuador To Grant Assange Political Asylum

[ElNono]

Ecuador will grant Julian Assange's request for political asylum (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-wikileaks). An Ecuador official told The Guardian that the country's president, who earlier indicated his decision would arrive after the Olympic Games, will approve the request Assange made in June.

"Government sources in Quito confirmed that despite the outstanding legal issues Correa would grant Assange asylum – a move which would annoy Britain, the US and Sweden. They added that the offer was made to Assange several months ago, well before he sought refuge in the embassy, and following confidential negotiations with senior London embassy staff. The official with knowledge of the discussions said the embassy had discussed Assange's asylum request. The British government, however, 'discouraged the idea,' the offical said. The Swedish government was also 'not very collaborative,' the official said. The official added: 'We see Assange's request as a humanitarian issue. The contact between the Ecuadorean government and WikiLeaks goes back to May 2011, when we became the first country to see the leaked US embassy cables completely declassified ... It is clear that when Julian entered the embassy there was already some sort of deal. We see in his work a parallel with our struggle for national sovereignty and the democratisation of international relations.'"

[mavs>spurs]

lol govt is buttmad right now

[boutons_deux]

Excellent news.

Go Julian Go, kick some ass.

[LnGrrrR]

lol Good for Ecuador.

[DarrinS]

His 15 min are over

[Latarian Milton]

humanitarian asylum givin to a ruthless tyrant who never gave a shit bout humanism when he was in power

[mavs>spurs]

who was he a tyrant of, rogue? he never ruled any countries

[Capt Bringdown]

I'm sure the US will respect Ecuador's sovereignty and the rule of law.

[Latarian Milton]

who was he a tyrant of, rogue? he never ruled any countries

sorry i just looked dumb one more time i think :lol but how come an Australian journalist & talkshow hosts needed to seek asylum? so people outside of china/russia also getting prosecuted for telling the truth?

[mavs>spurs]

^he pissed off the american govt that's why :lol

the assholes who hijacked our country love the commie model so much that they are trying furiously to imitate it i think. power hungry tyrants are still tyrants no matter which country they are in tbh.

[DarrinS]

If they really wanted that guy dead, he would already be dead

[Winehole23]

His 15 min are overwrong. means wikileaks has a safe home now.

[boutons_deux]

wrong. means wikileaks has a safe home now.

really?

WikiLeaks suffers weeklong denial-of-service attack

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/14/wikileaks-says-its-site-has-suffered-weeklong-denial-of-service-attack/

and Julian, when you sleep with a lady, try to assure she isn't working for the CIA next time.

[PGDynasty24]

What does Guatemala get from this BS,they are just agitating the countries with actual pull in all of this.

[DMC]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Salman_Rushdie_2012_Shankbone-2.jpg/220px-Salman_Rushdie_2012_Shankbone-2.jpg

He could shack up with this guy.

[Winehole23]

really?

WikiLeaks suffers weeklong denial-of-service attack

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/14/wikileaks-says-its-site-has-suffered-weeklong-denial-of-service-attack/
old news. it's over now.

[DarrinS]

wrong. means wikileaks has a safe home now.

I had forgotten wikileaks until this thread. SNL hasn't spoofed him for over a year.

Kind of like old ST threads -- forgotten until winehole bumps them

[Winehole23]

you hate updated threads for some reason?

[Winehole23]

history is continuous, not atomistic.

[Winehole23]

besides, you don't even read the goddam threads, Darrin. there's no goddam difference between new and stale if you don't read em to begin with.

[PublicOption]

This guy is committed too. We will hear from him again.

The world is safer and smarter and wiser with guys like him.

checks and balances on a whole new level.

[PublicOption]

If they really wanted that guy dead, he would already be dead


He is so dangerous to the govts of the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they try.

[Slomo]

If they really wanted that guy dead, he would already be dead

Well there's one thing that is much better than dead - it's complete discreditation.

[Winehole23]

wikileaks has been discredited? do tell.

[Winehole23]

update:


QUITO, Aug 14 (Reuters) - Ecuador denied a report on Tuesday that it had granted amnesty to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the country's foreign minister said only he and President Rafael Correa could make the decision.

Assange has been taking refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for the past eight weeks to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sex crime allegations.

[boutons_deux]

"sex crime allegations"

Sweden and UK spending $Ms on "he said/she(of the CIA)said". There's a lot more to this that just "she said" sex crimes.

[Slomo]

wikileaks has been discredited? do tell.

I was answering to the discussion that they would try to assassinate Assange. As I said discreditation is a much better option in such a public case, and the argument could be made that they are trying to do just that (discredit Assange).

[Winehole23]

oh, absolutely, though it's far from clear Assange being discredited or killed would have any effect whatsoever on wikileaks.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dont see what he does is any different to what a reporter does, the only problem is freedom of information access whether its appropiate to be printed, then again govt control media and media moguls only print what they want you to read only, which is base on their political views....if it aint, then its not worth printing for the public...

[Slomo]

oh, absolutely, though it's far from clear Assange being discredited or killed would have any effect whatsoever on wikileaks.

I think it would. Human nature. The discreditation I mean not the killing.

[ElNono]

Julian Assange can be arrested in embassy, UK warns Ecuador (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum?newsfeed=true)

Ahead of decision on WikiLeaks founder's asylum claim, Quito accuses Britain of threat to trample international law

[Winehole23]

Ecuador says it is granting political asylum to WiliLeaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning for alleged sexual misconduct.

Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino says Ecuador found that Assange faces a real threat of political persecution including the threat of extradition to the United States, where Patino said the Australian would not get a fair trial and could face the death penalty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/ecuador-grants-political-asylum-to-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/2012/08/16/d59a3cce-e7a0-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

[boutons_deux]

Cameron has threatened to Ayotollah-Khomeini the Ecuador embassy and kidnap Assange.

[LnGrrrR]

Cameron has threatened to Ayotollah-Khomeini the Ecuador embassy and kidnap Assange.

That doesn't sound very intelligent to me...

[TDMVPDPOY]

why hasnt he tried iran or china?

the problem isnt the rape charges, its the deportation to america against his will for other charges the american govt want to charge him with....

if his site is still leaking information, then why arent they gong after the ppl thats leaking the shit, assange is nothing more then a clown for a storefront

[boutons_deux]

he can't get out of the embassy, the UK will arrest him, send him to Sweden on bullshit sex charges. He was entrapped by CIA whores. Looks like the CIA has won. I wonder if CIA is paying UK and Sweden to cover their expenses?

[TDMVPDPOY]

he can't get out of the embassy, the UK will arrest him, send him to Sweden on bullshit sex charges. He was entrapped by CIA whores. Looks like the CIA has won. I wonder if CIA is paying UK and Sweden to cover their expenses?

entrapment when he was a nobody, seems like fabricated shit out of nowhere to be honest

[PGDynasty24]

I'm not exactly sure why Ecuador is risking this much Assange,what do they have to gain from this...get their country talked about on the national stage for once. And I agree that the rape charges which may of happened are just a front for his deportation to US and eventually Guantanamo.

[Capt Bringdown]

I'm sure the UK will respect Ecuador's sovereignty and the rule of law.

[ElNono]

US intends to chase Assange, cables show (http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html)

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what Ecuador will do when he starts leaking their secrets?

[LnGrrrR]

I wonder what Ecuador will do when he starts leaking their secrets?

As long as Ecuador isn't lying to their people, they should have nothing to hide, right? :D

[Winehole23]

But Ecuador will not want to host Mr Assange in its London embassy forever, says Michel Levi, professor of international relations at the Andina Simón Bolívar University in Quito. "I think he will end up in Sweden, with special conditions granted for his eventual trial," he says. On Sunday Mr Assange was due to make a statement from the embassy, in which sources close to him suggest that he may offer to cooperate with Sweden if guarantees are given that he would not face extradition to a third country.http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2012/08/britain-and-ecuador?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

[ElNono]

US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State" (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html)

[Wild Cobra]

US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State" (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html)
Cool.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the rape charges against him doesnt even make sense when they have samples from a condom without any of his DNA...fkn fail....yet they blame it on him, if u look at all rape cases...who uses a connie?

[Wild Cobra]

This has nothing to do with the rape charges. It's all about his compromising national secrets.

[boutons_deux]

no, it's all about anybody being crushed by the govt, and complicit other govts, that doesn't allow anybody to question its power, expose its nasty secrets.

btw, please list the national SECURITY secrets exposed, as verified by MIC.

Assange is not an American citizen and did nothing on the US soil, so how does USA have jurisdiction? He wasn't sworn to secrecy, didn't remove the info from US computers.

btw, I suppose Bradley is mentally ill, maybe destroyed, after years of torturing isolation.

[Wild Cobra]

Secrets are a necessary evil like it or not. I'd say he's lucky he doesn't have a US assassin after him.

[boutons_deux]

Secrets are a necessary evil like it or not. I'd say he's lucky he doesn't have a US assassin after him.

yep, any crime, like murder, is not a crime for governments, but not for individuals. eg, Petraeus murdering "bad guys" 1000s of miles from USA, anywhere on the planet.

[Wild Cobra]

yep, any crime, like murder, is not a crime for governments, but not for individuals. eg, Petraeus murdering "bad guys" 1000s of miles from USA, anywhere on the planet.
I wasn't making a moral judgement about assassinations, just pointing out what types of things can happen for people who are a threat to a nation.

[boutons_deux]

Assange was/is no threat to USA. USA just wants to crush him, a foreigner, because he embarrassed USA wonderfully.

[Wild Cobra]

Assange was/is no threat to USA. USA just wants to crush him, a foreigner, because he embarrassed USA wonderfully.
He didn't steel the secrets, he just let them out when they were in his possession. He is as guilty of a person trafficking in stolen goods.

[Winehole23]

so, you'd be cool throwing journalists in jail for doing the same thing?

[Wild Cobra]

so, you'd be cool throwing journalists in jail for doing the same thing?


I wasn't making a moral judgement about assassinations, just pointing out what types of things can happen for people who are a threat to a nation.
Jail can happen too.

[mavs>spurs]

He didn't steel the secrets, he just let them out when they were in his possession. He is as guilty of a person trafficking in stolen goods.

Nah he's a hero. This world needs more accountability.

[Wild Cobra]

Nah he's a hero. This world needs more accountability.
Were you ever in the military?

Some secrets are necessary.

[LnGrrrR]

Were you ever in the military?

Some secrets are necessary.

Agreed, but our government tends to claim a lot more things as "secret" that don't need to be, only to protect their image.

[mavs>spurs]

our government tends to claim a lot more things as "secret" that don't need to be, only to protect their image.

yep

[cheguevara]

if not for the good people of Ecuador, Assange would be rotting in a cell in Guantanamo getting a daily Sausage inserted up his rectum just like private manning. at the US taxpayers expense BTW

the US military will go to great lengths to illegaly jail and torure a guy who put up a few embarrassing links up.

[Winehole23]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

[Wild Cobra]

Agreed, but our government tends to claim a lot more things as "secret" that don't need to be, only to protect their image.
Not that I've seen.

Some things that are seemingly harmless can be a piece to a puzzle that gives away important secrets if enough are put together.

[Wild Cobra]

Agreed, but our government tends to claim a lot more things as "secret" that don't need to be, only to protect their image.


yep
Example please.

[Wild Cobra]

the US military will go to great lengths to illegaly jail and torure a guy who put up a few embarrassing links up.
Is it illegal?

These secrets were effectively stolen.

Assange then effectively engaged in trafficking these stolen secrets.

Doesn't it depend on your perspective?

If I steel something, and you know it, and help do something with that stolen property... The law holds you accountable too, if you are caught.

Am I right?

How are secrets different than property in a court of law?

[Winehole23]

A US air force systems analyst who expressed support for WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks) and accused leaker Bradley Manning triggered a formal military investigation last year to determine whether she herself had leaked any documents to the group. Air Force investigative documents (http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Assange-WikiLeaks-Enemy-USAF-FOI.pdf), obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that the analyst was repeatedly interviewed about her contacts with and support for WikiLeaks - what investigators repeatedly refer to as the "anti-US or anti-military group" - as well as her support for the group's founder, Julian Assange (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange).


The investigation was ultimately closed when they could find no evidence of unauthorized leaking, but what makes these documents noteworthy is the possible crime cited by military officials as the one they were investigating: namely, "Communicating With the Enemy", under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm).



That is one of the most serious crimes a person can commit - it carries the penalty of death - and is committed when a person engages in "unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy". The military investigation form also requires investigators to identify the "victim" of the crime they are investigating, and here, they designated "society" as the victim:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/27/1348741861899/airforce.png How could leaking to WikiLeaks possibly constitute the crime of "communicating with the enemy"? Who exactly is the "enemy"? There are two possible answers to that question, both quite disturbing.


The first possibility is the one suggested by today's Sydney Morning Herald article (http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html) on these documents (as well as by WikiLeaks itself (http://wikileaks.org/US-Military-Refers-to-Julian.html)): that the US military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-military) now formally characterizes WikiLeaks and Assange as an "enemy", the same designation it gives to groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This would not be the first time such sentiments were expressed by the US military: recall that one of the earliest leaks from the then-largely-unknown group was a secret report prepared back in 2008 by the US Army which, as the New York Times put it (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html), included WikiLeaks on the Pentagon's "list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States". That Army document then plotted how to destroy the group (http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/).



But it's the second possibility that seems to me to be the far more likely one: namely, that the US government, as part of Obama's unprecedented war on whistleblowers (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones), has now fully embraced the pernicious theory that any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, "the enemy" will - like everyone else in the world - ultimately learn of what is disclosed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/wikileaks-investigation-enemy

[Winehole23]

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" even if no information is passed directly to the "enemy" and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it "indirectly" informs the enemy.



The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with "aiding" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn't that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?
same

[Winehole23]

It is always worth underscoring that the New York Times has published far more government secrets than WikiLeaks ever has, and more importantly, has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks has (unlike WikiLeaks, which has never published anything that was designated "Top Secret", the New York Times has repeatedly done so: the Pentagon Papers, the Bush NSA wiretapping program, the SWIFT banking surveillance system, and the cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran were all "Top Secret" when the newspaper revealed them, as was the network of CIA secret prisons exposed by the Washington Post). There is simply no way to convert basic leaks to WikiLeaks into capital offenses - as the Obama administration is plainly doing - without sweeping up all leaks into that attack.

Of course, that outcome would almost certainly be a feature, not a bug, for Obama officials. This is, after all, the same administration that has prosecuted whistleblowers under espionage charges that threatened to send them to prison for life without any evidence of harm to national security, and has brought double the number of such prosecutions as all prior administrations combined (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html). Converting all leaks into capital offenses would be perfectly consistent with the unprecedented secrecy fixation on the part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs)™.


The irony from these developments is glaring. The real "enemies" of American "society" are not those who seek to inform the American people about the bad acts engaged in by their government in secret (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/). As Democrats once recognized (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_liberal_betrayal_of_bradley_manning/) prior to the age of Obama - in the age of Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks_n_797801.html) - people who do that are more aptly referred to as "heroes" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/bradley-manning-deserves-a-medal). The actual "enemies" are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.
same

[LnGrrrR]

Not that I've seen.

Some things that are seemingly harmless can be a piece to a puzzle that gives away important secrets if enough are put together.

Well I am forbidden from looking at the Assange leaks, so I can't really help you there...

I'll look up some of Greenwald's columns talking about it and post them.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/reports/2011-annual-report.pdf

In this report, we see that original classification has gone down greatly from a few years ago, but derivative classification has shot up sharply under the Obama presidency. They say that part of it is due to electronic records and better accuracy, but given Obama's penchant for hunting down whistleblowers, I doubt that's the only reason.

The amount of pages being declassified has shrunk greatly also.

Here's another link from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (a great organization):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/dangers-classifying-news



But while high-level White House officials continually leak Top Secret information to justify their covert actions and to combat criticism, Obama’s Justice Department is also engaged in an unprecedented campaign to prosecute lower-level whistleblowers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104848.html) that leak information to the press in the name of public interest (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/06/obama-administration-prosecuting-exactly-the-kind-of-whistleblower-who-deserves-protection.html). This is in contradiction of another pledge (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50761.html) Obama made to protect and strengthen whistleblower protections during his 2008 campaign. His administration, in just two and a half years, has indicted fiveleakers under the Espionage Act. That’s more than every president since Richard Nixon—combined.


And if releasing secrets is so bad... I wonder why our gov't does it when it makes them look good?

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/the_real_danger_from_classified_leaks/singleton/



The same thing happened with the bin Laden killing: the Obama administration has resisted efforts (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/11/2258207/ap-files-foia-request-for-bin-laden-photos) to declassify and disclose videos, documents and photographs regarding the raid that killed him — requests motivated by the administration’s multiple inconsistent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change) and ultimately false statements (http://www.alternet.org/news/150857/7_deceptions_about_bin_laden's_killing_pushed_by_t he_obama_administration/) about what took place and lingering questions (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54425.html) about what happened — but then oh-so-mysteriously showed little interest (i.e., none) in discovering and punishing those (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/141581/new-yorker-freelancer-scores-coup-with-account-of-bin-laden-raid/) who orally fed (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle)The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle) supposed details of the raid that produced an uncritical hagiography (http://www.registan.net/index.php/2011/08/04/the-schmidle-muddle-of-the-osama-bin-laden-take-down/) of those, including the President, responsible for the bin Laden killing.

[Winehole23]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

From this document, the reporter concluded that Assange was now an “enemy of the state.” I had some suspicions, though. The analyst was not charged. Was this because an investigation showed that the analyst was not engaging in the communication alleged? Or was it because somebody determined that the charges weren’t valid because Assange and WikiLeaks aren’t actually “the enemy”?


So I did a thing that journalists do sometimes and called the Pentagon to ask. I didn’t actually expect anything to come of it, given our government’s current tendency to try to keep as many secrets as possible (http://reason.com/24-7/2012/10/01/obama-foia-record-worse-than-bush).


But Monday afternoon I got a call back from Department of Defense spokesman Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. When flatly asked whether Assange or WikiLeaks had been classified by the military as “enemies of the state,” he said they had not.
Gregory admitted he hadn’t had the chance to look over all the documents the Herald had received. But he was firm in his declaration that the military, at least, did not consider Assange or WikiLeaks an enemy.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/02/pentagon-assange-wikileaks-are-not-enemi

[Wild Cobra]

Shouldn't Obama have sent a cruise missile after him by now since you conspiracy theorists claim he doesn't care about collateral damage?

[Winehole23]

nope.

[LnGrrrR]

Shouldn't Obama have sent a cruise missile after him by now since you conspiracy theorists claim he doesn't care about collateral damage?

How is anything I posted a "conspiracy theory"? Why not respond to the actual data/comments in my post?

[Wild Cobra]

How is anything I posted a "conspiracy theory"? Why not respond to the actual data/comments in my post?
I didn't direct that your way. Have a guilty conscience?

I find it funny though, that both Clinton and Obama love using cruise missiles and drones, yet so many people still hate the ones who actually put boots on the ground.

I was making a general statement, and maybe should have used blue for it.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't direct that your way. Have a guilty conscience?

I find it funny though, that both Clinton and Obama love using cruise missiles and drones, yet so many people still hate the ones who actually put boots on the ground.

I was making a general statement, and maybe should have used blue for it.

My misunderstanding then. Anyways, I think that people don't mind cruise missiles and drones because we're not losing as many American lives that way. (There are definitely still some cons to those methods, but not getting American soldiers involved physically is a pro for drone warfare.)

[Wild Cobra]

My misunderstanding then. Anyways, I think that people don't mind cruise missiles and drones because we're not losing as many American lives that way. (There are definitely still some cons to those methods, but not getting American soldiers involved physically is a pro for drone warfare.)
So you don't mind the Al-Qaeda version then?

Flight 77, Flight 93, etc...

Many people do wonder if 9/11 was a response to Clinton's usage of cruise missiles. When you don't have boots on the ground, you have no skin in the game. He used thousands of them during his presidency.

[LnGrrrR]

So you don't mind the Al-Qaeda version then?

Flight 77, Flight 93, etc...

Many people do wonder if 9/11 was a response to Clinton's usage of cruise missiles. When you don't have boots on the ground, you have no skin in the game. He used thousands of them during his presidency.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. If Al Qaeda had flown planes that weren't hijacked into, say, military bases, then it'd likely be a "legal" act of war.

And why would you want skin in the game, if you could just bomb them from afar? (I'm somewhat playing Devil's Advocate... I'm very leery of drone strikes, as it most likely further dehumanizes us to those we're protecting.)

[Wild Cobra]

I'm only presenting a view the other side may see. Drones and missiles are great, but not really seeing your target, you also don't really know the collateral damage. Clinton, with no doubt, used these far too much. Obama it looks like is using them far too much too. By no skin in the game, I mean we do not see how many innocents might be killed, if we really got the target, and our troops are afar and safe. Boots on the ground mean spotters.

Would you consider being in the same locale as a cruise missile aimed at someone else, a terrorist attack?

We have military snipers for a reason. We have covert ops for a reason. I agree that drones and missiles have a place in war, but they are being over used. This is the chicken's way to kill without getting injured in return.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm only presenting a view the other side may see. Drones and missiles are great, but not really seeing your target, you also don't really know the collateral damage. Clinton, with no doubt, used these far too much. Obama it looks like is using them far too much too. By no skin in the game, I mean we do not see how many innocents might be killed, if we really got the target, and our troops are afar and safe. Boots on the ground mean spotters.

Would you consider being in the same locale as a cruise missile aimed at someone else, a terrorist attack?

We have military snipers for a reason. We have covert ops for a reason. I agree that drones and missiles have a place in war, but they are being over used. This is the chicken's way to kill without getting injured in return.

So far, it seems like most Americans don't care about collateral damage sadly, even if it's likely breeding future terrorists. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not seeing the target"... drones have cameras on them, and the trigger on the drones is pulled by a remote pilot. The reason why Obama's using them is because it's cheaper to lose a drone then it is to pay lifetime medical costs for soldiers who are injured. The military seems to be behind him 100% on this as well.

I will say that I'm reminded of an old Star Trek episode, in which both sides realized that actual war would cause the destruction of their species... so instead they calculated where bombs would hit, and had a treaty to voluntarily sacrifice the citizens who lived in those areas. Kirk ends up destroying the machine, so they'd have "skin in the game". I can't say I disagreed with his thought process. When war is too easy, it's more often used.

[Wild Cobra]

If you have Netflix:

A Taste of Armageddon (http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70109458)

[LnGrrrR]

^ That's the one WC. It's why I love the original Star Trek.

[rjv]

+1

[Wild Cobra]

^ That's the one WC. It's why I love the original Star Trek.
I watched it yesterday soon after you brought it up. I have the Netflix Streaming. I think it's worth the $7.99/month.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever see the original pilot, that was never aired in the 60's? It didn't air till 12/24/88. Parts of it were used in The Menagerie.

Netflix: Unseen Pilot: The Cage (http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70109459#MovieId=70136140&EpisodeMovieId=70178514)