"Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens"

[vy65]

vy65 is no blue team apologist. she's a post-modern apologist for force, against traditional US liberties.

she? that's fucking low man

[Winehole23]

how am I to know what sex you are? it's not we're personally acquainted.

[Winehole23]

you sure know how to sweet talk a gal WHhttp://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209087&page=6&p=6343710&viewfull=1#post6343710

[vy65]

touche

[vy65]

I do find it funny that people peg me as both conservative and liberal

[vy65]

lol peg

[Winehole23]

my bad, vy. no insult was intended.

[vy65]

it's all good man ... it's not like you called me a libtard or checked out my driveway

[Winehole23]

I do find it funny that people peg me as both conservative and liberalit's understandable. you tend to obfuscate your own views.

[Blake]

she? that's fucking low man

female participation in this forum is what is actually low.

Little wonder.

[ElNono]

Difference of degree. It's one thing to surveille secretly, another to deprive people of life and liberty secretly. Plus, the judicial check you allude to Obama expressly rules out.

Again, the policy that exists rules this out. You're talking about a counterfactual: these are, according to the theory, powers inhering in the executive, reviewable by no one.

I'm advocating for such check to be in place (at the very least). I doubt it would pass constitutional munster, but it adds a degree of legitimacy if it does.

I'm well aware the document expressly rules such checks out, that's why I'm saying I can't agree with that.

[ChumpDumper]

link or name of? I like a nice crazy read.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_C._Baker

[Winehole23]

thanks for the link

[SA210]

Props to the patriotic protestors right now at the bs CIA Confirmation hearing :tu :tu

Love the spin that the msm and sellout Feinstein is giving lol

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

[ChumpDumper]

lol protester with an actual sock puppet.

[SA210]

Props to the patriotic protestors right now at the bs CIA Confirmation hearing :tu :tu

Love the spin that the msm and sellout Feinstein is giving lol

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/


:clap:clap:clap Props to these real Patriots for interrupting lies to speak out for truth



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/980244/thumbs/r-CIA-CONFIRMATION-large570.jpg?6


Protesters Shutdown War Criminal John Brennan's Opening Statement At CIA Dir Nominee Hearing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTUR-OcnA5M


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534787_570741336271970_1638317396_n.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

lol sock puppet

[SA210]

.

A boy named "Adam"




"If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."
-- Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTnvXJTP1c/UH-iU0WXnZI/AAAAAAAABDc/bi50jGt_L-4/s320/abdulrahman_awlaki_3.jpg





Largely thanks to a complicit corporate-state news media, (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fox-sucks-but-what-about-cnn-and-msnbc.html) the story of a U.S. teenager executed without trial by the government has largely gone under the radar.

The teen -- who we will temporarily refer to as "Adam" -- was born (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-birth-certificate.html) on August 26, 1995 at approximately 1:16 pm in Denver, Colorado. Like many Americans, Adam came to enjoy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html) watching movies, playing football, computer games, and swimming.




Following the attacks of 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html), the father of Adam -- also a U.S. citizen (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/27/awlaki_5/) -- was invited to a luncheon at the Pentagon designed to encourage religious tolerance.




In late 2002, Adam and his father moved to Britain, and then Yemen in 2004.




In 2008, U.S. intelligence agencies made the claim (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022708aulaqialqaeda#a022708aulaq ialqaeda) that the father of Adam had been a "spiritual counselor" for some of the 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html) hijackers and had also assisted in various terror plots. The following year, Adam's father went into hiding, but this wouldn't deter his son from eventually setting off to try and find him.

Around 6:30 am on September 4th, 2011, Adam quietly slipped away from his family home in Sana, Yemen, leaving behind a note (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1161432--drone-death-in-yemen-of-an-american-teenager) for his mother. "I am sorry for leaving in this kind of way," he wrote. "Forgive me. I miss my father and want to see if I can go and talk to him."

Yet as it turned out, Adam would never get a chance to talk to his father. That's because on the 30th of September, Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/presidential-politics-perpetual-game-of.html) authorized two U.S. predator drones to kill the man. For this U.S. citizen, there would be no trial, no jury - just a mere accusation of guilt by faceless officials and a subsequent execution.


Shortly after news of his father's death surfaced, Adam, his 17-year-old cousin with whom he had been staying, and a few other friends set up a barbeque and celebrated their last night together. Adam called his mother and planned to return home the next day, a promise to be broken against his best intentions. He would never see her again.

As the teens chatted and ate dinner, brave aerial drones quietly sailed through Yemen's clear October skies, watching intently from above with powerful robotic eyes and patiently awaiting further orders. Eventually, such orders came and, with the press of a button, missiles shattered the night's calm like a stone to glass and screamed through the air before plowing into the teens without warning and engulfing them in a suffocating inferno which neither escaped from alive.

Desperate to justify their actions, the U.S. government initially claimed Adam had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and that the intended target of the drones was a "senior al-Qaeda operative" named Ibrahim al-Banna, a man who later turned up (http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-5) alive and well.

Moreover, news media reports at the time went so far as to suggest that Adam was not a teenager, but a grown man with ties to al-Qaeda, an utterly baseless claim (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891), but not one without a purpose. Referring to Adam as "military-age (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/)" at the time of death meant that by international protocols he would therefore be considered a legitimate target.

Still, even supposing one looks beyond the blatant violation of international protocols, what is to be said of those in a domestic sense? What kind of precedent is being established when U.S. citizens can be targeted for assassination by their government without trial? If it can happen to Adam and his father, who might be next? Why aren't these questions being asked?

Perhaps these questions aren't being asked because Adam's name is actually Abdulrahman, and when a foreign-sounding name like his is thrown across American news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw)media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw) outlets, nobody really seems all too concerned by it. Yet, if the headlines had in fact read "Adam" instead of "Abdulrahman", how differently would this have played out?

The establishment of such a dangerous precedent remains entirely dependent on continued complacency by the public. If the government can get away with killing U.S. citizens without trial overseas, how long will it be until the killings come home?

In May 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration began streamlining (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html) the licensing process for public agencies to "safely" fly drones, with law enforcement a prime target.

During that same month, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html) reported on the case of Rodney Brossart, the first U.S. citizen to be arrested using an unmanned drone.

Where was Rodney arrested? Pakistan? Yemen? Try North Dakota.

Make no mistake: the drones are coming, and the death of "Adam" and his father may only be the beginning.





... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...




"I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing. In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed? ... I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."-- Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman's grandfather




... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/) in October 2012 about the death of Abdulrahman, to which he smugly replied that the teen should have had a "far more responsible father".

Where is the outrage?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...





See also:




Murder Made Easy (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/murder-made-easy.html) - Two different studies offer new insight into the psychology behind killing, but what does it mean for the future of aerial drone warfare?





The United States of Predator Drones (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html)- From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing down

A brief history of George W. Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-w-obama-three-terms-eleven-years.html) - Has the same U.S. President been in office for the last 11 years? The following timeline covers key events between 2001-2012



Posted 18th October 2012 by Jonathan Reynolds (http://www.blogger.com/profile/07211828707647432728)






http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/8K/esq-awlaki-0812-lg.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4


http://debatingchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/scahill_tweet_re_reid_on_awlakis_3_11_2012.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5MQxLaBRV2Y/UIGEMpQeCRI/AAAAAAAAEkE/0Jp0TjsoZBA/s1600/TaggRomney.png



http://jischinger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/alawlaki.jpg



http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abdulrahman.jpg




http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kid-drone.jpg



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg







https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534787_570741336271970_1638317396_n.jpg

[Blake]

SA210, why do you think a 17 year old was targeted by his own country?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm confused. Which one is Adam?

[SA210]

Cenk, doing another great job, taking apart Obama Administrations lies, piece by piece on the CIA confirmation hearing



"John Brennan denied at his Senate confirmation hearing as CIA director accusations that he played a central role in the agency's torture of suspected terrorists, and suggested he was misled as a CIA senior official over the value of information obtained through waterboarding"*

John Brennan took questions on torture during his Senate hearing-- what did the man who did Obama's dirty work in the CIA have to say, and did he admit that waterboarding is torture? Cenk Uygur breaks it down and calls the presumptive new head of the CIA out.



TYT: Liar? Obama's CIA Nominee on Drones and Waterboarding


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJC9nNPucAM

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry, I'm having trouble getting fired up over it too. Is there any particular reason why we as a whole should be upset?

Were you guys also upset that Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial?

Things that don't make Blake upset: Targeted killing of American citizens without a trial

Things that make Blake upset: Illegal downloading!!!!! Rarr!!!

[Blake]

Things that don't make Blake upset: Targeted killing of American citizens without a trial

Things that make Blake upset: Illegal downloading!!!!! Rarr!!!

:lol

[Winehole23]

pissed off at theft? yes.

due process free state murder of US citizens? not so much.

[Winehole23]

property>people

[Blake]

pissed off at theft? yes.

due process free state murder of US citizens? not so much.


Is this America in general or is it directed at me?

fwiw, I'm not pissed off at illegal downloaders. I simply have no sympathy for them when they get busted.


As for murdering US citizens, I find it mildly disgusting that it's the "US citizen" part that really matters to many.

[Winehole23]

why? you set nothing by citizenship and the rights and immunities attaching thereto?

[Winehole23]

if the government calls someone a bad guy all bets are off? you can just waste em?

[Winehole23]

I find that more than mildly disgusting . . .

[Winehole23]

SA210, why do you think a 17 year old was targeted by his own country?regardless of whether he was targeted, he was killed. is that proper, in your opinion?

[Winehole23]

if so, why?

[Blake]

why? you set nothing by citizenship and the rights and immunities attaching thereto?

Regarding war? No.

Why are you treating the American citizen as being more special than the Pakistanis?

[Blake]

regardless of whether he was targeted, he was killed. is that proper, in your opinion?

I'm still determining whether our military attacks in Yemen, Pakistan et al are justified.

I'd also like to know if he was considered an enemy of war or a casualty of war, in order to determine how sad I should be about his death.

[Blake]

. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html



This is from 2011.

:cry :ihit MSM always ignoring Obama :ihit :cry

Does anyone know if this is still considered a causality or was this kid actually targeted?

[LnGrrrR]

Personally speaking, killing a foreigner isn't setting any sort of precedent I'm aware of. But killing an American without trial does set a precedent, one Id rather not see set.

[Blake]

Personally speaking, killing a foreigner isn't setting any sort of precedent I'm aware of. But killing an American without trial does set a precedent, one Id rather not see set.

This is what I'm talking about. We've become frog hot water regarding foreigners getting assassinated.

[SA210]

Sill waiting for msm to key in and focus exclusively on the targeted murder without due process of the innocent 16 year old American boy from Colorado and the lack of evidence against him.

[SA210]

Rand Paul: 'Very unseemly' that president decides drone strikes
Sen. Rand Paul says there must be a review process before a president can authorize drone strikes on U.S. citizens.

“It’s very unseemly that a politician gets to decide the death of an American citizen," the Kentucky Republican said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "They should answer about this 16-year-old boy, al-Awlaki’s son, that was killed, not in collateral damage but in a separate strike. They never answered that. I think you should be tried for treason if you’re an American citizen, you go overseas and you take up arms. I’m probably for executing you but I want to hear the evidence.”

Paul said he won't vote to confirm John Brennan as CIA director until Brennan clarifies his answer about whether U.S. citizens can legally be killed by drone strikes within the United States.

“The president, a politician, Republican or Democrat, should never get to decide someone’s death by flipping through some flash cards and saying, ‘You want to kill him? Yeah, let’s go ahead and kill him,'" Paul said.





Sill waiting for msm to key in and focus exclusively on the targeted murder without due process of the innocent 16 year old American boy from Colorado and the lack of evidence against him.

[Blake]

Sill waiting for msm to key in and focus exclusively on the targeted murder without due process of the innocent 16 year old American boy from Colorado and the lack of evidence against him.

Smh.

[ChumpDumper]

Sill waiting for msm to key in and focus exclusively on the targeted murder without due process of the innocent 16 year old American boy from Colorado and the lack of evidence against him.You should probably, you know, follow the msm because they have you silly turd.

[SA210]

The Justice Department's leaked "White Paper Memo" surfaced, detailing legal justification for drone strikes, killing American citizens, and other constitutional powers of the president that were once thought of as unthinkable. Does the Obama administration have the power to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants without concrete justification? David Sirota (Writer, Political Analyst) breaks down what the memo means, whatever happened to due process, and whether the problem is "too big to curtail" TYT: Obama's Kill List and White Paper Memo with David Sirota
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGXecV6OlJs

[SA210]

.
.
Holy shyt. Damn, Cenk Uygur says exactly what I have been saying. He really torches the Democrats and the public for their hypocrisy, stupidity and gullibility.



when it comes to drones, the fight in Washington has no parallel in the public at large. Put simply: Americans love drones."*

Liberals and conservatives agree: they love drone attacks. A Washington Post poll found the approval spans across parties. Why? Are people blindly following Obama and his administration? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.


TYT: America Loves Drone Attacks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbkC24GzuPM

[Winehole23]

Regarding war? No.

Why are you treating the American citizen as being more special than the Pakistanis?citizenship matters. maybe not to you though.

[Wild Cobra]

citizenship matters. maybe not to you though.
I'm torn on that.

If it is absolutely clear that a citizen has any major roll in terrorist activity, or that of an enemy that can be deemed a target, I say he qualifies as a target as anyone else can. Citizenship should not protect one from clear treason.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I find that more than mildly disgusting . . .

You have the sanctimony going full throttle.

[Blake]

citizenship matters. maybe not to you though.

It matters to me because that's the way it is. I'd prefer one earth one people but I guess that's not in the cards for at least a few hundred, maybe thousand years.

Thank dog I hit the human lottery to be born here so that I can have super human rights and immunities.

[SA210]

Jeremy Scahill as usual with the goods, and sees through all the bullshit and spin :tu

Great discussion


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MelKEcEeb7k

[SA210]

.
.

If Bush were doing this everything in Washington DC would stop today, congressional hearings would be called, there would be articles of impeachment, the entire press core would stop and focus all their attention on this constitutional overreach" -Scarborough

Joe Scarborough: Tears Into 'American King' Obama's 'Frightening,' 'Chilling' Drone Strike Defense


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQbColSRtRk

[Blake]

Is there a way to put youtube on ignore?

[SA210]

Comedy Central: Kroll Show, Drones


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF1mx-Dcek8

[Blake]

Is there a way to put youtube on ignore?

Fuck shit #!=/#!@$ mother fucker.

[SA210]

.
.
People are very very very very slowly starting to see some kind of truth on Obama. And this is without the public knowing about the signature strikes and double tap drones that kill first responders and people that we don't know who they are.



"A majority of voters believe President Obama has been no better than his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to balancing national security with the protection of civil liberties, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Thirty-seven percent of voters argue that Obama has been worse than Bush while 15 percent say he has been "about the same."*

Is President Obama worse than President Bush when it comes to national security and civil liberties? What do Americans think about his usage of drones? New poll numbers out, showing Obama's current numbers-- how different are they from just a year ago. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more from The Hill: http://thehill.com/polls/282147-hill-... (http://thehill.com/polls/282147-hill-poll-voters-obama-no-better-than-bush-on-security-vs-civil-liberties)




TYT: Obama Worse Than Bush?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYeGCcFWxGU



.
.
Holy shyt. Damn, Cenk Uygur says exactly what I have been saying. He really torches the Democrats and the public for their hypocrisy, stupidity and gullibility.




TYT: America Loves Drone Attacks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbkC24GzuPM

[Winehole23]

And this is without the public knowing about the signature strikes and double tap drones that kill first responders and people that we don't know who they are.how'd you find out about all that? I seem to recall reading something in the MSM. . .

[Winehole23]

Why are you treating the American citizen as being more special than the Pakistanis?rhetorical expedience. we're not more special than Pakistanis, but we generally think ourselves so.

it's not realistic (or particularly persuasive) to appeal to sympathy for the lives of Pakistanis. We do not give a shit.

Americans are keen on themselves, so maybe that's a slightly better pitch.

[ChumpDumper]

how'd you find out about all that? I seem to recall reading something in the MSM. . .He doesn't read the msm.

[Blake]

it's not realistic (or particularly persuasive) to appeal to sympathy for the lives of Pakistanis. We do not give a shit.

Americans are keen on themselves, so maybe that's a slightly better pitch.

a pitch to do what?

[Winehole23]

to posters on this board.

not sure what's to be done beyond sharing info and trying to persuade. what are you doing about it?

[SA210]

how'd you find out about all that? I seem to recall reading something in the MSM. . .


The study done by NYU and Stanford Law professors. The "Living Under Drones" documentary. Democracy Now, A few articles and other alternative news, I'll post one of the articles form Daily Kos though (which includes links to others), and Cenk Uyger reported on it back then. I'll repost his report on it. Again, I have talked about the difference on how they would torch Bush in msm, but stay mostly silent on Obama, there is a difference, MAJOR difference. And of course it was ignored during the election and debates. And let's be honest, the majority of the population believes what they actually see covered on msm national television. Many articles, but noone cared until MSNBC ran the story on tv last week. They already slowed down on the story too, even though it's huge enough for impeachment and criminal charges lol Jeremy Scahill told the story on MSNBC, but they ignored it after that. With all due respect, you act like telling part of the story is the same as telling the whole story. There is nowhere near the amount of publicity this should be getting.

================================================== ==================================================



Any outrage about "Double Tap" Drone Strikes Killing Rescuers and Children? Any sympathy? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/20/1171594/-Any-outrage-about-Double-Tap-Drone-Strikes-Killing-Rescuers-and-Children-Any-sympathy)



by Cindy Casella (http://www.dailykos.com/user/CIndyCasella)
Thu Dec 20, 2012




The NYU Student Tweeting Every Reported US Drone Strike Has Revealed A Disturbing Trend (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12)





NYU student Josh Begley is tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002, and the feed highlights a disturbing tactic employed by the U.S. that is widely considered a war crime. Known as the "double tap," the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders.




A strike against rescuers, a notorious terrorist tactic, is horrifically exposed in "Collateral Murder (http://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0)," a war crime video that Private Bradley Manning allegedly sent to Wikileaks, for which he was arrested and tortured in prison.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a Salon article, U.S. again bombs mourners: The Obama policy of attacking rescuers and grieving rituals continues this weekend in Pakistan (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/) in June of this year.
The MSM hardly covers drone war crimes, a subject that is equally below the radar on DailyKos and other progressive websites.


Dick Polman wrote this thought provoking op-ed, The silence from liberals on the drone war (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/17/3146618/the-silence-from-liberals-on-the.html).



I’m amazed that so few Americans — most notably, so few liberals — have protested his secretive remote-control assassination program. Drones have killed 3,000 people in Yemen and Pakistan, including collateral-damage civilians, but the actual numbers are secret. So is the process. We don’t know anything about the rules of engagement, how people wind up on Obama’s hit list, who reviews the evidence, and what criteria are applied to that evidence.


The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “No person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law.” Drones are inimical to due process. It would be nice to know how the administration’s lawyers have addressed that conundrum in legal memos. Those memos exist, but they remain classified. The Obama team is reportedly writing rules for itself, a set of standards and procedures, but we may never know whether these rules are scrupulously followed, or even what they are.

Back in May 2009, Obama vowed that his national security actions would be transparent, so that Americans could “make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” But nearly four years and hundreds of drone strikes later, his actions bring to mind the remark Michael Corleone utters near the end of The Godfather Part II: “If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anybody.”




Where is the sympathy for victims of drones in Pakistan? Where is the outrage about the slaughter of innocent civilians by drones? Where are the makeshift teddy bear memorials and flowers for the 168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html)?

George Monbiot writes about this hypocisy in the Guardian, In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats: Barack Obama's tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones


(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats)
"Mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts … These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." Every parent can connect with what President Barack Obama said about the murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. There can scarcely be a person on earth with access to the media who is untouched by the grief of the people of that town.

It must follow that what applies to the children murdered there by a deranged young man also applies to the children murdered in Pakistan by a sombre American president. These children are just as important, just as real, just as deserving of the world's concern. Yet there are no presidential speeches or presidential tears for them, no pictures on the front pages of the world's newspapers, no interviews with grieving relatives, no minute analysis of what happened and why.
If the victims of Mr Obama's drone strikes are mentioned by the state at all, they are discussed in terms which suggest that they are less than human. The people who operate the drones, Rolling Stone magazine reports, describe their casualties as "bug splats", "since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed". Or they are reduced to vegetation: justifying the drone war, Obama's counterterrorism adviser Bruce Riedel explained that "you've got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back".



The children killed by drones in Pakistan are not "bug splats," and they and all the innocent people killed by drone strikes, their friends, and families deserve just as much sympathy as the loved ones mourning the loss of American elementary school children recently killed by an assault weapon here at home.

The Pakistani children share something else in common with the Connecticut children other than the "Made in America" violence that took their lives: the role played by political action committees (PACs) in their tragic deaths. The NRA and the military industrial complex control the majority of our Congressmen, which is why they avoid doing anything about gun control and the illegal drone war.


We, the people, need to take back our country to protect innocent lives from heartless corporations who sell and manufacture weapons of mass murder that kill innocent children here and abroad.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/20/1171594/-Any-outrage-about-Double-Tap-Drone-Strikes-Killing-Rescuers-and-Children-Any-sympathy#


==================================================


Of course these issues weren't covered during the debates or the msm on television which is what really counts


TYT: Double Tap Drones and Murdering Medical responders


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOcK6HsOoEc



Living Under Drones Documentary
(covers how media ignores the truth on civilian casualties, double taps, etc)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8lLn2SvGQ



Jeremy Scahill tried telling the story on MSNBC about the White House trying to lie and cover up the bombing in Yemen which murdered 21 women and 14 children, they lied and tried blaming it on the Yemeni government, of course MSNBC waited until after the election to make any issues of drones. What Jeremy told them should have had them wake up at that moment.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Trh8iwNt8



Democracy Now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgcJ7htyV4M

[SA210]

to posters on this board.

not sure what's to be done beyond sharing info and trying to persuade. what are you doing about it?

I attend and organize protests, have written letters to Representatives, and more. I will be meeting with a local Democratic Representative (that shall remain nameless for now) and he asked me to speak at a convention soon attended by Democrats on this issue, he plans to help me bring more Democrats to this issue. He agrees that Dems have ignored it.

[ChumpDumper]

Why nameless?

Which protests?

[Winehole23]

I attend and organize protests, have written letters to Representatives, and more. I will be meeting with a local Democratic Representative (that shall remain nameless for now) and he asked me to speak at a convention soon attended by Democrats on this issue, he plans to help me bring more Democrats to this issue. Bon chance, SA210.

Bringing more Democrats to the issue. I feel confident you and your mentor can deliver.

[SA210]

Bon chance, SA210.

Bringing more Democrats to the issue. I feel confident you and your mentor can deliver.

He isn't my mentor. I came to him with disgust for the Democrats silence, and him knowing this has invited me, because he agrees. But thanks. :tu

[Winehole23]

among newly disillusioned young Dems, for example. they'd eat it that up.

[Winehole23]

The study done by NYU and Stanford Law professors.you found out in late 2012? were you in a cave just before that?

[Blake]

to posters on this board.

not sure what's to be done beyond sharing info and trying to persuade. what are you doing about it?

I'm not pitching anything per se.

Simply verbalizing my observation about the elitism of constitution waving Americans in this case.

Again, I find the elitism in this particular case disgusting and all I really want to do is point it out here. Nothing more.

[SA210]

oh and I hope you will find a more suitable bucket in which to expel your vaporous, foul smelling breath. your dalliance with ST was not altogether to your credit.

your exertions might find a more accepting audience elsewhere. among newly disillusioned young Dems, for example. they'd eat it that up.

Don't hate just because you feel you don't do enough. What a way to ruin a thread. If you learned to get away from the pc for a change you might be able to do more. The problem in Spurstalk is some of you guys don't like being told the truth, and don't like being taken out of your comfort zone. You keep lying that msm is all over these issues when you know damn well they aren't. The TV media barely started covering the issue consistently last week, now its already fading away. No matter what you say Obama IS a war criminal. lol Jesus you got butthurt for some reason, you sound like another troll that never got over me owning him in a 9/11 thread :lol

[SA210]

you found out in late 2012? were you in a cave just before that?

Well I know you were on the internet not having a life at either time, but no, I cited their study to show they were out telling this story while TV ignored it. Nice try though vomit breathe :tu

[Winehole23]

whatever you say, Rip van Winkle

[SA210]

whatever you say, Rip van Winkle

Thanks :tu

[Winehole23]

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1300/1331332582_0efa2961ee_z.jpg

[Blake]

Well I know you were on the internet not having a life at either time, but no, I cited their study to show they were out telling this story while TV ignored it. Nice try though vomit breathe :tu

since you've been ignoring my posts, you continue to miss the MSM article I posted that's from 2011.

It's strange, but I may put SA210 on ignore just so I can avoid this daily avalanche of unwatchable youtubes and lame memes.

[Winehole23]

He doesn't read the msm.yeah, right . . .

[Winehole23]

.. he just watches it on TV . . .

[Winehole23]

...then lies about it later on a bulletin board. par the course.

[SA210]

...then lies about it later on a bulletin board. par the course.

lol still lying, and still butthurt that I proved you wrong. I like how the thread was fine until you started trolling.

[Winehole23]

lying about you lying? couldn't disagree more.

either that or you forgot that you yourself provided links to MSM coverage of the NDAA on TV, as stipulated.



(or you are merely pretending you have forgotten you did so, I do not rule that out, either.)

[SA210]

lying about you lying? couldn't disagree more.

either that or you forgot that you yourself provided links to MSM coverage of the NDAA on TV, as stipulated.



(or you are merely pretending you have forgotten you did so, I do not rule that out, either.)

When will you stop lying? Its hilarious. Trying to act like there is equal criticism on Obama like there was on Bush on TV lol I never denied posting Maddow, in fact I have said in the past that she is one of the VERY few that at least have talked about certain issues. That is still waaaaaaay different than what the media would be doing right now if it were a Republican in the White House.

For all the bs and showboating you attempt and trying to pretty up your sentences, it all means nothing in the end except that you live on the internet and do nothing to help society. You have reduced yourself to trying to impress people online for a living. Dude, get over the butthurt, I owned you, it's happened to many others, move along. Obama is a war criminal, TV media is corrupt, nothing you can say or do will change those facts. :tu

[Winehole23]

whatever you say, Kaspar Hauser.

hXCk2FjFDSw

[Winehole23]

(the German title translates roughly: "God against all, and every man for himself")

[SA210]

OBAMA'S DRONE WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk86cs6j_pQ

[ChumpDumper]

Don't hate just because you feel you don't do enough. What a way to ruin a thread. If you learned to get away from the pc for a change you might be able to do more. The problem in Spurstalk is some of you guys don't like being told the truth, and don't like being taken out of your comfort zone. You keep lying that msm is all over these issues when you know damn well they aren't. The TV media barely started covering the issue consistently last week, now its already fading away. No matter what you say Obama IS a war criminal. lol Jesus you got butthurt for some reason, you sound like another troll that never got over me owning him in a 9/11 thread :lolYou never got around to saying what you think really happened on 9/11 tbh. You made a post count joke and quickly put me on ignore so you could think you won something.

It's a good time to bump that thread.

[Winehole23]

(crass appeals to emotion, check.)




http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209087&page=11&p=6357360&viewfull=1#post6357360

[SA210]

.
OUCH..

Great job again Cenk Uyger. MSM TV should catch up..



**Disturbing video of child drone victims used in this story**

"CIA nominee John Brennan never expressed concerns to the CIA's top lawyer about interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other forms of torture, according to John Rizzo, the agency's acting general counsel during the George W. Bush presidency."*

John Brennan apparently had reservations about waterboarding and torture, yet the CIA's top attorney says he never said a word about it; his voice could have allegedly changed the program. He also lied and said no civilians with drone strikes. Cenk Uygur breaks it down, with the help of Brave New Films.

View the original video, "Brennan Exposed" by Brave New Foundation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyCKqO... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyCKqOnSQMQ&feature=youtu.be)


TYT: The Truth About Brennan on Torture & Drones (Disturbing Video)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_XN4ZdVLxM

[SA210]

.


President Obama’s nominee to run the CIA, John Brennan, forcefully defended Obama’s counterterrorism policies, including the increased use of armed drones and the targeted killings of American citizens during his confirmation hearing Thursday. "None of the central questions that should have been asked of John Brennan were asked in an effective way," says Jeremy Scahill, author of the forthcoming book, "Dirty Wars." "In the cases where people like Sen. Angus King or Sen. Ron Wyden would ask a real question, for instance, about whether or not the CIA has the right to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, the questions were very good. Brennan would then offer up a non-answer. And then there’d be almost no follow-up." Scahill went on to say, "[Brennan] has served for more than four years as the assassination czar, and it basically looked like they were discussing purchasing a used car on Capitol Hill. I mean, it was total kabuki oversight. And that’s a devastating commentary on where things stand."


Jeremy Scahill: Assassinations of U.S. Citizens Largely Ignored at Brennan CIA Hearing


Link:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/jeremy_scahill_assassinations_of_us_citizens

[Winehole23]

copy and paste? check.

using your own words, not so much.



(that were probably wise.)

[Winehole23]

lol largely ignored.

[Clipper Nation]

copy and paste? check.

using your own words, not so much.



(that were probably wise.)
He's exactly the same as boutons, except his schtick revolves around bashing Obama whereas boutons' is based around blindly defending him...

[boutons_deux]

He's exactly the same as boutons, except his schtick revolves around bashing Obama whereas boutons' is based around blindly defending him...

CuntNation proves again what a stupid fuck he is.

[SA210]

.
.
:tu way to go Rand, since a Dem won't do it.



Sen. Rand Paul stalling Brennan nomination for a clear yes/no answer if Obama thinks he can murder Americans on US soil.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qURrgyFpuM

[Winehole23]

Dems won't block their President's nominee? that's what the GOP is for, presumably.

[SA210]

.
.
Judge Napolitano: Drone Court Proposed By Senators Unconstitutional, Rubberstamps Killing Americans



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGajMqRiiw




.
.
:tu way to go Rand, since a Dem won't do it.



Sen. Rand Paul stalling Brennan nomination for a clear yes/no answer if Obama thinks he can murder Americans on US soil.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qURrgyFpuM

[Winehole23]

^^^ loves quoting himself.

It's all a monologue with you, isn't it?

[Winehole23]

(I assume I'm already ignored. You can't stand up to adversity, can you SA210?)

[ChumpDumper]

Dude is his own echo chamber.

[Woo Bum-kon]

SA210 does his own drive-by posting most of the time. If somebody actually raises any questions, here usually disappears like the coward he is.

[Winehole23]

yep

[Winehole23]

through the looking glass:


This morning, the DOJ sent a letter (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/doj-cia.pdf) to the court replying to the ACLU. Ever after the events of last week, they have the audacity to claim that even the question of whether there is a CIA drone program must still be concealed. The DOJ argues - completely falsely - that the ACLU "identif[ies] no statement in which Mr. Brennan allegedly confirms purported CIA involvement in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for 'targeted killing'", but merely cite "general discussions of 'targeted killing' that do not address the involvement of any particular agency". They dismiss the admissions of Chairman Rogers on the ground that "statements made by members of Congress do not constitute official disclosure by an Executive Branch agency."

Just think about that: Obama and his aides routinely boast about the drone program to make the president look like daddy-protector tough guy. Someone in the administration just disclosed last week to NBC News a "white paper" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo) sent by the Obama DOJ to Congress purporting to legally justify the CIA assassination program. Everyone knows and is now debating whether the CIA should be doing this.


But what is missing from the debate is the most basic information about what the CIA does and even their claimed legal justification for doing it. The Obama administration still refuses to publicly disclose the OLC memo that purported to authorize it (they agreed two weeks ago to make it available only to certain members of Congress without staff present, thus still maintaining "secret law"). They conceal all of this - and thus prevent basic democratic accountability - based on the indescribably cynical and inane pretense that they cannot even confirm or deny the existence of the CIA program without seriously jeopardizing national security.


This is a complete perversion of their secrecy powers. Even among the DC cliques that exist to defend US government behavior, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to defend what is being done here. The Obama administration runs around telling journalists how great and precise and devastating the CIA's assassination program is, then tells courts that no disclosure is permissible because they cannot safely confirm in court that the program even exists.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/cia-aclu-drone-secrecy

[Winehole23]

Meanwhile, it also recently came out that the New York Times, among other papers, sat on knowledge of the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia for over a year because, get this, the paper was concerned that it might result in the base being closed.

As old friend David Sirota noted (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/new_york_times_drone_complicity/), Times ombudsman Dean Baquet blazed a burning new trail in the history of craven journalistic surrender when he admitted the paper's rationale in an interview. "The Saudis might shut [the base] down because the citizenry would be very upset," Baquet said. "We have to balance that concern with reporting the news."


As if to right this wrong, the paper today ran an editorial, "A Court for Targeted Killings (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/a-special-court-is-needed-to-review-targeted-killings.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)," which proposed that the government create a (probably secret) tribunal to which intelligence services would have to present evidence before drone-bombing a suspected enemy combatant.


The paper, which originally proposed the creation of such a court in 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/opinion/10sun1.html), suggested that the new court be modeled after the secret court created in the wake of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FISA court was designed to give a fig leaf of judicial review to secret wiretaps of suspected foreign agents without having to make the government's evidence public.


But the paper itself noted the comical record of the FISA court as a check on governmental power – in its entire history of 32,000 wiretap applications between 1979 and 2011, it rejected only 11 (http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html). Still, the paper said, the creation of such a court would "ensure that the administration's requests are serious."


So the newspaper's bold proposal to right the moral wrong of killing people not only without trial but without charge is to create a secret court that they themselves admit would be little more than a rubber-stamp. Hilariously, the Times editorialists seemed afraid even to propose this much, reassuringly adding, toward the end of their commentary, that the court they propose to create would not actually have any power at all or curtail executive power in any real way:

The court would not be expected to approve individual drone strikes, and the executive branch would still be empowered to take emergency actions to prevent an impending attack.
Thank God for that!


The Times editorial is a kind of moral lunacy that Joseph Heller, the author of Catch-22, captured in his play, We Bombed in New Haven, which was about an American Air Force commander instructing a squadron to bomb a series of ridiculous targets.There's a great scene (http://books.google.com/books?id=rOkoZKvyIwIC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=joseph+heller+%22new+haven%22+bomb+the+map&source=bl&ots=6YjFxLeD7S&sig=UhQ7GlSGsVbKSF76RFE9uQj2nMc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-EcdUbqtGozK0AHNiIDIDA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=joseph%20heller%20%22new%20haven%22%20bomb%20the %20map&f=false) where some of the men ask "Captain Starkey" why they've been asked to bomb Istanbul:

Starkey: Because we're a peace-loving people, that's why. And because we're a peace-loving people, we're going to bomb Constantinople right off the map!
Bailey: Why don't we just bomb the map?
What the Times proposes is the same sort of thinking. In their minds, the problem with our drone program isn't that we're murdering masses of people, it's that we're doing it without the appearance of legality. It looks bad on paper – so let's leave the problem, but fix the paper. Bomb the map, in other words.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/at-least-were-not-measles-rationalizing-drone-attacks-hits-new-low-20130214#ixzz2KzZGADjO

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340747/defense-obama-s-drone-war-charles-krauthammer

[SA210]

.
.
Dr. Cornel West with the backbone. :tu


Obama is, like his Republican predecessors Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, a war criminal, West said.

"Your thoughts on this so-called license to kill?" Smiley asked West.

"The chickens are coming home to roost," West replied. "We've been talking about this for a good while, the immorality of drones, dropping bombs on innocent people, it's been over 200 children so far. These are war crimes."

"I think we have to be very honest, let us not be deceived — Nixon, Bush, Obama, they're war criminals," West continued. "They have killed innocent people in the name of the struggle for freedom, but they're suspending the law, very much like Wall Street criminals. The law is suspended for them, but the law applies for the rest of us."

West highlighted a double standard in conclusion by saying that, if he or Smiley were to conduct themselves as Obama has, they would be sent to prison.




Cornel West: Obama Is A 'War Criminal' Like Nixon And Bush



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z9QE5PY8Jg




NY Daily News: Cornel West: President Obama a ‘war criminal’

The Princeton professor has taken sharp issue with the White House’s covert drone program. The drones have killed ‘over 200 children so far,' West says. 'These are war crimes.’


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1265162.1360946233!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/west16n-1-web.jpg

Cornel West says, "Let us not be deceived: Nixon, Bush, Obama, they're war criminals."



Princeton professor Cornel West (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Cornel+West) says President Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barack+Obama) is a "war criminal."
West, the prominent black academic and activist who has consistently been a harsh Obama critic, took issue with the White House's covert drone program, saying that "the chickens are coming home to roost."


"We've been talking about this for a good while, the immorality of drones, dropping bombs on innocent people," West said on his "Smiley & West" radio show with Tavis Smiley.


"It's been over 200 children so far," West said. "These are war crimes."
West, who has previously said that "brother Barack was just completely mesmerized by the acceptance of the establishment," compared Obama to former Presidents George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.


"Let us not be deceived: Nixon, Bush, Obama, they're war criminals," West said. "They have killed innocent people in the name of the struggle for freedom, but they're suspending the law, very much like Wall Street criminals. The law is suspended for them, but the law applies for the rest of us."

[email protected]



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cornel-west-president-obama-war-criminal-article-1.1265163#ixzz2L0ZoZkPT

[Blake]

SA210 with no backbone. :td

[TeyshaBlue]

I could totally see Richard Pryon playing West on SNL back in the day.

[Winehole23]

SA210 with no backbone. :tdalso, cutting and pasting in multiple threads. not that there's anything wrong with that, but he has nothing to say about it apart from what he's been told to say.

[spursncowboys]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340747/defense-obama-s-drone-war-charles-krauthammer

Do you agree with Krauthammer?

[Winehole23]

Do you agree with Krauthammer?not a bit.

[ElNono]

not a bit.

Agreed. I also couldn't believe my ears when I kept hearing neocons coming out of the woodwork saying this thing validates dubya's torture and shady actions (torture, indefinite detention, ext. rendition etc).

How about they're all reprehensible, illegal and wrong?

[SA210]

Abby is a hottie, btw :tu


Abby Martin talks about the recent US Senate filibuster of Chuck Hagel's nomination as Secretary of Defense, adding that John Brennan's nomination should have been the one filibustered.
Abby Martin: Filibuster Brennan, Not Hagel! | Weapons of mass Distraction


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8YoFJWW04

[Clipper Nation]

(I assume I'm already ignored. You can't stand up to adversity, can you SA210?)
Sheeeeep!!!

[SA210]

.

Ben Swann Full Disclosure takes a look by CIA Director nominee John Brennan's statements from the past about absolute human rights and his current role in coordinating U.S. drone strikes



Full Disclosure: Does CIA Director Nominee John Brennan Not Believe in "Absolute Human Rights"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqq2QyybvQE

[SA210]

lol Internet grills Obama on questions msm won't ask, but he still lies of course.

Cenk is wrong about one thing, Ben Swann asked Obama these questions before the Daily Show.


"President Barack Obama touched on a slew of issues in his second Google Hangout, repeating the major points from Tuesday's State of the Union speech but also directly addressing the viability of the penny, the Benghazi hearings, drone strikes on American citizens, his daughters' math and science skills, and the GOP blocking a confirmation vote on Chuck Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense."*

In a recent Google Hangout, President Obama took questions from a handful of bloggers. The questions were tough, and they grilled the president on his drone policy, much more than any mainstream press have ever. Why were these bloggers and the daily show the only ones to pose these critical questions? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more from MSNBC:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/14/six-th... (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/14/six-things-we-learned-from-president-obamas-google-hangout/)



TYT: Drones - Web Press GRILLS Obama


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXpjfzFCnM

[Winehole23]

internet isn't mainstream? where do you live?

[LnGrrrR]

If Cornel West is just saying "Innocent children got killed, therefore, war crimes"... then he's dumb. I'm pretty hopeful that it's more in-depth than that...

[Winehole23]

you're defending the drone strikes LnGrrrR? they're consonant with the law of war how, please?

[ChumpDumper]

you're defending the drone strikes LnGrrrR? they're consonant with the law of war how, please?How are they not? I guess one can go on a case by case basis regarding target selection, but a missile strike is a missile strike.

[SA210]

you're defending the drone strikes LnGrrrR? they're consonant with the law of war how, please?

Let them answer first what country we are legally at war with.

[SA210]

. (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/pathetic-media-outraged-over-obama-golf.html)
Pathetic Media Outraged Over Obama Golf Secrecy, But Not Drone Assassinations (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/pathetic-media-outraged-over-obama-golf.html)


Youtube - TYT (http://youtu.be/Dw4UKvGogdQ)


The White House Press Corps is finally standing up to the president on his transparency...over a golf game with Tiger Woods. What about real news?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4UKvGogdQ

:lmao when Cenk says to the msm, "You suck at your jobs!"

[LnGrrrR]

you're defending the drone strikes LnGrrrR? they're consonant with the law of war how, please?

There's nothing inherently illegal about drones, or drone strikes themselves, assuming a) the war they're involved in is legal and b) the targets that the drones are striking are legal. There's no difference (in a "just war" sense) between a drone strike killing innocent bystanders unintentionally or a bomb/rocket/other projectile killing innocent bystanders unintentionally.

That's why I said that if Cornel West's argument is STRICTLY that it's a war crime because innocent civilians were killed, it's a poor argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Let them answer first what country we are legally at war with.You need to catch up on how Congress punted its war power to the executive. God knows about what else you are ignorant.

[SA210]

:wakeup


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/21/obamas-war-on-libya-a-constitutional-view/

"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.

The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation."

[ChumpDumper]

:wakeup


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/21/obamas-war-on-libya-a-constitutional-view/

"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.

The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation."Why are you droning on about Libya now?

[Winehole23]

How are they not? I guess one can go on a case by case basis regarding target selection, but a missile strike is a missile strike.Absent declared war between two countries, missile strikes by one country on another are at least a lawless violation of sovereignty and possibly a direct cause of war, if the aggrieved is powerful enough to respond in kind -- though usually, just guessing here, the states affected have essentially consented to foreign military attacks on mutual, ill defined enemies within their own borders beforehand, or they tolerate it afterwards.

The drone war has its risks, among them quality of being self supplying with regard to enemies.

[ChumpDumper]

Absent declared war between two countries, missile strikes by one country on another are at least a lawless violation of sovereignty and possibly a direct cause of war, if the aggrieved is powerful enough to respond in kind -- though usually, just guessing here, the states affected have essentially consented to foreign military attacks on mutual, ill defined enemies within their own borders beforehand, or they tolerate it afterwards.

The drone war has its risks, among them quality of being self supplying with regard to enemies.The authorization for the use of force in this case was against terra, not a country. It's not a reassuring precedent, but there it is. Pakistan's lack of overt protest reads as tacit approval to me.

[SA210]

:wakeup




"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.

The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation."

[sjacquemotte]

How are they not? I guess one can go on a case by case basis regarding target selection, but a missile strike is a missile strike.

Great point CD.

[Winehole23]

The authorization for the use of force in this case was against terra, not a country. It's not a reassuring precedent, but there it is. AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's fucking bullshit.


Pakistan's lack of overt protest reads as tacit approval to me.Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.

[Winehole23]

oh, by 'overt' did you mean no complaint was filed at the UN, or something? what diplomats and government officials say publicly doesn't count as overt?

[Winehole23]

There's nothing inherently illegal about drones, or drone strikes themselves, assuming a) the war they're involved in is legal and b) the targets that the drones are striking are legal.that's two big assumptions. whether our ready made CYA legal justification -- the presumed justness of declaring anyone anywhere an outlaw and the propriety using military force to kill them in other countries without those countries' permission -- makes it legal is an open question. if the AUMF is cricket, any country can pass a law essentially immunizing itself in advance for using military force anywhere in the world, in perpetuity.


There's no difference (in a "just war" sense) between a drone strike killing innocent bystanders unintentionally or a bomb/rocket/other projectile killing innocent bystanders unintentionally. I did not claim there was a difference. Does just war theory cover preemptive attacks?


That's why I said that if Cornel West's argument is STRICTLY that it's a war crime because innocent civilians were killed, it's a poor argument.The mode of killing is lawless, the intelligence behind it not so discriminating about the targets. Prima facie case for calling the drone strikes war crimes when innocents die seems strong; when no innocents die, just as strong, basically.

[ChumpDumper]

AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's fucking bullshit.I didn't say it wasn't.


Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.Pakistan's governments have always been compromised and conflicted since it's creation. If they really didn't like the drone strikes, it doesn't seem that they would be that difficult to shoot down tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West then what policy would you guys recommend.

Do you think inaction is justified in this situation? If you think something should be done then what?

[Winehole23]

If you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West then what policy would you guys recommend. Dunno. What do you recommend?

Do you think inaction is justified in this situation? If you think something should be done then what?What do you think? Have bombs been set off all over the west, or is it the other way around?

[LnGrrrR]

that's two big assumptions. whether our ready made CYA legal justification -- the presumed justness of declaring anyone anywhere an outlaw and the propriety using military force to kill them in other countries without those countries' permission -- makes it legal is an open question. if the AUMF is cricket, any country can pass a law essentially immunizing itself in advance for using military force anywhere in the world, in perpetuity.

I did not claim there was a difference. Does just war theory cover preventive attacks?

I would say it doesn't, but the current implementation (all "terrorists" are legal targets) hasn't been overturned that I know of, making it ipso facto legal at this time.


The mode of killing is lawless, the intelligence behind it not so discriminating about the targets. Prima facie case for calling the drone strikes war crimes when innocents die seems strong; when no innocents die, just as strong, basically.


The mode of killing isn't lawless though. Drone strikes must, in theory, abide by LOAC (laws of armed conflict.) We could argue whether or not the justification for those strikes isn't there, but that really has nothing to do with the delivery method, whether it be drones or soldiers or rockets.

[LnGrrrR]

AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's fucking bullshit.

Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.

I agree that the AUMF is bullshit, but it's currently accepted policy, sadly. And Pakistan could choose to declare war formally, but they know they would be destroyed, so they complain without taking any further actions. Finding Osama in Pakistan really hurt their ability to complain.

[SA210]

.
:lol Communist China showing how pathetic and inhumane we are



"China considered using a drone strike in a mountainous region of Southeast Asia to kill a Myanmar drug lord wanted in the murders of 13 Chinese sailors, but decided instead to capture him alive, according to an influential state-run newspaper."*

The U.S. isn't the only country using deadly drone strikes. China's plans to kill a drug dealer in another country with an unmanned drone. What is the embarrassing difference between the Chinese and American drones strike programs? Cenk Uygur explains.


TYT: Inside China's Drone Strike Plans


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qz7_eNIp1o

[Winehole23]

I would say it doesn't, but the current implementation (all "terrorists" are legal targets) hasn't been overturned that I know of, making it ipso facto legal at this time.horribly wrongheaded. savors of tautology (whoever we say is a terrorist, ipso facto, is one); also, just war doctrine does cover preemptive (not preventive, sorry about the bad phrasing) war -- as a species of immorality.


The mode of killing isn't lawless though. Drone strikes must, in theory, abide by LOAC (laws of armed conflict.) We could argue whether or not the justification for those strikes isn't there, but that really has nothing to do with the delivery method, whether it be drones or soldiers or rockets.wasn't referring to the delivery method but to the manner of delivery. attacking other countries without their permission is facially a cause of war. the justification isn't there, imho.

[SA210]

.
Most transparent administration ever? :td


Robert Gibbs Told Not To Acknowledge Drone Program Exists As White House Press Secretary


VIDEO:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979738/ns/msnbc-up_with_chris_hayes/#50927331

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that he was told not to "acknowledge" or "discuss" the secret drone program when becoming the government's top spokesman.

Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's "Up," played a video clip of Gibbs and current press secretary Jay Carney dodging questions about drones in the White House briefing room before asking if the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming about the controversial targeted killing program. Gibbs, who recently became an MSNBC contributor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/robert-gibbs-msnbc-contributor_n_2673865.html), recalled the instructions he was given upon taking the job.

“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary," Gibbs said, "one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'”

The national media was slow covering the secret drone war (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/drone-media-coverage_n_2646151.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) in Pakistan and Yemen during Obama's first term, which has been difficult to track given both the government's secrecy and that strikes often take place in remote areas. But the drone media debate has gained steam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/drone-media-coverage_n_2474250.html) early in Obama's second term, alongside questions for top counter-terror official John Brennan upon his nomination to become CIA director.

Gibbs said that once he figured out a reporter's question was about the drone program, "I realized I'm not supposed to talk about it."

“Here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition," Gibbs said. "You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists. So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program -- pay not attention to the man behind the curtain."

While Gibbs referenced the "Wizard of Oz" on Sunday, a federal judge last month described the "Alice-in-Wonderland nature" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/obama-drone-program-targeted-killing_n_2631425.html?1360182308) of the Obama administration's secrecy over drones in a decision against The New York Times' request for legal memos outlining the rationale for targeting a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist ties. The White House has not publicly released the legal memos, but Carney made several references (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/white-house-drone-media-_n_2632538.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) to the legal rationale in a 16-page Department of Justice white paper -- but only after it was leaked to NBC News.

Gibbs said he hasn't talked to Obama recently about transparency and the drone program, but said he thinks the president has seen that the White House's denial of the program "when it’s obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/robert-gibbs-drones-white-house_n_2753183.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

[Winehole23]

I agree that the AUMF is bullshit, but it's currently accepted policy, sadly. And Pakistan could choose to declare war formally, but they know they would be destroyed, so they complain without taking any further actions.this is the nub of it: might makes right.
Finding Osama in Pakistan really hurt their ability to complain.How so?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dunno. What do you recommend?
What do you think? Have bombs been set off all over the west, or is it the other way around?

I would say it's both.

But take the original question without the askance of a recommendation: "do you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West?"

[LnGrrrR]

WH, I would say complaining about the US invading your country while arguably the world's most wanted terrorist was found in your country diminishes your standpoint if you are trying to claim you're doing everything you can to help exterminate terrorism. That's the realpolitik, even if they are well within their rights to complain.

[SA210]

.
A new finding just came out that only 2% of targeted drone strikes were high level terrorists.




"Michael Isikoff's Feb. 4 report on the "white paper" -- a 16-page memo that laid out, in part, the legal underpinnings that guide the Obama administration's policy of carrying out what they call "targeted killings" with drones -- ushered the use of drones back into the public consciousness."*

What do the American people really think about Obama's drone program? Do they approve of killing suspected terrorists? What if innocent people could be killed (as numbers show, the majority of drone strike casualties are)? How many people meet the definition of a "high level terrorist?" Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz break it down.



TYT: Drone Strikes - Does America Approve?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg4F3T_BEv4



Drone Program Poll: The Public Does Not Uncritically Embrace Targeted Killings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drone-program-poll_n_2696352.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

In the main, Americans are largely supportive of using drone strikes to kill "high-level terrorists." From there, however, they get wobbly:



According to the new Huffpost/YouGov poll, 56 percent of Americans say that the drone program should be used to target and kill high-level terrorists, while only 13 percent say that anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist group should be targeted. Another 13 percent said that nobody should be killed using the drone program. A majority of Americans across most demographic and partisan groups agreed that the program should be used for high-level targets.




Naturally, there's little support for using drones to just kill any old terrorist functionary -- we're told we have a huge deficit problem, after all! And the media tends to overstate the extent to which "high-level targets" are being exclusively targeted at a high level. According to a study conducted by the New America Foundation, "only 2 percent of those killed (http://newamerica.net/node/70970) met that definition."




It's inhumane, we are mass murdering civilians, they are war crimes.

[ChumpDumper]

I know the Pakistani government has to publicly oppose the drone strikes and just about anything else the US does vis-a-vis terra. The thing that tells me its actual policy is different is this: A predator drone is bigger and slower than this aircraft --


http://www.cessna150-152.com/aotm/images/200409.jpg

-- which hasn't been manufactured since 1977.

In close to 300 drone strikes and about 2500 resulting deaths in Pakistan, not one has been shot down by the Pakistani armed forces-- even after they explicitly said they would do so in 2011. Furthermore there is ample evidence from the wikileaks cable releases that those armed forces accepted and even requested more drone strikes to help themselves domestically.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/us-pakistan-wikileaks-idUSTRE74J3UV20110520

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that the Pakistani government really opposes drone strikes.

[SA210]

:lmao:rollin:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

.
A new finding just came out that only 2% of targeted drone strikes were high level terrorists.
And that surprised you? Does it surprise anyone?

Democrats love these toys rather than boots on the ground. With Obama, it is the drones. With Clinton, well... He exhausted our supply of cruise missiles when he was in office.

Besides having excessive casual damage, it just creates more hatred. They cannot see an enemy on the ground, and retaliate by doing things like flying planes into building. At least with boots on the ground, they feel less helpless, as there are targets they can attempt to engage.

Obama is just setting us up for a nuclear version of 911.

[Wild Cobra]

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that the Pakistani government really opposes drone strikes.
I don't either, but that doesn't make it right.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao:rollin:rollinMust be laughing at his own post, since he obviously has me on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't either, but that doesn't make it right.Wait, you oppose drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan?

Yes or no.

[SA210]

And that surprised you? Does it surprise anyone?



Heck no, it doesn't surprise me, AT ALL. I have been the one in here saying this for a while that these are war crimes, and the majority of deaths/MURDER were civilians and that even the so called "terrorists" we were supposedly targeting have not even been proven to actually be terrorists to begin with. The 2% lol

lol It's sad but hilarious at the same time watching Obama suckers debate absolute bullshit when the bottom line is the strikes are illegal, and we are for the most part mass murdering civilians. Democrats with no spine backing a murdering corrupt President just because he wears a D. Pathetic

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, you oppose drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan?

Yes or no.
It's not a simple yes/no question. Too general.

Assuming that Pakistan is OK with our use of drones there, then I am OK with a limited number surgical attacks in hard to reach locations. I would prefer a special ops team go in and take out the targets.

[ChumpDumper]

Heck no, it doesn't surprise me, AT ALL. I have been the one in here saying this for a while that these are war crimes, and the majority of deaths/MURDER were civilians and that even the so called "terrorists" we were supposedly targeting have not even been proven to actually be terrorists to begin with. The 2% lol

lol It's sad but hilarious at the same time watching Obama suckers debate absolute bullshit when the bottom line is the strikes are illegal, and we are for the most part mass murdering civilians. Democrats with no spine backing a murdering corrupt President just because he wears a D. PatheticI was OK with drone strikes under Bush as well.

I don't give a shit if they are high or low level tbh. I wish there was a better way of going about it, but I can't think of one.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not a simple yes/no question. Too general.

Assuming that Pakistan is OK with our use of drones there, then I am OK with a limited number surgical attacks in hard to reach locations. I would prefer a special ops team go in and take out the targets.Everything about the bin Laden raid tells me that wouldn't be possible on a regular basis.

[Wild Cobra]

I was OK with drone strikes under Bush as well.

I don't give a shit if they are high or low level tbh. I wish there was a better way of going about it, but I can't think of one.
Number of drone strikes under president Bush was 48. Number of strikes by president Obama is 303 (http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones).

6/19/04 to 1/2/09: 48 (1658 day range) which is a 10.6 drone per year average
1/23/09 to 2/8/13: 303 (1477 day range) which is a 74.9 drone per year average

[ChumpDumper]

Number of drone strikes under president Bush was 48. Number of strikes by president Obama is 303 (http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones).

6/19/04 to 1/2/09: 48 (1658 day range) which is a 10.6 drone per year average
1/23/09 to 2/8/13: 303 (1477 day range) which is a 74.9 drone per year averageAnd?

[Wild Cobra]

Everything about the bin Laden raid tells me that wouldn't be possible on a regular basis.
That doesn't surprise me. Osama had been relegated to a symbol. He was pretty much meaningless other than that. Seems to me that the active high level operatives would be easier to find as they don't have the luxury of hiding from everyone. Even the low level operatives could be taken out by snipers, and not make the general population hate us with the necessary collateral damages of life and property. The message would be any active known member is a target, and the innocents will remain safe. When we start killing the innocent as well, we help their recruitment.

[Wild Cobra]

And?
It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't surprise me. Osama had been relegated to a symbol. He was pretty much meaningless other than that. Seems to me that the active high level operatives would be easier to find as they don't have the luxury of hiding from everyone. Even the low level operatives could be taken out by snipers, and not make the general population hate us with the necessary collateral damages of life and property. The message would be any active known member is a target, and the innocents will remain safe. When we start killing the innocent as well, we help their recruitment.Where did you get all the operational details of terrorists in Pakistan, WC? Give us some links.


It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.:lol Now you care about collateral damage?

[Winehole23]

WH, I would say complaining about the US invading your country while arguably the world's most wanted terrorist was found in your country diminishes your standpoint if you are trying to claim you're doing everything you can to help exterminate terrorism. That's the realpolitik, even if they are well within their rights to complain.similarly, when one pursues an essentially terroristic policy to stamp out terrorism, one loses the moral authority to denounce terrorism.

[Winehole23]

attacking weddings, funerals and first responders to drone strikes are not meaningfully distinguishable from what we claim to be fighting.

[LnGrrrR]

similarly, when one pursues an essentially terroristic policy to stamp out terrorism, one loses the moral authority to denounce terrorism.

Of course, but as you stated above, might makes right. When someone has the biggest guns, they don't have to use moral authority to get their way. (I would like it if we did, but I don't make policy...)

[Winehole23]

might doesn't make right, but it usually gets its way.

[LnGrrrR]

attacking weddings, funerals and first responders to drone strikes are not meaningfully distinguishable from what we claim to be fighting.

These are reprehensible, but of the above, the only ILLEGAL attack would be that of first responders. I've read one or two articles saying that the US was doing that, but I didn't see any followups. Has that been proven/disproven yet?

[Winehole23]

These are reprehensible, but of the above, the only ILLEGAL attack would be that of first responders.so then, some foreign country that attacked an American funeral or wedding in order to kill some particular terrorist would be well within their rights to do so? that would be legal, in your view?

[Winehole23]

Has that been proven/disproven yet?dunno, honestly.

[LnGrrrR]

so then, some foreign country that attacked an American funeral or wedding in order to kill some particular terrorist would be well within their rights to do so? that would be legal, in your view?

It's not MY view I'm discussing. It's the laws of armed conflict. If it's a valid military target, then it's a valid military target, whether he's on the john, at a funeral, etc etc. (Now, the question of killing innocents is one of collateral damage, which is different from legal/illegal target distinction.)

The reason why attacking first responders is illegal is because medics are protected non-combatants, and can't be targeted. (It's also illegal to attack a hospital, places of religion, or historical landmarks.) Now, if that medic has a weapon, they give up their noncombatant status, and can then be attacked. Medics also receive a few other protections, such as not being forced to work (except in a medical capacity) when taken prisoner.

[LnGrrrR]

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm


Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations. Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.




Targeting Personnel. The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited. Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. Judge advocate, intelligence, and operations personnel play a critical role in determining the propriety of a target and the choice of weapon to be used under the particular circumstances known to the commander when planning an attack.
Targeting Objects. The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged.

[Edward]

It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.

Not nearly as much collateral damage as Bush's war in iraq caused.

[Wild Cobra]

Not nearly as much collateral damage as Bush's war in iraq caused.
Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

[Edward]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

I don't even know how to respond to this because it's so retarded.

Do you really think occupying a rag tag 3rd world country with a depleted military and killing 100,000+ civilians in the process had any level of honor? The war in Iraq had about as much honor as Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

:lmao "As long as we've got boots on the ground we've got honor! Sentimental bullshit like that is a lot more important than how many lives we lose, how many civilians we kill or how much spending we do!"

[LnGrrrR]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

I'd much rather troops stay home and live their lives then risk them for "honor". Not to mention that drones, in the long run, are cheaper. If a drone gets injured, we need a new drone. If a person gets injured, you're paying medical care for the rest of his or her life.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd much rather troops stay home and live their lives then risk them for "honor".
That's the attitude that pissed them off enough to make them turn airliners into missiles.

[LnGrrrR]

That's the attitude that pissed them off enough to make them turn airliners into missiles.

No, us going over there in the first place pissed them off. We weren't using drones very often before 9/11, were we?

I agree that dropping bombs indiscriminately/killing indiscriminately will definitely piss a population off. But soldiers are apt to kill indiscriminately, as are bombs, etc etc. The drone is merely a replacement for a soldier, bomb, etc etc, and until the drones are fully automated it will continue to take the place of a soldier.

We should not weaken our capabilities in order to make the fight more "fair" against an enemy. Does it mean we lack honor because we have better weapons, better armor, better tactics, etc etc? I highly doubt enemies think of us as honorable, and whether it's a soldier pulling the trigger or a drone, if we kill innocents they will still be pissed off.

Now, I do think that people are essential for area/nation-building missions, in order to provide a human face to the local populace we wish to win over. But when it comes down to being in battle, I'd rather a drone every day over a soldier.

[Wild Cobra]

No, us going over there in the first place pissed them off. We weren't using drones very often before 9/11, were we?

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?

[LnGrrrR]

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?

Cruise missiles aren't drones. Additionally, do you know how many cruise missiles Clinton used? Are you arguing we shouldn't use missiles unless we have bodies on the ground?

[SA210]

Boom

And they tried lying and covering it up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqGNfdikUgY

[Wild Cobra]

Cruise missiles aren't drones. Additionally, do you know how many cruise missiles Clinton used? Are you arguing we shouldn't use missiles unless we have bodies on the ground?
They have their time and place. I'm saying both Clinton and Obama have over used them, and for purposes they shouldn't heve been used for.

[LnGrrrR]

They have their time and place. I'm saying both Clinton and Obama have over used them, and for purposes they shouldn't heve been used for.

How many did Clinton use, and what do you think is the "correct" number? What is the "correct" purpose of a cruise missile?

[Edward]

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?
Clinton using cruise missiles isn't even close to when we went over there in the 1st place. Orchestrating a coup in 1953 to take out a Democratically elected prime minister so we could have a US puppet in Iran was the first major event that started creating enemies in the middle east.

Empowering puppet leaders we chose against the will of the people in the country creates a lot more enemies than drone strikes and cruise missiles. Having boots on the ground who torture Iraqi POWs and piss on the bodies of dead Iraqis also doesn't do too much to maintain this level of honor you think existed under Bush.

[Edward]

How many did Clinton use, and what do you think is the "correct" number? What is the "correct" purpose of a cruise missile?
:lmao

[Blake]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

sadly hilarious per the usual

[Edward]

We should have put boots on the ground and invaded Japan in 1945 rather than dropped two atomic bombs! Sure, Japan's surrender would have taken much longer, it would have cost god only knows how much more money, and the lives lost during the actual invasion would have made Normandy Beach look like child's play, but we would have had boots on the ground!

[Wild Cobra]

All situations are different.

[clambake]

had boots on the ground in iraq and ended up paying them not to kill us. lol

bone head thinks it means something.

[LnGrrrR]

All situations are different.

Would it have been more honorable to attack with troops instead of use the nuke? If so, is that a preferable outcome?

[Wild Cobra]

I think you know the answer to that.

Why are you standing up for this excessive use of aerial bombs and missiles, in areas not designated war zones?

[Blake]

We should have put boots on the ground and invaded Japan in 1945 rather than dropped two atomic bombs! Sure, Japan's surrender would have taken much longer, it would have cost god only knows how much more money, and the lives lost during the actual invasion would have made Normandy Beach look like child's play, but we would have had boots on the ground!

The most important thing would be that they could never call us cowards.

[LnGrrrR]

I think you know the answer to that.

Why are you standing up for this excessive use of aerial bombs and missiles, in areas not designated war zones?

I don't know; that is why I asked. In fact, many have argued that the use of nuclear bombs was excessive.

I'd like to know what you define as "excessive". And, technically speaking, any area with a terrorist seems to be deemed a 'war zone' in the current climate. (I disagree with that, but it does seem to be the current understanding.)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know; that is why I asked. In fact, many have argued that the use of nuclear bombs was excessive.

I'd like to know what you define as "excessive". And, technically speaking, any area with a terrorist seems to be deemed a 'war zone' in the current climate. (I disagree with that, but it does seem to be the current understanding.)
We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with the nations the terrorists reside in.

Doesn't that matter to you?

[Clipper Nation]

:lol "Boots on the ground" somehow being more "honorable" than drones when our Constitution is getting shredded and our reputation is being ruined either way

[LnGrrrR]

We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with the nations the terrorists reside in.

Doesn't that matter to you?

Using that logic, we wouldn't be allowed to put boots on the ground in those countries either if those countries disagreed. It seems most countries that would agree to boots on the ground would also agree to drone/missile strikes. Additionally, you didn't answer my question about the "honor" of using nukes. Do you think that once we formally declare war, any weapon we use is considered "honorable"?

Also, you never answered how many cruise missiles are too many.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, continue rationalizing this excessive force. I see I'm not going to get through to you.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, continue rationalizing this excessive force. I see I'm not going to get through to you.

How are using drone strikes more "excessive" than using troops on the ground? Do you think troops on the ground as much more surgical? Sure, special ops are likely to be so, but not your average company or platoon. They make mistakes, kill innocents, etc etc as well.

Now, if you think that drone strikes are too prevalent, and we should require stricter standards, then sure, I could go with that. But that's not replacing a drone with a soldier, that's just choosing to be more picky about our targets.

I've been arguing on this board for a long time that using excessive force will likely lead to more terrorists. I'm glad you agree with me. I've also argued we should reduce our overseas presence for the same reasons.

Finally, we have to weigh the costs of sending an actual soldier to do the job instead of the drone. We might have a more surgical strike, but you're risking a soldier's life, which is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Additionally, you're adding an unknown amount of dollars to the cost of America's budget in the future, since it costs more to support a human being than a drone.

[Edward]

The most important thing would be that they could never call us cowards.

Bingo. No amount of saved lives and saved money can measure up to the assurance that your enemy doesn't think you're a coward.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqGNfdikUgY

[Edward]

Well, continue rationalizing this excessive force. I see I'm not going to get through to you.

Continue rationalizing the War in Iraq as something that was done with honor because we had "boots on the ground". I see that you'll come up with whatever warped logic is needed to justify foreign policy decisions from team red.

[Edward]

IMO, Hitler had much better foreign policy than Obama. His Nazi death camps like Auschwitz might have been used for the sole purpose of gassing millions innocent people to death, but rounding up Jews and locking them in a gas chamber required boots on the ground. Maybe Obama's foreign policy has only led to a tiny fraction of civilian death's that Hitler's foreign policy led to, but I don't think anyone ever questioned the level of honor Hitler displayed by using boots on the ground to commit genocide. Hitler > Bush > Obama as far as foreign policy goes.

[SA210]

The honorable Obama..




.

A boy named "Adam"




"If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."
-- Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTnvXJTP1c/UH-iU0WXnZI/AAAAAAAABDc/bi50jGt_L-4/s320/abdulrahman_awlaki_3.jpg





Largely thanks to a complicit corporate-state news media, (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fox-sucks-but-what-about-cnn-and-msnbc.html) the story of a U.S. teenager executed without trial by the government has largely gone under the radar.

The teen -- who we will temporarily refer to as "Adam" -- was born (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-birth-certificate.html) on August 26, 1995 at approximately 1:16 pm in Denver, Colorado. Like many Americans, Adam came to enjoy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html) watching movies, playing football, computer games, and swimming.




Following the attacks of 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html), the father of Adam -- also a U.S. citizen (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/27/awlaki_5/) -- was invited to a luncheon at the Pentagon designed to encourage religious tolerance.




In late 2002, Adam and his father moved to Britain, and then Yemen in 2004.




In 2008, U.S. intelligence agencies made the claim (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022708aulaqialqaeda#a022708aulaq ialqaeda) that the father of Adam had been a "spiritual counselor" for some of the 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html) hijackers and had also assisted in various terror plots. The following year, Adam's father went into hiding, but this wouldn't deter his son from eventually setting off to try and find him.

Around 6:30 am on September 4th, 2011, Adam quietly slipped away from his family home in Sana, Yemen, leaving behind a note (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1161432--drone-death-in-yemen-of-an-american-teenager) for his mother. "I am sorry for leaving in this kind of way," he wrote. "Forgive me. I miss my father and want to see if I can go and talk to him."

Yet as it turned out, Adam would never get a chance to talk to his father. That's because on the 30th of September, Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/presidential-politics-perpetual-game-of.html) authorized two U.S. predator drones to kill the man. For this U.S. citizen, there would be no trial, no jury - just a mere accusation of guilt by faceless officials and a subsequent execution.


Shortly after news of his father's death surfaced, Adam, his 17-year-old cousin with whom he had been staying, and a few other friends set up a barbeque and celebrated their last night together. Adam called his mother and planned to return home the next day, a promise to be broken against his best intentions. He would never see her again.

As the teens chatted and ate dinner, brave aerial drones quietly sailed through Yemen's clear October skies, watching intently from above with powerful robotic eyes and patiently awaiting further orders. Eventually, such orders came and, with the press of a button, missiles shattered the night's calm like a stone to glass and screamed through the air before plowing into the teens without warning and engulfing them in a suffocating inferno which neither escaped from alive.

Desperate to justify their actions, the U.S. government initially claimed Adam had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and that the intended target of the drones was a "senior al-Qaeda operative" named Ibrahim al-Banna, a man who later turned up (http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-5) alive and well.

Moreover, news media reports at the time went so far as to suggest that Adam was not a teenager, but a grown man with ties to al-Qaeda, an utterly baseless claim (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891), but not one without a purpose. Referring to Adam as "military-age (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/)" at the time of death meant that by international protocols he would therefore be considered a legitimate target.

Still, even supposing one looks beyond the blatant violation of international protocols, what is to be said of those in a domestic sense? What kind of precedent is being established when U.S. citizens can be targeted for assassination by their government without trial? If it can happen to Adam and his father, who might be next? Why aren't these questions being asked?

Perhaps these questions aren't being asked because Adam's name is actually Abdulrahman, and when a foreign-sounding name like his is thrown across American news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw)media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw) outlets, nobody really seems all too concerned by it. Yet, if the headlines had in fact read "Adam" instead of "Abdulrahman", how differently would this have played out?

The establishment of such a dangerous precedent remains entirely dependent on continued complacency by the public. If the government can get away with killing U.S. citizens without trial overseas, how long will it be until the killings come home?

In May 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration began streamlining (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html) the licensing process for public agencies to "safely" fly drones, with law enforcement a prime target.

During that same month, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html) reported on the case of Rodney Brossart, the first U.S. citizen to be arrested using an unmanned drone.

Where was Rodney arrested? Pakistan? Yemen? Try North Dakota.

Make no mistake: the drones are coming, and the death of "Adam" and his father may only be the beginning.





... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...




"I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing. In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed? ... I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."-- Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman's grandfather




... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/) in October 2012 about the death of Abdulrahman, to which he smugly replied that the teen should have had a "far more responsible father".

Where is the outrage?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...





See also:




Murder Made Easy (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/murder-made-easy.html) - Two different studies offer new insight into the psychology behind killing, but what does it mean for the future of aerial drone warfare?





The United States of Predator Drones (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html)- From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing down

A brief history of George W. Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-w-obama-three-terms-eleven-years.html) - Has the same U.S. President been in office for the last 11 years? The following timeline covers key events between 2001-2012



Posted 18th October 2012 by Jonathan Reynolds (http://www.blogger.com/profile/07211828707647432728)






http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/8K/esq-awlaki-0812-lg.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4


http://debatingchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/scahill_tweet_re_reid_on_awlakis_3_11_2012.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5MQxLaBRV2Y/UIGEMpQeCRI/AAAAAAAAEkE/0Jp0TjsoZBA/s1600/TaggRomney.png



http://jischinger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/alawlaki.jpg



http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abdulrahman.jpg




http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kid-drone.jpg



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg

[Edward]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg

If you study the layers that's definitely forged. My guess is he was an Islamic operative from Kenya.

[ChumpDumper]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.


I'd much rather troops stay home and live their lives then risk them for "honor".


That's the attitude that pissed them off enough to make them turn airliners into missiles.Wild Cobra, you are completely wrong here.

I mean, there is no way you could be more wrong. Here's why:
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel.Please don't try to mitigate or ignore your error.

[SA210]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg

If you study the layers that's definitely forged. My guess is he was an Islamic operative from Kenya.


lol guess

[Edward]

lol guess

Going off what I learned from the Trump-Arpaio school of birth certificate analysis, it's not much of a guess other than what country he's actually from. That's definitely forged judging by the layers, and he's definitely an Islamic operative from Kenya or a surrounding country.

[SA210]

Going off what I learned from the Trump-Arpaio school of birth certificate analysis, it's not much of a guess other than what country he's actually from. That's definitely forged judging by the layers, and he's definitely an Islamic operative from Kenya or a surrounding country.


BS, he was an American. And he wasn't even accused of a crime. He was a 16 year old American boy, targeted, assassinated, no due process.

It was murder. Obama is a murderer that needs to stand trial, period.

[Edward]

BS, he was an American.

The fact you can't figure out what I'm doing just shows how dense and horribly stupid you are. I'd normally keep the act up for a few more posts but you're so gullible it's not even fun.

[SA210]

The fact you can't figure out what I'm doing just shows how dense and horribly stupid you are. I'd normally keep the act up for a few more posts but you're so gullible it's not even fun.

Not really, I don't know what side you're on, on this issue. Even some of the people who oppose the policy contradict themselves on here many times.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

[Edward]

Not really, I don't know what side you're on, on this issue.

It's not about what side I'm on, it's about the fact that my post saying the "Trump/Arpaio school of birth certiciate analysis" went way over your head as obvious trolling.

Now go ahead and put me on your ignore list since that's normally your course of action in this situation.

[SA210]

It's not about what side I'm on, it's about the fact that my post saying the "Trump/Arpaio school of birth certiciate analysis" went way over your head as obvious trolling.

Now go ahead and put me on your ignore list since that's normally your course of action in this situation.

No, you're another idiot who assumes bs. I block trolls. If you wanna start trying to be a troll, then I will :tu

[Edward]

No, you're another idiot who assumes bs. I block trolls

:lmao you got me, I really did attend the Trump-Arpaio school of birth certificate analysis and that's where I learned that guy is from Kenya. I wasn't trolling at all!

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh82f9dLIDI

[Clipper Nation]

:lol SA210
:lol Gullible faggot
:lol Team Red version of Boutons

[SA210]

:lol SA210
:lol Gullible faggot
:lol Team Red version of Boutons

:lol ClipperNation
:lol Fake Libertarian
:lol Gullible faggot
:lol Blue dick sucker
:lol No life outside of SpursTalk
:lol Bandwagoner

[Blake]

:lol ClipperNation
:lol Fake Libertarian
:lol Gullible faggot
:lol Blue dick sucker
:lol No life outside of SpursTalk
:lol Bandwagoner

The irony. It is thick.

[ChumpDumper]

Would someone not on ignore tell SA210 the joke he so badly missed.

[LnGrrrR]

The fact you can't figure out what I'm doing just shows how dense and horribly stupid you are. I'd normally keep the act up for a few more posts but you're so gullible it's not even fun.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[LnGrrrR]

Would someone not on ignore tell SA210 the joke he so badly missed.

Edward already tried, but it didn't work. I don't know how it could be explained in a simpler way.

[ChumpDumper]

Edward already tried, but it didn't work. I don't know how it could be explained in a simpler way.Yeah, short of actually meme-Batman slapping him out of his current droning, I am also at a loss.

[SA210]

lol morons lying to themselves about what I think and pretending things are happening that aren't, just to make themselves feel better about their loser lives lol



.

A boy named "Adam"




"If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."
-- Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTnvXJTP1c/UH-iU0WXnZI/AAAAAAAABDc/bi50jGt_L-4/s320/abdulrahman_awlaki_3.jpg





Largely thanks to a complicit corporate-state news media, (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fox-sucks-but-what-about-cnn-and-msnbc.html) the story of a U.S. teenager executed without trial by the government has largely gone under the radar.

The teen -- who we will temporarily refer to as "Adam" -- was born (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-birth-certificate.html) on August 26, 1995 at approximately 1:16 pm in Denver, Colorado. Like many Americans, Adam came to enjoy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html) watching movies, playing football, computer games, and swimming.




Following the attacks of 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html), the father of Adam -- also a U.S. citizen (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/27/awlaki_5/) -- was invited to a luncheon at the Pentagon designed to encourage religious tolerance.




In late 2002, Adam and his father moved to Britain, and then Yemen in 2004.




In 2008, U.S. intelligence agencies made the claim (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022708aulaqialqaeda#a022708aulaq ialqaeda) that the father of Adam had been a "spiritual counselor" for some of the 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html) hijackers and had also assisted in various terror plots. The following year, Adam's father went into hiding, but this wouldn't deter his son from eventually setting off to try and find him.

Around 6:30 am on September 4th, 2011, Adam quietly slipped away from his family home in Sana, Yemen, leaving behind a note (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1161432--drone-death-in-yemen-of-an-american-teenager) for his mother. "I am sorry for leaving in this kind of way," he wrote. "Forgive me. I miss my father and want to see if I can go and talk to him."

Yet as it turned out, Adam would never get a chance to talk to his father. That's because on the 30th of September, Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/presidential-politics-perpetual-game-of.html) authorized two U.S. predator drones to kill the man. For this U.S. citizen, there would be no trial, no jury - just a mere accusation of guilt by faceless officials and a subsequent execution.


Shortly after news of his father's death surfaced, Adam, his 17-year-old cousin with whom he had been staying, and a few other friends set up a barbeque and celebrated their last night together. Adam called his mother and planned to return home the next day, a promise to be broken against his best intentions. He would never see her again.

As the teens chatted and ate dinner, brave aerial drones quietly sailed through Yemen's clear October skies, watching intently from above with powerful robotic eyes and patiently awaiting further orders. Eventually, such orders came and, with the press of a button, missiles shattered the night's calm like a stone to glass and screamed through the air before plowing into the teens without warning and engulfing them in a suffocating inferno which neither escaped from alive.

Desperate to justify their actions, the U.S. government initially claimed Adam had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and that the intended target of the drones was a "senior al-Qaeda operative" named Ibrahim al-Banna, a man who later turned up (http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-5) alive and well.

Moreover, news media reports at the time went so far as to suggest that Adam was not a teenager, but a grown man with ties to al-Qaeda, an utterly baseless claim (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891), but not one without a purpose. Referring to Adam as "military-age (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/)" at the time of death meant that by international protocols he would therefore be considered a legitimate target.

Still, even supposing one looks beyond the blatant violation of international protocols, what is to be said of those in a domestic sense? What kind of precedent is being established when U.S. citizens can be targeted for assassination by their government without trial? If it can happen to Adam and his father, who might be next? Why aren't these questions being asked?

Perhaps these questions aren't being asked because Adam's name is actually Abdulrahman, and when a foreign-sounding name like his is thrown across American news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw)media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw) outlets, nobody really seems all too concerned by it. Yet, if the headlines had in fact read "Adam" instead of "Abdulrahman", how differently would this have played out?

The establishment of such a dangerous precedent remains entirely dependent on continued complacency by the public. If the government can get away with killing U.S. citizens without trial overseas, how long will it be until the killings come home?

In May 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration began streamlining (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html) the licensing process for public agencies to "safely" fly drones, with law enforcement a prime target.

During that same month, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html) reported on the case of Rodney Brossart, the first U.S. citizen to be arrested using an unmanned drone.

Where was Rodney arrested? Pakistan? Yemen? Try North Dakota.

Make no mistake: the drones are coming, and the death of "Adam" and his father may only be the beginning.





... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...




"I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing. In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed? ... I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."-- Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman's grandfather




... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/) in October 2012 about the death of Abdulrahman, to which he smugly replied that the teen should have had a "far more responsible father".

Where is the outrage?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...





See also:




Murder Made Easy (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/murder-made-easy.html) - Two different studies offer new insight into the psychology behind killing, but what does it mean for the future of aerial drone warfare?





The United States of Predator Drones (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html)- From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing down

A brief history of George W. Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-w-obama-three-terms-eleven-years.html) - Has the same U.S. President been in office for the last 11 years? The following timeline covers key events between 2001-2012



Posted 18th October 2012 by Jonathan Reynolds (http://www.blogger.com/profile/07211828707647432728)






http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/8K/esq-awlaki-0812-lg.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4


http://debatingchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/scahill_tweet_re_reid_on_awlakis_3_11_2012.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5MQxLaBRV2Y/UIGEMpQeCRI/AAAAAAAAEkE/0Jp0TjsoZBA/s1600/TaggRomney.png



http://jischinger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/alawlaki.jpg



http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abdulrahman.jpg




http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kid-drone.jpg



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg

[Blake]

Nobody is pretending that an American born kid didn't die.

You really don't need to spam, moron.

[ChumpDumper]

lol morons lying to themselves about what I think and pretending things are happening that aren't, just to make themselves feel better about their loser lives lolUh, we just said that you didn't get a joke. You are unbelievably insecure and sensitive about such things.

Kid died. C'est la guerre.

[SA210]

.

A boy named "Adam"




"If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."
-- Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTnvXJTP1c/UH-iU0WXnZI/AAAAAAAABDc/bi50jGt_L-4/s320/abdulrahman_awlaki_3.jpg





Largely thanks to a complicit corporate-state news media, (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fox-sucks-but-what-about-cnn-and-msnbc.html) the story of a U.S. teenager executed without trial by the government has largely gone under the radar.

The teen -- who we will temporarily refer to as "Adam" -- was born (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-birth-certificate.html) on August 26, 1995 at approximately 1:16 pm in Denver, Colorado. Like many Americans, Adam came to enjoy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html) watching movies, playing football, computer games, and swimming.




Following the attacks of 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html), the father of Adam -- also a U.S. citizen (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/27/awlaki_5/) -- was invited to a luncheon at the Pentagon designed to encourage religious tolerance.




In late 2002, Adam and his father moved to Britain, and then Yemen in 2004.




In 2008, U.S. intelligence agencies made the claim (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022708aulaqialqaeda#a022708aulaq ialqaeda) that the father of Adam had been a "spiritual counselor" for some of the 9/11 (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2010/08/info-9-11.html) hijackers and had also assisted in various terror plots. The following year, Adam's father went into hiding, but this wouldn't deter his son from eventually setting off to try and find him.

Around 6:30 am on September 4th, 2011, Adam quietly slipped away from his family home in Sana, Yemen, leaving behind a note (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1161432--drone-death-in-yemen-of-an-american-teenager) for his mother. "I am sorry for leaving in this kind of way," he wrote. "Forgive me. I miss my father and want to see if I can go and talk to him."

Yet as it turned out, Adam would never get a chance to talk to his father. That's because on the 30th of September, Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/presidential-politics-perpetual-game-of.html) authorized two U.S. predator drones to kill the man. For this U.S. citizen, there would be no trial, no jury - just a mere accusation of guilt by faceless officials and a subsequent execution.


Shortly after news of his father's death surfaced, Adam, his 17-year-old cousin with whom he had been staying, and a few other friends set up a barbeque and celebrated their last night together. Adam called his mother and planned to return home the next day, a promise to be broken against his best intentions. He would never see her again.

As the teens chatted and ate dinner, brave aerial drones quietly sailed through Yemen's clear October skies, watching intently from above with powerful robotic eyes and patiently awaiting further orders. Eventually, such orders came and, with the press of a button, missiles shattered the night's calm like a stone to glass and screamed through the air before plowing into the teens without warning and engulfing them in a suffocating inferno which neither escaped from alive.

Desperate to justify their actions, the U.S. government initially claimed Adam had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and that the intended target of the drones was a "senior al-Qaeda operative" named Ibrahim al-Banna, a man who later turned up (http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-5) alive and well.

Moreover, news media reports at the time went so far as to suggest that Adam was not a teenager, but a grown man with ties to al-Qaeda, an utterly baseless claim (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891), but not one without a purpose. Referring to Adam as "military-age (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/)" at the time of death meant that by international protocols he would therefore be considered a legitimate target.

Still, even supposing one looks beyond the blatant violation of international protocols, what is to be said of those in a domestic sense? What kind of precedent is being established when U.S. citizens can be targeted for assassination by their government without trial? If it can happen to Adam and his father, who might be next? Why aren't these questions being asked?

Perhaps these questions aren't being asked because Adam's name is actually Abdulrahman, and when a foreign-sounding name like his is thrown across American news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw)media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtHA1BpKJw) outlets, nobody really seems all too concerned by it. Yet, if the headlines had in fact read "Adam" instead of "Abdulrahman", how differently would this have played out?

The establishment of such a dangerous precedent remains entirely dependent on continued complacency by the public. If the government can get away with killing U.S. citizens without trial overseas, how long will it be until the killings come home?

In May 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration began streamlining (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html) the licensing process for public agencies to "safely" fly drones, with law enforcement a prime target.

During that same month, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html) reported on the case of Rodney Brossart, the first U.S. citizen to be arrested using an unmanned drone.

Where was Rodney arrested? Pakistan? Yemen? Try North Dakota.

Make no mistake: the drones are coming, and the death of "Adam" and his father may only be the beginning.





... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...




"I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing. In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed? ... I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."-- Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman's grandfather




... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/) in October 2012 about the death of Abdulrahman, to which he smugly replied that the teen should have had a "far more responsible father".

Where is the outrage?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...





See also:




Murder Made Easy (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/murder-made-easy.html) - Two different studies offer new insight into the psychology behind killing, but what does it mean for the future of aerial drone warfare?





The United States of Predator Drones (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/06/invasion-of-drones-11-countries-and.html)- From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing down

A brief history of George W. Obama (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-w-obama-three-terms-eleven-years.html) - Has the same U.S. President been in office for the last 11 years? The following timeline covers key events between 2001-2012



Posted 18th October 2012 by Jonathan Reynolds (http://www.blogger.com/profile/07211828707647432728)






http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/8K/esq-awlaki-0812-lg.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4


http://debatingchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/scahill_tweet_re_reid_on_awlakis_3_11_2012.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5MQxLaBRV2Y/UIGEMpQeCRI/AAAAAAAAEkE/0Jp0TjsoZBA/s1600/TaggRomney.png



http://jischinger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/alawlaki.jpg



http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abdulrahman.jpg




http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kid-drone.jpg



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/4/8/5/2/1/ala3-84655136328.jpeg

[ChumpDumper]

You can't bury your shame under Spam.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol ClipperNation
:lol Fake Libertarian
:lol Gullible faggot
:lol Blue dick sucker
:lol No life outside of SpursTalk
:lol Bandwagoner

What happened? I thought I was on your :cry ignore list :cry tbh....

Shouldn't you be busy with your SpursTalk Libertarian Leadership? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

:lol SA210
:lol still doesn't get it
:lol furiously rereading Edwards posts wondering what's so funny
:lol too dumb to actually hold a conversation without resorting to spam

[ElNono]

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg


















http://i48.tinypic.com/2lmmipl.jpg

[Winehole23]

It's not MY view I'm discussing. It's the laws of armed conflict. If it's a valid military target, then it's a valid military target, whether he's on the john, at a funeral, etc etc. (Now, the question of killing innocents is one of collateral damage, which is different from legal/illegal target distinction.)the CIA isn't a military agency. is it obliged to follow the LOAC? does it?

[Winehole23]

at best, we're talking about quasi-military targets, targeted and killed by the CIA.

[LnGrrrR]

the CIA isn't a military agency. is it obliged to follow the LOAC? does it?

I'm not sure how many drones the CIA controls as opposed to the military. Also, according to this link: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/us-transfer-cia-drone-strikes-military ,
The CIA’s general counsel, Stephen Preston, in a speech (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/remarks-of-cia-general-counsel-stephen-preston-at-harvard-law-school/) entitled “CIA and the Rule of Law” at Harvard Law School on April 10, 2012, said the agency would implement its authority to use force “in a manner consistent with the … basic principles” of the laws of war. The laws of war are not mere principles but legally binding restrictions on all forces of the parties to an armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said.


I would agree that the CIA needs to follow LOAC or else be guilty of violating the laws of war. Whether it does or not, I don't know.

[LnGrrrR]

at best, we're talking about quasi-military targets, targeted and killed by the CIA.

Agreed on the "quasi" stuff, but that doesn't really get taken into account when the finger is on a trigger. They are either legal, or not. (And this is why I'm for as-clear-as-possible lines on this problem. The person pulling the trigger probably has enough to think about without wondering whether the target is even legal.)

[Winehole23]

fuzzy lines, secrecy and zero legal accountability seem to be preferred. hence the choice of the CIA over Defense to take the war to the terrorists.

[LnGrrrR]

fuzzy lines, secrecy and zero legal accountability seem to be preferred. hence the choice of the CIA over Defense to take the war to the terrorists.

Sadly, we are agreed on this point. Hence why I laughed near the beginning of the OP about this being the most "transparent" administration ever. To their ever-so-slight credit, at least they don't try to float that out anymore. And it's likely even easier to hide actions in the CIA than it is in the military.

[Blake]

fuzzy lines, secrecy and zero legal accountability seem to be preferred. hence the choice of the CIA over Defense to take the war to the terrorists.

You act like this is something new

[SA210]

.


Judge Andrew Napolitano joined Megyn Kelly on America Live this afternoon to discuss the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that he was told to never admit to the existence of the CIA drone program.

"When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, you're not even to acknowledge the drone program. You're not even to discuss that it exists," Gibbs said Sunday on MSNBC.

That admission has raised questions again over the use of the top-secret strikes against terror suspects abroad.

Kelly asked the judge just how transparent the government is supposed to be when it comes to targeting terror suspects and potentially revealing secrets "that could get troops killed or Americans killed."

Napolitano responded by saying we "shouldn't be in the business of killing."

Kelly then emphasized that she only meant killing terrorists.

"He shouldn't be in the business killing people in friendly territories," said Napolitano. "These are people that could easily be arrested or people who could be taken care of by the government of the country in which they're located. But when the president thinks he can willy-nilly use drones however, whenever, and against whomever he wishes and then lie about it, we have a problem."



Judge Napolitano: Obama's Legal Justification For Drones Is Hogwash


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4zVfJGYLzQ







.
Most transparent administration ever? :td


Robert Gibbs Told Not To Acknowledge Drone Program Exists As White House Press Secretary


VIDEO:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979738/ns/msnbc-up_with_chris_hayes/#50927331

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that he was told not to "acknowledge" or "discuss" the secret drone program when becoming the government's top spokesman.

Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's "Up," played a video clip of Gibbs and current press secretary Jay Carney dodging questions about drones in the White House briefing room before asking if the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming about the controversial targeted killing program. Gibbs, who recently became an MSNBC contributor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/robert-gibbs-msnbc-contributor_n_2673865.html), recalled the instructions he was given upon taking the job.

“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary," Gibbs said, "one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'”

The national media was slow covering the secret drone war (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/drone-media-coverage_n_2646151.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) in Pakistan and Yemen during Obama's first term, which has been difficult to track given both the government's secrecy and that strikes often take place in remote areas. But the drone media debate has gained steam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/drone-media-coverage_n_2474250.html) early in Obama's second term, alongside questions for top counter-terror official John Brennan upon his nomination to become CIA director.

Gibbs said that once he figured out a reporter's question was about the drone program, "I realized I'm not supposed to talk about it."

“Here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition," Gibbs said. "You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists. So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program -- pay not attention to the man behind the curtain."

While Gibbs referenced the "Wizard of Oz" on Sunday, a federal judge last month described the "Alice-in-Wonderland nature" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/obama-drone-program-targeted-killing_n_2631425.html?1360182308) of the Obama administration's secrecy over drones in a decision against The New York Times' request for legal memos outlining the rationale for targeting a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist ties. The White House has not publicly released the legal memos, but Carney made several references (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/white-house-drone-media-_n_2632538.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) to the legal rationale in a 16-page Department of Justice white paper -- but only after it was leaked to NBC News.

Gibbs said he hasn't talked to Obama recently about transparency and the drone program, but said he thinks the president has seen that the White House's denial of the program "when it’s obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/robert-gibbs-drones-white-house_n_2753183.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

[ChumpDumper]

"He shouldn't be in the business killing people in friendly territories," said Napolitano. "These are people that could easily be arrested or people who could be taken care of by the government of the country in which they're located."That's a stunningly ignorant statement.

[SA210]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419839_328927593894301_1802733696_n.jpg

[Winehole23]

You act like this is something newthe way we're doing it now is fairly new.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like exposure of a typical day at the Whitehouse.

[Winehole23]

Hovver Institution on the AUMF: http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/141091

[Blake]

the way we're doing it now is fairly new.

what exactly is new?

[Winehole23]

what exactly is new?signature strikes, to take a single example. there's more to it if you care to educate yourself -- you might even find some pertinent info in old ST threads.

[Blake]

signature strikes, to take a single example. there's more to it if you care to educate yourself -- you might even find some pertinent info in old ST threads.

Targeted killing has been criticized by human rights activists for 30+ years.

The only thing that's changed is the name and the use of drones.

Wikipedia links to some pertinent info on it, if you care to educate yourself.

[boutons_deux]

Nixon took down Allende, St Ronnie had his CIA/special ops mess around in Central America and sell arms to his buddies in Iran.

Eisenhauer took down democratically elected Hossedegh in Iran in early 1950s when H. tried to kick out UK/US oilcos. Eventually led to Khomeini and the raping of the American Tehran Embassy (which St Ronnie never avenged)

[boutons_deux]

Would Fox Repug Propaganda network run such a story below if dubya/dickheard were in office?

Alternet.org DOES with "their" leftist, communist, Muslim terrorist Barrry in office.

'Signature Strikes' On Unidentified People: The Drone War Doctrine We Still Know Nothing About

The focus of the debate over drones has been the targeting of American citizens – a narrow issue that accounts for a miniscule proportion of the hundreds of strikes carried out in recent years.

Consider: while four (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/nation/la-na-targeted-killing-20130209) American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed anestimated (http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones) total (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period.

The focus on American citizens overshadows a far more common, and less understood, type of strike: those that do not target American citizens, Al Qaeda leaders, or, in fact, any other specific individual.

In these attacks, known as “signature strikes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all#p[IPMIPM]),” drone operators fire on people whose identities they do not know based on evidence of suspicious behavior or other “signatures.” According to anonymously sourced media reports, such attacks on unidentified targets account for many, or even (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html) most (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-08/world/36988536_1_drone-program-special-court-judicial-review), drone strikes.

http://www.alternet.org/world/signature-strikes-unidentified-people-drone-war-doctrine-we-still-know-nothing-about?paging=off

[Blake]

In his memoir My American Journey, Colin Powell recollects his tours in Vietnam, first as a U.S. Army captain in 1962 and 1963, and later as a major in 1968 and 1969. Due to the length of the war, Powell notes that many officers and noncommissioned officers deployed to Vietnam were wholly unprepared, leading to a “breakdown in morale, discipline, and professional judgment.”
”
I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front but at him. Brutal? Maybe so.”

The term “military-age male” is not defined in military doctrine, though it is routinely used by military officials in counterinsurgency operations to describe individuals who are deemed guilty not based on evidence, but rather on their demography. For example, in unsecured areas of Afghanistan all “fighting-age males,” which comprise any male between the ages of fifteen and seventy, may be required to undergo a biometric scan by U.S. soldiers or Afghan security forces............

https://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/07/16/targeted-killings-and-signature-strikes/

[boutons_deux]

How Does the U.S. Mark Unidentified Men in Pakistan and Yemen as Drone Targets?

The Obama administration has never spoken publicly about signature strikes. Instead, generally anonymous officials have offered often vague examples of signatures. The resulting fragmentary picture leaves many questions unanswered.

In Pakistan, a signature might include:

Training camps…



Convoys of vehicles that bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run. – Senior American and Pakistani officials,New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/washington/22policy.html?_r=0), February 2008.
“Terrorist training camps.” – U.S.Diplomatic Cable (http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/05/pakistani_official_urged_more.php#ixzz2LNRWaliZ) released by Wikileaks, October 2009.
Gatherings of militant groups or training complexes. – Current and former officials,Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/31/world/la-fg-cia-awlaki31-2010jan31/2), January 2010.
Bomb-making or fighters training for possible operations in Afghanistan…. a compound where unknown individuals were seen assembling a car bomb. – Officials, Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/05/world/la-fg-drone-targets-20100506), May 2010.
Travel in or out of a known al-Qaeda compoundor possession of explosives. – U.S. officials, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/increased-us-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-killing-few-high-ranking-militants/2011/02/20/ABdO3YQ_print.html), February 2011.
Operating a training camp… consorting with known militants. – High-level American official, The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/09/19/110919fa_fact_filkins), September 2011.


A group of guys…



Large groups of armed men. – Senior U.S. intelligence official, Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/white-house-drone-program-pakistan_n_1381549.html), March 2012.
Groups of armed militants traveling by truck toward the war in Afghanistan.–Administration officials, Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-25/world/35452363_1_signature-strikes-drone-strikes-qaeda), April 2012.
The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp. – Senior official, May 2012.
“The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40” – Former Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter, Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/a-former-ambassador-to-pakistan-speaks-out.html), November 2012.
“Armed men who we see getting into pickup trucks and heading towards the Afghanistan border or who are in a training exercise.” – Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/us-drone-strike-policies/p29849), January 2013.


http://www.propublica.org/article/how-does-the-u.s.-mark-unidentified-men-in-pakistan-and-yemen-as-drone-targ

IIRC, drones have blown away a couple weddings parties in Afghanistan, 10s of people killed on a wedding day.

[SA210]

In these attacks, known as “signature strikes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all#p[IPMIPM]),” drone operators fire on people whose identities they do not know based on evidence of suspicious behavior or other “signatures.” According to anonymously sourced media reports, such attacks on unidentified targets account for many, or even (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html) most (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-08/world/36988536_1_drone-program-special-court-judicial-review), drone strikes.

http://www.alternet.org/world/signature-strikes-unidentified-people-drone-war-doctrine-we-still-know-nothing-about?paging=off






War crimes

[Winehole23]

Targeted killing has been criticized by human rights activists for 30+ years.

The only thing that's changed is the name and the use of drones.

Wikipedia links to some pertinent info on it, if you care to educate yourself.lol resting content with the top item in the google search, then not reading it.

if you can't see the difference between catching a fish on a line and dropping a grenade in a barrel of fish, I can't help you. that ain't targeted.

[Winehole23]

Especially when you make the strike not being 100% sure you've got the right target, like we do.

Unfortunately for anyone happening to be standing so close by as to be injured or killed by our attacks on bad guys -- or, merely probable bad guys -- they are by definition terrorists or incipient ones (should they survive.)

And at the very least aiders and abettors of terrorists (or putative terrorists) against whom we were merely defending ourselves.

[Winehole23]

Signature strikes go back to 2008. They're a relative novelty.

[Winehole23]

They push the moral envelope too, not that you seem to have noticed.

[Winehole23]

having a presidentially determined hit list for US citizens that is publicly defended as a national security prerogative, as above in the OP, is another novelty.

[Blake]

They push the moral envelope too, not that you seem to have noticed.

I don't know why you're assuming I haven't noticed.

[Blake]

lol resting content with the top item in the google search, then not reading it.

if you can't see the difference between catching a fish on a line and dropping a grenade in a barrel of fish, I can't help you. that ain't targeted.

I could find more, but honestly I really am content resting on Operation El Dorado Canyon.

And I'm not in the mood to argue that 4+ years of the term "signature strike" means it is or isn't old news.

[SA210]

:lol ^^^ Oh look who's in my thread again