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

[Blake]

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

Oh look who is following me around instead of discussing the subject.

[spursncowboys]

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.
IMO War is wa r. There are alot of things most people wouldn't like to hear from war (destroying a carload of people for trying to pass your convoy because the enemy uses their VBIED as a way to hit US; shooting into a house that an enemy ran into;etc)

However I find it a little odd that the President has created a Kill list.

I also do not understand what the big deal is with drone attacks. If you are against attacks in general, that makes more sense. But to not have a problem with AF jets doing the same thing as drones makes me think of someone who thinks we should tie one hand behind our back to make it more fair.

I do agree with you WH, however, in a realistic standpoint, and not a Constitutional or ethical one. I think in our political correct society, we as as country should be doing more to appease the mass majority of journalists. Although it is a thin line since more protection towards the enemy usually means less safety for our troops.

[SA210]

Oh look who is following me around instead of discussing the subject.

lol In my own thread

[Winehole23]

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.you're lazy, but we knew that already.

[Winehole23]

if you want to say Reagan unwrapped the tactic, fine. it didn't become commonplace until very recently.

[Winehole23]

within the last 30 years is, historically speaking, new.

[Blake]

lol In my own thread

lmao sure enough.

[SA210]

lol lil gay boy still following me doing his best Chump impression

[Blake]

you're lazy, but we knew that already.

Then you shouldn't trust the homework I did for you.

[Blake]

lol lil gay boy still following me doing his best Chump impression

That's just awful. Go back to ignoring me.

[Blake]

within the last 30 years is, historically speaking, new.

Maybe.

I'd say the practice of bombing innocent civilians has been around as long as bombs have

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if you want to say Reagan unwrapped the tactic, fine. it didn't become commonplace until very recently.

nFXazj8_CsY

50 years ago we would have carpet bombed them. How do you think ww2 was fought?

If you think there are terrorist training cells in those areas then drones are an improvement over previous US military strategies. I am sure we killed a whole shit to n of kids on Dresden.

The issue for me is the targeting of US citizens without habeas corpus. As for bombing suspected terrorist training compounds so be it.

[Winehole23]

50 years ago we would have carpet bombed them. How do you think ww2 was fought?war and the practice of war have been significantly redefined in the wake of 9/11. pretending they haven't is disingenuous.

[Winehole23]

Maybe.
'
I'd say the practice of bombing innocent civilians has been around as long as bombs havepretending this is business as usual is intellectually and morally obtuse. the drone war isn't just the same old shit, its a new frontier in lawlessness and immorality, to say nothing of authoritarian government,

[Blake]

The issue for me is the targeting of US citizens without habeas corpus. As for bombing suspected terrorist training compounds so be it.

American terrorist life is worth more than Middle Eastern innocent bystander?

[Blake]

pretending this is business as usual is intellectually and morally obtuse. the drone war isn't just the same old shit, its a new frontier in lawlessness and immorality, to say nothing of authoritarian government,

no, i think it's the same old shit, just a different technique and an enemy without any real nationality.

Collateral damage has been around for a long time, even by your time standards. You're either ok with it or you're not.

To insinuate that it was ever morally justified is being disingenuous.

[LnGrrrR]

American terrorist life is worth more than Middle Eastern innocent bystander?

Fuzzy wasn't comparing the "worth" of two lives, merely noting that killing Americans without trial sets a dangerous precedent. There's always laws regarding the targeting of foreigners and whether it's legal or not. (Killing innocents unintentionally = maybe legal, killing innocents intentionally = not legal).

[Blake]

If you are not worried about giving foreigners the same right to a fair trial before killing them, I'd say yes, you are valuing American life over other human life.

Worst case scenario being that you cry that the possible, even probable, terrorist born in America deserves a fair trial but shrug "meh" when a middle eastern bystander is in the wrong place at wrong time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

American terrorist life is worth more than Middle Eastern innocent bystander?

I don't look at it like that. I look at it like they are training grounds for enemy soldiers for attacks on the United States and our allies. It's a guerrilla war but war just the same.

High value target has all manner of meanings.

I think they should have public trials held in absentia. Given them the opportunity to come. It's not as if in this day and age the message cannot get out and do it in such a manner that it is a legitimate attempt. If not then try them for treason and kill them. If they are concerned about the effect public scrutiny will have then they should not be doing said activity. They are beholden to us, the citizens, and it seems they are only beholden to themselves.

That being said if he is in a terrorist training facility that we have targeted then that is is his own damn fault.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

pretending this is business as usual is intellectually and morally obtuse. the drone war isn't just the same old shit, its a new frontier in lawlessness and immorality, to say nothing of authoritarian government,

then you are against all wars so oh well. its how war is fought now. when you say it has been redefined, this is the redefinition. it is not 'business as usual' as we are not throwing napalm cluster bombs at entire villages or much less using a squadron of B-17's to bomb an entire city. While it may be 'ambiguous' from a 'relativist' standpoint it's a vast improvement.

[Blake]

I don't look at it like that. I look at it like they are training grounds for enemy soldiers for attacks on the United States and our allies. It's a guerrilla war but war just the same.

High value target has all manner of meanings.

I think they should have public trials held in absentia. Given them the opportunity to come. It's not as if in this day and age the message cannot get out and do it in such a manner that it is a legitimate attempt. If not then try them for treason and kill them. If they are concerned about the effect public scrutiny will have then they should not be doing said activity. They are beholden to us, the citizens, and it seems they are only beholden to themselves.

That being said if he is in a terrorist training facility that we have targeted then that is is his own damn fault.

How do you get the message out without giving away that you know where the terrorists are hiding?

I think it's rather common knowledge now that if you are in the wrong place wrong time you're fucked?

[LnGrrrR]

If you are not worried about giving foreigners the same right to a fair trial before killing them, I'd say yes, you are valuing American life over other human life.

Worst case scenario being that you cry that the possible, even probable, terrorist born in America deserves a fair trial but shrug "meh" when a middle eastern bystander is in the wrong place at wrong time.

In many cases, the US doesn't have the ability to grant the right to a fair trial to foreign citizens. And it's not possible to capture every combatant. BUt yes, I do value American life over other human life, by a slight amount. I tend to donate to American charities and support American businesses.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How do you get the message out without giving away that you know where the terrorists are hiding?

I think it's rather common knowledge now that if you are in the wrong place wrong time you're fucked?

Press release to AJ and the rest of the major networks. Hold a civilian trial in federal court after a fair amount of time. If he is found guilty then so be it. Time for the missile.

I do know we are blowing up so much of their shit up they are telling people to not to come to Yemen and Pakistan.

[Blake]

In many cases, the US doesn't have the ability to grant the right to a fair trial to foreign citizens. And it's not possible to capture every combatant. BUt yes, I do value American life over other human life, by a slight amount. I tend to donate to American charities and support American businesses.

In this case i don't.

A terrorist is a terrorist, imo. Either give them all a fair trial or fuck them all.

[Wild Cobra]

pretending this is business as usual is intellectually and morally obtuse. the drone war isn't just the same old shit, its a new frontier in lawlessness and immorality, to say nothing of authoritarian government,
Blake, WH is correct. For one, times and technology are different. I like drones for limited use, but definitely not to the degree they have been used since early 2009. I think anyone who defend the current practice is rather lacking in the moral character.

[LnGrrrR]

In this case i don't.

A terrorist is a terrorist, imo. Either give them all a fair trial or fuck them all.

I think our ability to give fair trials to every terrorist is non-existent; that said, if we had the ability to do so, I'd be all for it. With the lack of capability, i'd like to make sure that we're at least giving Americans trials. (Another problem might be jurisdiction... their home country might claim them, and then decide not to prosecute them.)

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, WH is correct. For one, times and technology are different. I like drones for limited use, but definitely not to the degree they have been used since early 2009. I think anyone who defend the current practice is rather lacking in the moral character.

:lol Bullshit. I'm sure the British thought our guerilla tactics were lacking in moral character. How about when we started using tanks? Do you think people thought that we were lacking in moral character then, hiding behind a giant wall of armor?

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but don't prance around on your "moral" soapbox. Unless you feel like telling the wives and parents and kids of all those extra dead soldiers that you think drones are immoral.

[Blake]

Blake, WH is correct. For one, times and technology are different. I like drones for limited use, but definitely not to the degree they have been used since early 2009. I think anyone who defend the current practice is rather lacking in the moral character.

Preach on, flaglot.

[Th'Pusher]

Wow. Overwhelming support for the drone program, even when the suspected terrorist is a US citizen:

Overall, 74 percent of voters approve of using drones to kill a suspected terrorist overseas. That includes majorities of Republicans (80 percent), independents (71 percent) and Democrats (69 percent), as well as both men (78 percent) and women (71 percent).


The level of approval drops from 74 percent to 60 percent, however, if the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen.
Even when it comes to drone use on U.S. soil, a 56-percent majority of voters approves of such strikes on a suspected foreign terrorist.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/#ixzz2MgSV2Mxb

[Winehole23]

no, i think it's the same old shit, just a different technique and an enemy without any real nationality.

Collateral damage has been around for a long time, even by your time standards. You're either ok with it or you're not.

To insinuate that it was ever morally justified is being disingenuous.don't believe I did. that might be a hostile inference.

[Blake]

pretending this is business as usual is intellectually and morally obtuse. the drone war isn't just the same old shit, its a new frontier in lawlessness and immorality, to say nothing of authoritarian government,


don't believe I did. that might be a hostile inference.

So you're saying the old world's immorality was not as big a deal as this brand new immorality. I guess.

actually, forget it. I'm too lazy to try to dissect Winehole-speak today.

[SA210]

So, they finally answer

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

http://media.reason.com/mc/_external/2013_03/dont-worry-assassinations-will.jpg?h=375&w=300

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Tuesday.

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday (http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=724). "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul (http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf) that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter (http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf):



As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.



In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/why-obama-wont-give-straight-answer-drones) at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that's exactly what was happening. "Any use of drone strikes or other pre-meditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns," says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. "There should be equal concern about using force overseas."
This post has been edited to include Paul's statement.

[Wild Cobra]

So, they finally answer

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

I feel you are taking it out of context, but I do believe B. Hoprah O. would do just that.


The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

[Winehole23]

So you're saying the old world's immorality was not as big a deal as this brand new immorality. I guess.

actually, forget it. I'm too lazy to try to dissect Winehole-speak today.What we do and how we do it matter. I get that you're completely jaded as to the world's wickedness and feign that it's no big deal.

[Winehole23]

The last eleven years weren't just more of the same -- the results for the economy, war, rule of law and due process were radical.

[Winehole23]

accordingly, public esteem of government bodies has diminished.

approval of Congress is what, 10 or 15 percent?

[Winehole23]

it has never been so cool to hate government as it is right now. something about that is deeply uncool.

[SA210]

I feel you are taking it out of context, but I do believe B. Hoprah O. would do just that.

That's the title of the article, however, they never said no.. and that headline sums it up. The administration has lied so much and they are filled with so much corruption, I believe that they will/could make any particular event seem like an "extraordinary" circumstance. Not saying no, says a lot. And that should be what's taking over mainstream news worse than all other scandals and non stories they waste their time on, but of course, they won't.

[SA210]

Rand Paul actively Filibustering Brennan right now.


CSPAN live feed: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Rand Paul: "I Will Speak As Long As It Takes" To Stop Brennan Nomination

The Kentucky senator is filibustering John Brennan, the Obama administration's nominee to be CIA director, over the administration's drone policy.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-i-will-speak-as-long-as-it-takes-it-stop-brennan-n

[cheguevara]

Glad to see someone speaking out at least. among both warmongering parties.

it's probably too little too late. Once drones are equiped with the Tesla type rays that disintegrate ppl, it will be even more commonplace. Wonder if housing contractors will start offering bunker options.

[ChumpDumper]

Rand asked the wrong guy about domestic drone attacks. Either he's ignorant or grandstanding.

And seriously, what is the difference between a drone strike and any other missile strike?

[cheguevara]

apples and oranges. A drone can have missiles. It's just a vehicle that can fly over any airspace and get closer to the targets.

the whole argument is they are issuing execution of humans without a chance of fair trial. That violates both US constitution and International Human Rights conventions.

[SA210]

lol @ "asked the wrong guy"

[ChumpDumper]

lol @ "asked the wrong guy"Considering the mission of the CIA, definitely.

[Blake]

What we do and how we do it matter. I get that you're completely jaded as to the world's wickedness and feign that it's no big deal.

I never said the bombing itself doesn't matter. I'm saying the way we do it doesn't matter.

And to be further clear, i never said the killing of terrorists doesn't matter. I'm saying the killing an American born terrorist the same way we kill a middle eastern born terrorist should absolutely not matter one bit.

I still don't get why you and others do except for some type of constitutional nostalgia.

[cheguevara]

And to be further clear, i never said the killing of terrorists doesn't matter. I'm saying the killing an American born terrorist the same way we kill a middle eastern born terrorist should absolutely not matter one bit.

and how do we know they really are terrorists if they had no fair trial? do we take the CIA/WH word for it? I feel sorry for you if you take CIA/WH/Military words as fact.



I still don't get why you and others do except for some type of constitutional nostalgia.

I'm sure many Nazi party speeches of the 1930s went something like that ^

[Blake]

and how do we know they really are terrorists if they had no fair trial? do we take the CIA/WH word for it? I feel sorry for you if you take CIA/WH/Military words as fact.


You're either for taking out suspected terrorists or you're not.



I'm sure many Nazi party speeches of the 1930s went something like that ^

Oh noes. A Godwin drone strike.

[cheguevara]

You're either for taking out suspected terrorists or you're not.


the moment you start executing on suspicion you become a fascist/dictator state. History proves this.

IMO we are now closer to Minority Report than people think.

[Blake]

the moment you start executing on suspicion you become a fascist/dictator state. History proves this.

IMO we are now closer to Minority Report than people think.

So you're against us taking out any suspected terrorists until they get a trial.

I won't disagree.

[cheguevara]

So you're against us taking out any suspected terrorists until they get a trial.

I won't disagree.

It's not about me. The US Constitution and International Human Rights Laws are against it.

[SA210]

.
lol @ "suspected terrorists"




A boy named "Adam" (http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-boy-named-adam.html)




"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

http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-boy-named-adam.html

[cantthinkofanything]

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




Sure...that's the image the media wants you to see. This is a more recent pic from his Facebook account.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/pics/252_large.jpg

[SA210]

Um, no

[Clipper Nation]

So you're against us taking out any suspected terrorists until they get a trial.

I won't disagree.
The key word is "suspected," tbh.... I don't think anyone should be comfortable with the idea of taking out people on suspicion alone, imho....

[Th'Pusher]

Isn't Brennan in favor of returning the drone program to the pentagon which would likely mean more oversight/transparency? Seems that would be a good thing, no?

[cheguevara]

The key word is "suspected," tbh.... I don't think anyone should be comfortable with the idea of taking out people on suspicion alone, imho....

Thats not even part of the discussion. I'm sure close to 50% or more of regular americans might be for killing "suspected" terrorists. That's not the argument.

the argument is that there is a law of the land that explicitly states what is and what is not allowed and killing citizens without trial most definitely is NOT ALLOWED AND IS ILLEGAL. It's pretty black and white, all these discussions of he/she/I think is just smoke and mirrors. There is nothing confusing or obscure about the constitutional law.

Now if most americans are so scared of terrorist that they feel these actions of killing suspects should be allowed, then go ahead and ammend the constitution. and good luck with that.

[SA210]

Isn't Brennan in favor of returning the drone program to the pentagon which would likely mean more oversight/transparency? Seems that would be a good thing, no?


Do you really believe him?

[SA210]

Fillibuster in the 7th hour now,



"Bush started this (kinds of policy), Obama is expanding this. The irony is that Obama ran as the anti-Bush candidate."



Ouch..

[cantthinkofanything]

Fillibuster in the 7th hour now,

Ouch..

Not that I'm against Paul on this but the whole concept of fillibuster just seems silly.

[SA210]

Not that I'm against Paul on this but the whole concept of fillibuster just seems silly.


There are things I disagree with him on, but I respect and applaud him speaking out on this, something Democrats should be doing. One cannot simply stay quiet on such policies. Whether it goes anywhere or not, he had the guts to speak up, even when most of his own party, along with Democrats remain silent. He has a right to Filibuster raising questions on an issue of murdering Americans without due process. If any issue, this issue is one that definitely needs urgent attention.

[cheguevara]

Kick and scream.

that's pretty much all a lone politician can do about this issue since both warmonger Reps and Dems agree on violating the constitution on this matter.

the US media is the one who should be screaming to protect public rights, but once again they prove they are just a tool for the rich coorporations. this is the biggest shame IMO

[SA210]

Kick and scream.

that's pretty much all a lone politician can do about this issue since both warmonger Reps and Dems agree on violating the constitution on this matter.

:tu

And Damn, Rand is going all out right now on CSPAN bringing out all the facts about the drone war policies (and the war policy overall) in the Middle East.


http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

[Th'Pusher]

Do you really believe him?
Why not? He's been saying it for a while and Robert Gibbs indicated that his nomination to head the CIA can be taken as an indication he Obama agrees with him.

[SA210]

lol Balls

Rand telling everyone about the illegal Signature strikes where we don't even know who we are killing.

[SA210]

Why not? He's been saying it for a while and Robert Gibbs indicated that his nomination to head the CIA can be taken as an indication he Obama agrees with him.

Because he lies and has helped Obama on these decisions to murder innocents with drones. And Robert Gibbs is the guy that said that we murdered a 16 year old innocent American boy because he should have had a more responsible father.

These aren't exactly men with integrity, or that can be trusted with such powers.

[SA210]

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU Backs Paul's Filibuster

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/03/06/RandPaul.png



LINK: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/06/Exclusive-ACLU-backs-Rand

by Ben Shapiro (http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Ben-Shapiro) 6 Mar 2013, 3:21 PM PDT 16 (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/06/Exclusive-ACLU-backs-Rand#disqus_thread) post a comment (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/06/Exclusive-ACLU-backs-Rand#comments)

On Wednesday afternoon, Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Council at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington D.C., spoke with Breitbart News exclusively about Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster of the John Brennan nomination to CIA director over the administration’s failures to answer questions about domestic use of drones. Anders backed Paul to the hilt, and was highly critical of the Obama administration.

“It’s certainly a courageous and historic effort by Senator Rand Paul and his colleagues, who are now increasing in numbers and coming to the fore in support of his filibuster,” said Anders.

“The information Senator Paul is looking for goes to the very core of what the US is and who Americans are as a people.” Anders pointed out that the information Paul seeks is easy for the administration to hand over – it “ought to be a no-brainer,” he said. “It ought to be upsetting for everyone, all Americans of both parties, to not be able to get a straight answer to what is a very straightforward question from Senator Paul.”

Anders went on to explain that the Department of Justice could post the legal memos in question on the internet within an hour, or Xerox them and send them to the floor of the Senate. “The American people have a right to know,” said Anders. “Senator Paul is right to push for that information and I think he’s doing a very good job of exercising his constitutional duty as a member of Congress in our system of checks and balances to help serve as a check on the executive branch, on the president.”

Anders called the administration’s stonewalling “inexcusable.” The standards apparently applied by the administration, he continued, “are not standards recognized by any court in the land, any court anywhere in the world.”

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America (http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0)” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

[cheguevara]

pretty much every news organization has Rand in their frontpage.

Meanwhile in CNN.com's frontpage:
Costa Concordia reveals dark secrets


:lmao CNN the toilet of US media

[cantthinkofanything]

pretty much every news organization has Rand in their frontpage.

Meanwhile in CNN.com's frontpage:
Costa Concordia reveals dark secrets


:lmao CNN the toilet of US media

Damn...you're right. Not even mentioned on the front page of their mobile site. Pathetic.

[SA210]

pretty much every news organization has Rand in their frontpage.

Meanwhile in CNN.com's frontpage:
Costa Concordia reveals dark secrets


:lmao CNN the toilet of US media

:lol Well even on MSNBC, Chris Mattews tries changing the subject and only plays a clip of Rand Paul talking about Hitler as a lame attempt to spin, discredit Rand. Of course ignoring the actual issue being discussed..the President murdering Americans without due process lol

[cheguevara]

at least nbc has a link to it.

When Huffpost and Fox news have practically the same headline, you know some big shit is going on.

of course CNN is clueless as usual :lmao

[SA210]

lol

Ted Cruz reading the tweets and talking about the explosion on the Twitterverse around the country in support of Rand Paul having the backbone to stand up for Americans and due process.

This is gold

#StandWithRand currently trending #1 on Twitter

[SA210]

lol Rand now talking about Obama's lies on NDAA, torture, and droning Americans.

Candidate Obama vs President Obama

[cheguevara]

:lol "they shouldn't be allowed to drop a hellfire missile on your cafe experience"

[Th'Pusher]

And the reality is Brennan is going to be confirmed. The grandstanding is cute though and goes a long way to build Rand's brand which is really the ultimate goal here isn't it?

[SA210]

:lol "they shouldn't be allowed to drop a hellfire missile on your cafe experience"



:rollin I lol'ed when he said that

[SA210]

And the reality is Brennan is going to be confirmed. The grandstanding is cute though and goes a long way to build Rand's brand which is really the ultimate goal here isn't it?


Rand believes what he is saying on the drone program and on due process.

Meet John O. Brennan, a well-respected member of the transparent administration of four-term President George W. Obama


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/482639_622842737732918_1269699025_n.jpg

[SA210]

:rollin

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/542734_10151541911581337_2101538802_n.jpg

[SA210]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/480010_166627386822090_157668315_n.png

[in2deep]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2n0rl6r.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

pretty much every news organization has Rand in their frontpage.

Meanwhile in CNN.com's frontpage:
Costa Concordia reveals dark secrets


:lmao CNN the toilet of US mediaCNN has a link to a live feed on its front page.

Did you even look?

[SA210]

Secret Document Found: Rand Paul's Filibuster WE KNOW HOW LONG HE WILL TALK!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS2LmjovTb8



























:lmao:rollin

[Blake]

I can't decide who the bigger attention whore is: SA210 or Rand

[SA210]

:lmao coming from the attention whore who can't stop following me

[Blake]

Flatter yourself some more with a meme, whore.

[SA210]

whore.





You rang?

[Blake]

You need a meme to go with your script, whore.

[SA210]

You need a meme to go with your script, whore.

lol the meltdown queen trolling topics and melting down in them

[Blake]

It was debatable that anyone took you serious before.

No debate any more.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It really is unfortunate that SA210 is such a dumbass. This really is a legitimate concern but he trivializes it by his foolishness.

[SA210]

It really is unfortunate that SA210 is such a dumbass. This really is a legitimate concern but he trivializes it by his foolishness.

Stay on topic fool. This is about illegal drone strikes.

[SA210]

lol Just under 13 hours



https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/522527_506638106038728_1527528996_n.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well it's over now and Obama's guy is going to get confirmed anyway.

:lol at McConnell trying to piggyback off of this.

[SA210]

"Yay for more murder with no due process!!"

[SA210]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/299738_348842281882438_655701232_n.jpg

[Jacob1983]

Obama is hungrier for war than Bush ever was. Just admit it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know that he is hungry for war but he certainly has systemically eroded American's liberty and fundamental rights. I think it's more than just Obama. People lose sight of our bureaucracy not being a patronage system.

[Jacob1983]

Obama is Bush on steroids when it comes to foreign policy.

[TSA]

I don't know that he is hungry for war but he certainly has systemically eroded American's liberty and fundamental rights.the 2nd amendment says hi!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

meh. Bush unilaterally started wars. Obama shits on the rights of Americans. being partisan is fun I guess but Obama being a dick makes Bush no less of one. things are still not going to change as long as we have this two party system whoever wins the next election.

[SA210]

.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html


Nuff said

[cheguevara]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2n0rl6r.jpg

:lmao :lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I'm glad that Rand Paul filibustered, for one. Anything that gets the average citizen to think about this is better than nothing.

[SA210]

Liberal Actor on GOP-Led Filibuster Over Drones: ‘For God’s Sake, Where Are Democrats?’



http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/600x39917.jpg (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/liberal-actor-on-gop-led-filibuster-over-drones-for-gods-sake-where-are-democrats/us-actor-john-cusack-attends-the-press-c/)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/liberal-actor-on-gop-led-filibuster-over-drones-for-gods-sake-where-are-democrats/


Actor John Cusack describes himself as a progressive, but he has been a critic of the federal government’s drone program regardless of who has been is in office. Frankly, he has also be a pretty harsh critic of President Barack Obama as well.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other GOP senators on Wednesday conducted an old-school filibuster on the Senate floor to block John Brennan’s nomination and bring attention to the potential for drone strikes on U.S. soil. As the hours went by, Cusack was curious to know: “where are Democrats?”



John Cusack @johncusack
(https://twitter.com/johncusack)
For gods sake where are democrats ?? “@democracynow (https://twitter.com/democracynow): Rand Paul: Obama Admin Response Drones "More Than Frightening" http://owl.li/itdHI (http://t.co/d1SXpXslei)”
10:37 PM - 06 Mar 13 (https://twitter.com/johncusack/statuses/309432511103135744)





@johncusack (https://twitter.com/johncusack)

Good question“@cenkuygur (https://twitter.com/cenkuygur): Up to 8 Senators now joining the Rand Paul #filibuster (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23filibuster&src=hash). Where are the so-called progressive Democratic senators?”



Cusack had one tweet that was longer than 140 characters, but here’s what he wrote:


@johncusack (https://twitter.com/johncusack)

AG say its ok to kill us citizens–and other bad guys- but trust us we’re the good guys..
how’d that play out through history mr holder…
pay no attention to the man behind that curtain
the great and powerful O has spoken…




@johncusack (https://twitter.com/johncusack)

dems ? Do U have any thoughts on Obama's transition from a progressive academic humanist 2 a regressive corporate warlord?




@johncusack (https://twitter.com/johncusack)

when u kill innocent people without trial - imprison them with no trial what would u call it?-used bush powers & exanded them @Lisellecae (https://twitter.com/Lisellecae)



@johncusack (https://twitter.com/johncusack)

never but he pretended to be didnt he...RT @roobishimmer (https://twitter.com/roobishimmer): When was Obama a progressive?

[SA210]

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties.

"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said."*

As much as we may agree with the bulk of Rand Paul's stances, he may deserve to be called a hero for standing up against John Brennan's nomination to CIA director based on his and Obama's stance that Americans could be able to be killed by drones on American soil. Cenk Uygur makes the case.




TYT: Drone Strikes - Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWy7wnucXY

[Blake]

Oh look. An attention whore pimping another attention whore.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I try sabotaging threads bc I'm still butthurt :cry:cry

[SA210]

.

"The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday."*

It's starting to happen. Attorney General Eric Holder says lethal drone attacks without due process on Americans while on American soil, are hypothetically legal. A surprising Republican Senator is standing against it. Do Republicans and Democrats make exceptions for their own "teams?" Cenk Uygur breaks it down


TYT: Yes, Lethal Drone Attacks on Americans Are Allowed, Says Atty General



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y3p1I8z77s


Cenk putting Democrats on blast.




TYT: Drone Strikes - Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWy7wnucXY

[SA210]

:lol "they shouldn't be allowed to drop a hellfire missile on your cafe experience"


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/482802_10151338331065197_63948191_n.jpg

[SA210]

:lol

Jon Stewart voices support for Rand Paul filibuster: ‘Holy Howard Roark’s ghost’



VIDEO: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/07/jon-stewart-voices-support-for-rand-paul-filibuster-holy-howard-roarks-ghost-video/#ixzz2MrpeXyqy



http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Stewart36-e1362631290115.jpg


As Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director wound late into the night, he got the support of one unlikely media personality: Comedy Central “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart.

“Holy Howard Roark’s ghost — it looks like we got us a good old fashion actual talkie filibuster,” Stewart said. “The kind our grandparents tried to tell us about but never got through, because we were too busy playing jacks and tiddlywinks with our friends waiting for our turn to freebase in the shed. Ah, the ‘70s or ‘50s, or whatever timeframe I appear to be.”

“Rand Paul had sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking just a simple question: Can the president use a drone to take out an American citizen on U.S. soil?” Stewart continued. “You would think he would get a letter back like, ‘No, way.’ Holder writes him back a letter that never directingly addressing the question kind of, sort of implied that hypothetically in the right — yes, yes, we can do that. We can do that probably won’t, but yes. So, Sen. Rand Paul to draw attention to the issue of the execution of executive executions executed the classical old school filibuster. I mean he’s out there talking. This isn’t one of those — he’s using the filibuster the way it’s meant to be used.”

“[I] can’t say I agree with Rand Paul about everything,” Stewart added. “But as issues go, drone oversight is one certainly worth kicking up a fuss for.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/07/jon-stewart-voices-support-for-rand-paul-filibuster-holy-howard-roarks-ghost-video/#ixzz2Mrpuy7HC

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure why it would be surprising that Jon Stewart supported him. He seems to be a pretty vocal defender of civil liberties.

[Blake]

me ignoring you is not butthurt. me ignoring you is me owning you.

/meme/large font/YouTube/quote from Hollywood actor

[SA210]

:cry:cry Still trying to sabotage different threads bc I'm still massively butthurt, this makes me a troll :cry:cry

[Blake]

You're an idiot. Everyone that isn't an idiot knows this to be the absolute truth.

[SA210]

:cry:cry Still trying to sabotage different threads bc I'm still massively butthurt, this makes me a troll :cry:cry

[Winehole23]

You relentlessly bicker with all who disagree and most who agree.

that makes you a troll, SA210.

[Blake]

There was some decent discussion going on in your thread but your spam is sabotaging it.

[Winehole23]

my spam?

[Winehole23]

spam can be undermining, for sure

[SA210]

lol 2 butthurt bitches still going off topic.

[Blake]

my spam?

210's speme.

[Blake]

lol 2 butthurt bitches still going off topic.

You're an idiot, troll.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I love following sa210 around obsessively in different threads, he's literally on my mind that much. I am so angry for him exposing my cuckness, and my meltdown won't stop. If I had spent this much time with my wife as I do on sa210's nuts, she still might be around. Instead I'm just a cuck chasing men on the internets, it would make my bff proud :cry:cry

[Blake]

Wow.

[Wild Cobra]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/482802_10151338331065197_63948191_n.jpg
That would be better if someone used a coffee made of Arabica beans instead of Columbian.

[ChumpDumper]

So Rand Paul isn't holding up the nomination anymore?

[Koolaid_Man]

So Rand Paul isn't holding up the nomination anymore?

Pubic hair head was only filiblustering on behalf of the millions of milita groups out there...they've been collecting arms for years and now cringe at the thought of being Droned down...:lol

[Nbadan]

The basic situation here is this - does the Administration have the authority to use lethal force to thwart violent attacks against the government, the country and its citizens? On American soil. The answer is yes.

And yes, drones are increasingly used for surveillance operations. They are not weaponized. Conflating the two undermines the needed debate about surveillance in general by introducing the "government is out to kill you" hyperbole. It parallels the "government will come and take away your guns" meme that crops up in gun legislation discussions.

Red herrings, both.

..and where the preemptive memo evolved, I'm not sure. Yet I see it mentioned all the time. Who in the Administration ever mentioned "preemptive actions"? Another red herring.

Does the Administration "target" individuals? Certainly. Profiling, which is what it is, needs a good long look. But floating the idea that the government is going to target and preemptively kill someone via a weaponized drone in your neighborhood is crazy...

[SA210]

One of the better posters here has officially drank the kool-aid. Appears the reason is simply party lines.

[Nbadan]

One of the better posters here has officially drank the kool-aid. Appears the reason is simply party lines.

I don't understand the difference between a drone or Police helicopter here...both require due process for lethal force...

[SA210]

I don't understand the difference between a drone or Police helicopter here...both require due process for lethal force...

The problem is you trust this President.

It is a fact that he killed a 16 year old American boy, and never accused the boy of a crime, no evidence, nothing. Just droned him in an entirely separate attack than his father, which he also wasn't charged, nor ANY evidence provided, but the boy himself wasn't even accused of doing anything wrong. How can you dismiss that Robert Gibbs claims the boy was basically killed because he should have had a better father? Does someone get to kill your kid bc they don't like you? No that's not how it works. It was murder ordered by Obama.

It is a fact that they have categorized many Occupy protesters as "terrorists", and that is to stifle dissent. To believe that NDAA has nothing to do with silencing critics of the administration is what's crazy.

The drone policy overseas, with the signature strikes we don't even know who we are killing in them, we are just bombing innocents. Overall only 2% of the targets are so called high level terrorists.

This administration has labeled any male 16 years and up as a "military combatant" until proven otherwise, posthumously. That's INSANE!

He is throwing whistle-blowers in jail. How in the heck can you trust such a man with powers of drones in America, when he kills civilians all the time overseas without a damn care in the world? That's crazy. Obama has killed an American without due process. 3 of them. Why in the world would you think that day could never come on our soil? He didn't even want to answer the question for a very long time.

Even his definition of imminent threat is bullshit. His definition of imminent does not mean immediate threat. Who is to say who is a terrorist? Who is to say what is imminent?

You seriously are backing a cold blooded killer, a psychopath bombing schools, weddings and funerals. And we are to trust him with all his past deceit? Yea right.

With an opened mind, take the D of your chest for a few minutes and read this info at this link, and then seriously ask yourself if maybe you have blinders on for blue team. And I'm not on red team, so you can't accuse me of that.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

[Nbadan]

Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." .... born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist...


The son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies. He traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting,the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in, they were in a car.
If he hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive. He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.

[SA210]

Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." .... born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist...


Propaganda tbh, they honestly won't even talk about the boy. They won't address him in any way at all. The boy was eating dinner with his friends peacefully in a non combat zone, with other teens when he was killed. Not to mention all the other "civilian" deaths in all these countries we have NO BUSINESS attacking without a declaration of war.

Obvious you didn't read the info on the link with an open mind, btw. Only interested in defending the blue team murderer that's doing red teams job.

[Winehole23]

blue team murderer that's doing red teams job.poor jobless red teamers. you feel for them, don't you?

[SA210]

poor jobless red teamers. you feel for them, don't you?


I see that went over your head, huh moron.

[Winehole23]

whatevs. I don't think you understand what you say either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wine you just got him butthurt so hes lashing out. you can tell hes upset or doesn't have a leg to stand on when he starts that schtick. keep at it and youll get some meme's.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I also make up lies bc I don't understand what just happened, I'm still butthurt from the other thread :cry:cry

[Winehole23]

there's nothing wrong with being so proud of yourself, but you really shouldn't beat such a weak chest -- it might cave in.

[SA210]

:cry:cry

[Blake]

You think he's crying? Why?

[SA210]

You think he's crying? Why?



Your wife was, but I made her feel better :tu

[Blake]

You're not even trying to hide your tears.

[SA210]

:cry:cry


:lol Stop your tears son, if u wanna keep getting destroyed go do it in that other topic that your e-bff troll started, and quit trying to sabotage this thread and every other thread you obsessively follow me around in.

[DisAsTerBot]

seriously, i like hearing and reading about different ends of the spectrum (politically). and SA210 i like reading some of the stuff you post, not the long youtubes but who does?, but when you freak out on people constantly it's really hard to take your position seriously. I know you feel cornered a lot so maybe that's why, just my opinion....

carry on...

[Winehole23]

cheap thrills for some, clearly.

[SA210]

seriously, i like hearing and reading about different ends of the spectrum (politically). and SA210 i like reading some of the stuff you post, not the long youtubes but who does?, but when you freak out on people constantly it's really hard to take your position seriously. I know you feel cornered a lot so maybe that's why, just my opinion....

carry on...


Tbh, I always post serious topics. That other thread has a history. Those guys (and many in this one) were always upset at my political views (because I called out liberals for not being liberal), so they wanted to personally attack me. Same guys that had no problem when I attacked Bush years ago in the same exact way lol. All I did was give them a taste of their own medicine in that troll thread. Now they wanna bring that trash into every thread I go in and sabotage every topic bc they are so hurt over it. This thread is a serious one, it should stay serious. :tu

[DisAsTerBot]

Tbh, I always post serious topics. That other thread has a history. Those guys (and many in this one) were always upset at my political views (because I called out liberals for not being liberal), so they wanted to personally attack me. All I did was give them a taste of their own medicine in that troll thread. Now they wanna bring that trash into every thread I go in and sabotage every topic bc they are so hurt over it. This thread is a serious one, it should stay serious. :tu

the erosion of our freedoms has been extremely troubling tbh

[SA210]

I agree ten fold :tu

[Blake]

Absolutely no tears from me. I don't follow you around. You aren't destroying anyone except yourself.

Your spam is garbage most of the time and gets in the way of facts and real talk.

You're a little kid that gets angry when someone disagrees. If you are going to be this thin skinned all the time, you really should just save yourself the tears and leave.

[SA210]

:cry I'm still a liar and can't stop my tears or stay on topic bc of my butthurt from other threads :cry

[Nbadan]

Absolutely no tears from me. I don't follow you around. You aren't destroying anyone except yourself.

Your spam is garbage most of the time and gets in the way of facts and real talk.

You're a little kid that gets angry when someone disagrees. If you are going to be this thin skinned all the time, you really should just save yourself the tears and leave.

SA210 brings it to the forum...If I don't like a topic, I don't post in it...it's that simple...

[Blake]

Tbh, I always post serious topics...... This thread is a serious one, it should stay serious. :tu


:lol Stop your tears son, if u wanna keep getting destroyed go do it in that other topic that your e-bff troll started, and quit trying to sabotage this thread and every other thread you obsessively follow me around in.

This is what SA210 brings to the forum.

I like this topic. I hate spam. I laugh at butthurt. It's that simple.

[SA210]

:cry:cry

You are the one that came in here with the butthurt, and lies too. Butthurt about me telling the truth about your messiah Obama, and exposing your bff :lol

You're so hurt you keep following me everywhere and ruining threads, being a troll all over the forum. This is a serious thread, you can just go back to the one your e-bff troll obsessively made for me and get trashed in there. lol

[Blake]

You are the one that came in here with the butthurt, and lies too. Butthurt about me telling the truth about your messiah Obama, and exposing your bff :lol

You're so hurt you keep following me everywhere and ruining threads, being a troll all over the forum. This is a serious thread, you can just go back to the one your e-bff troll obsessively made for me and get trashed in there. lol


This thread is a serious one, it should stay serious. :tu

You're a fucking idiot.

[SA210]

You're a fucking idiot.

lol meltdowns need to stay in other thread, go have your meltdown over there please

[Blake]

lol meltdowns need to stay in other thread, go have your meltdown over there please

that's another lie.

[SA210]

:cry I'm still so butthurt following sa210 around, trolling threads and going off topic, then lying about it :cry

[Capt Bringdown]

‘You’re My Best Friend,’ Says Obama To Drone That Appears Outside Bedroom Window Every Night >> (http://www.theonion.com/articles/youre-my-best-friend-says-obama-to-drone-that-appe,31594/)

WASHINGTON—White House sources confirmed that after hearing a gentle tap on his window Thursday evening, President Barack Obama stepped out onto the Truman balcony to meet with the predator drone that appears outside his bedroom every night at 9 p.m. “Ah, there you are, old friend; almost thought you weren’t coming tonight,” the President reportedly said to the unmanned aerial vehicle before affectionately patting its antenna dome, telling the drone that it was “truly good” to see it, and asking about who it killed that day. “You’re the only one that gets me, the only one I trust. It’s just you and me from here on out, old pal. You’re my best friend in the whole world.” After leaning in, sharing a private joke with the remotely controlled vehicle, and laughing heartily, sources confirmed that the president said “Go get ’em!” and quietly watched the drone fly off into the night sky.
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/21/21318/original/700.jpg?4981

[Winehole23]

^^^ so fits in this thread.

[SA210]

Hope/Change/Transparency

AF removes RPA airstrike number from summary


By Brian Everstine and Aaron Mehta - Staff writers
Posted : Friday Mar 8, 2013 12:34:50 EST

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/03/air-force-drone-airstrike-summary-030813/#.UTr3SldloZo.facebook

As scrutiny and debate over the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the American military increased last month, the Air Force reversed a policy of sharing the number of airstrikes launched from RPAs in Afghanistan and quietly scrubbed those statistics from previous releases kept on their website.

Last October, Air Force Central Command started tallying weapons releases from RPAs, broken down into monthly updates. At the time, AFCENT spokeswoman Capt. Kim Bender said the numbers would be put out every month as part of a service effort to “provide more detailed information on RPA ops in Afghanistan.”

The Air Force maintained that policy for the statistics reports for November, December and January. But the February numbers, released March 7, contained empty space where the box of RPA statistics had previously been.


Scrubbed

Click here to see the original December 2012 and January 2013 statistics and the ones apparently loaded online Feb. 22. (http://blogs.defensenews.com/saxotech-access/pdfs/dn-RPA-800)





Additionally, monthly reports hosted on the Air Force website have had the RPA data removed — and recently.

Those files still contained the RPA data as of Feb. 16, according to archived web pages accessed via Archive.org. Metadata included in the new, RPA-less versions of the reports show the files were all created Feb. 22.

Defense Department spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks said the department was not involved in the decision to remove the statistics. AFCENT did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The data removal coincided with increased scrutiny on RPA policy caused by President Barack Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Brennan faced opposition in the Senate over the use of RPAs and his defense of their legality in his role as Obama’s deputy national security adviser.

On Feb. 20, two days before the metadata indicates the scrubbed files were created, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to Brennan saying that he would filibuster the nomination over concerns about using RPA strikes inside the U.S., a threat he carried out for over 12 hours on March 6 (Brennan was confirmed the next day).

That same day, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., told a crowd in South Carolina that strikes by American RPAs have killed 4,700 people.

“Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qaida,” Graham was quoted by the Patch website as saying.

[Winehole23]

Every time you think the war on terror can't get any weirder, it does.


In the latest manifestation, White House officials are leaking to the news media that they are considering whether to use drone strikes to kill an unnamed American in Pakistan. This behavior is bizarre as a matter of national security: If a terrorist really poses an imminent threat, how exactly does the administration have time to test the political waters before taking him out? But it is the inevitable result of a more fundamental, long-term problem with the U.S.'s use of drone strikes. President Barack Obama's administration has kept secret the legal justification for such strikes on Americans, as well as the internal procedures to be followed in making the decision. The secrecy shrouds the drone program in a basic sense of illegitimacy. No wonder the administration feels it can’t just kill our enemies, but needs to send up trial balloons first: The whole program is operating under a bad legal conscience.


The backdrop to the current mess is the fundamental problem of secret legal opinions. In 2013, the Justice Department released a “white paper” -- not, it must be noted, a legal term -- vaguely explaining why it believed that it was constitutional and lawful to kill an American abroad if he or she was a “senior operational leader of al-Qaeda (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf).”


The white paper offered a kind of sketch or “framework” based on a secret Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that presumably provides the actual legal arguments on which the government relies in making such a momentous decision. But the memorandum itself has never been declassified: We have no idea what it really says, or whether the white paper accurately summarized its reasoning.


The white paper argued most prominently that a citizen's due-process rights are not violated when the drone kills him, as long as a “high-level” government official deems him an imminent threat, capture is infeasible, and the strike satisfies the international laws of war. This argument may sound reasonable enough on the surface, but looked at more closely, it's full of holes. “Imminent threat” is defined incredibly broadly, and on the assumption that some parts of al-Qaeda “continually” pose an imminent threat. The word “imminence” has an ordinary constitutional meaning -- something is imminent if it is likely to happen soon. The white paper turns that meaning on its head. It says, for example, that if the target has in the past planned attacks and has not resigned from al-Qaeda, the requirement of imminence is satisfied without evidence of, well, imminence.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/will-obama-kill-unknown-american-with-secret-memo-.html

[Spurtacular]

Furthermore, the memo declares that these Executive Branch decision will not be subject to any judicial oversight: “There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.”


:lmao Obama thinking he's above the law.

[Winehole23]

But in 2015, the Intercept publishes something called “The Drone Papers (https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/).” The Drone Papers were a secret cache of documents about the US drone program, given to the Intercept by an anonymous source (https://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/theres_a_new_edward_snowden_terrifying_abuses_of_d rone_program_exposed_by_anonymous_government_whist leblower/). So now we’re one year out from the raid against Mr. Hale.

Then in 2019–and you will now note we’re five years on—Daniel Hale was indicted under four counts under the Espionage Act and one count of theft of government property. And if you read the indictment (https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1161201/download), it accuses him of taking classified information about the drone program and giving it to a journalist.
https://fair.org/home/hales-crime-is-not-leaking-information-but-exposing-government-lies-about-the-drone-program/

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

[Spurtacular]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.

:lol Chiming in with sperm shielding. Some things remain(ed) the same.

Also :lol at the total psychopathy in that answer. Funny how all your fellow blue anons hate me calling you out on the obvious.

[Winehole23]

What did Daniel Hale give to the world? I mean, we hear “Espionage Act,” that sounds like a spy or a saboteur furnishing military secrets to a hostile enemy, troop movements to Al Qaeda or Putin, right? But no, he gave information to the Intercept about the US drone program that gave us an unprecedented look into the “kill chain (https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-kill-chain/),” right, the bureaucratic process by which people are basically chosen for summary execution by the president, showing they were culling data from the “terror watchlist (https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/).”

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Chiming in with sperm shielding. Some things remain(ed) the same.

Also :lol at the total psychopathy in that answer. Funny how all your fellow blue anons hate me calling you out on the obvious.

"Oh the humanity!"

How many times have you posted that little piece of psychopathy, derp?

100?

200?

Give me your ballpark figure.

[Spurtacular]

"Oh the humanity!"

How many times have you posted that little piece of psychopathy, derp?

100?

200?

Give me your ballpark figure.

:lol Do you really think you can can shame me for calling you out on on it?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Do you really think you can can shame me for calling you out on on it?

Are you folding again, derp?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

Are you folding again, derp?

Yes or no.

Moar flimflam.

[ChumpDumper]

Moar flimflam. You're folding again, derp.

Your own words made you fold:lmao

How does it feel?

[Winehole23]

Hale jailed ahead of sentencing.

Protip: don't leak to the Intercept unless you want to get caught.


Hale is set to be sentenced on July 13. He could be sentenced to anywhere from three to five years.


Under President Barack Obama’s administration, he helped expose the targeted assassination program, including drone warfare.

Hale pled guilty on March 31 to one charge of violating the Espionage Act, when he provided documents to Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill and anonymously wrote a chapter in Scahill’s book, The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program.


The guilty plea made Hale the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act during President Joe Biden’s administration.


Under President Barack Obama, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou was targeted in the Eastern District of Virginia with an Espionage Act prosecution. He wound up pleading guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in order to ensure he only went to prison for 30 months.
https://shadowproof.com/2021/05/05/drone-whistleblower-jailed-ahead-sentencing/

[Winehole23]

What did Daniel Hale give to the world? I mean, we hear “Espionage Act,” that sounds like a spy or a saboteur furnishing military secrets to a hostile enemy, troop movements to Al Qaeda or Putin, right? But no, he gave information to the Intercept about the US drone program that gave us an unprecedented look into the “kill chain (https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-kill-chain/),” right, the bureaucratic process by which people are basically chosen for summary execution by the president, showing they were culling data from the “terror watchlist (https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/).”1418340302755143685

[Winehole23]

45 months

1420073566276657156

[Winehole23]

Norms matter


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.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMIN22UXsAAOFt5?format=jpg&name=small

[Thread]

Norms matter



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMIN22UXsAAOFt5?format=jpg&name=small

America, Russia; six of one, half dozen of the other.

[pgardn]

Yep.

Obama thought this American would challenge him for the US presidency.
Btw.
The WESTERN press brought this up.
Does this happen in Russia, China, their press reports this stuff?
Nope.

[Thread]

Yep.

Obama thought this American would challenge him for the US presidency.
Btw.
The WESTERN press brought this up.
Does this happen in Russia, China, their press reports this stuff?
Nope.


America, Russia; six of one, half dozen of the other.

[pgardn]

Did Thread post a picture of Obama trying to assassinate Trump along with Madonna?
Or did he just post the video of Obama making Trump look like the biggest fool in the US.
If not, I will repost that video.


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

[Thread]

Did Thread post a picture of Obama trying to assassinate Trump along with Madonna?
Or did he just post the video of Obama making Trump look like the biggest fool in the US.
If not, I will repost that video.


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

...then Trump made President after Hussein swore to Hillary that it'd be her 8 years.

No.

[hitmanyr2k]

Did Thread post a picture of Obama trying to assassinate Trump along with Madonna?
Or did he just post the video of Obama making Trump look like the biggest fool in the US.
If not, I will repost that video.


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

I still remember this. Obama mocked Trump's reality TV persona and the ridiculous decisions he had to make and then to drive the point home ordered the Seal Team 6 MDK of Bin Laden the same day. Dude went from savaging Trump to savaging Bin Laden within 24 hours :lol In hindsight he got rid of one terrorist and created another.

[Thread]

I still remember this. Obama mocked Trump's reality TV persona and the ridiculous decisions he had to make and then to drive the point home ordered the Seal Team 6 MDK of Bin Laden the same day. Dude went from savaging Trump to savaging Bin Laden within 24 hours :lol In hindsight he got rid of one terrorist and created another.


...on spec. That's gonna be a problem come Judgment Day..."not all will be treated the same."

[Ef-man]

Did Thread post a picture of Obama trying to assassinate Trump along with Madonna?
Or did he just post the video of Obama making Trump look like the biggest fool in the US.
If not, I will repost that video.


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

That was the moment Obama pushed Yam Tits shit in so hard that Yam Tits has not attended a White House Correspondent Dinner since. :lmao

[Spurs Homer]

That was the moment Obama pushed Yam Tits shit in so hard that Yam Tits has not attended a White House Correspondent Dinner since. :lmao

In one of those roasts - a comedian said,

"i invited president trump, i wanted him to be here and i tried to get him here - but apparently - president trump is the ONLY PUSSY you aren't allowed to grab!"


:lmao

[Thread]

In one of those roasts - a comedian said,

"i invited president trump, i wanted him to be here and i tried to get him here - but apparently - president trump is the ONLY PUSSY you aren't allowed to grab!"


:lmao

That was just because he'd made President, Homer, and won't quit, ever. It's his religion.

[Thread]

That was the moment Obama pushed Yam Tits shit in so hard that Yam Tits has not attended a White House Correspondent Dinner since. :lmao

And Hussein has been running as fast as he can and eatin' do-do ever since Trump set Clinton's top rung on that curb..."Now, say good night."

That was her 8 years that Hussein had guaranteed Hillary.
Uh, uh.
No.