Drone documents case: federal appeals court rules against CIA

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0315/Drone-documents-case-federal-appeals-court-rules-against-CIA?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem


A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents related to the use of drone aircraft in targeted killings overseas.

The CIA had initially responded to the Jan. 2010 FOIA request by stating that it would neither confirm not deny the existence of any documents at the agency related to the secret program.

A federal judge accepted the argument and dismissed the FOIA request in Sept. 2011.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the request, appealed.

The appeals court decision sends the case back to federal court where the CIA will be required to present a list of documents potentially relevant to the ACLU’s request.

The decision doesn’t mean the ACLU will necessarily gain access to any or all documents.

But the decision is significant in a broader way.

“This is an important victory. It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIA’s interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the program’s scope and legal basis,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said, in statement.

“It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them,” Mr. Jaffer said.

More at above link.

And good job by the ACLU.

[Jacob1983]

Where are the Obama lovers and supporters on this?

[SA210]

^^ They are pretending it isn't happening, or making excuses on why it has to happen, or don't even know it's happening, but if they did know, many of them still wouldn't care..



https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/734013_4947495048522_249693416_n.jpg

[Winehole23]

of course, the prospect of even minimal accountability for the government means far less to SA210 than using the issue as a club to bash the Dems.

[SA210]

of course, the prospect of even minimal accountability for the government means far less to SA210 than using the issue as a club to bash the Dems.


Your lies just keep getting worse. While I will continue to bash the Dems for having no back-bone and for allowing such a program to proceed to begin with, and IGNORING the issue during the election for political reasons, I am first and foremost for government accountability. That's why I bash the corrupt spineless Dems. Same as I bashed Republicans when they were in the White House. But you know, keep lying, or purposely misunderstanding my point of view. Any reason to try disagreeing with me, I know.

[Winehole23]

the flame war and name-calling clearly come first with you; principle is a mere afterthought.

[SA210]

the flame war and name-calling clearly come first with you; principle is a mere afterthought.

More lies :rolleyes Obviously your flame war continues

[Wild Cobra]

Any word from president Obombalot on this yet?

[Winehole23]

it'd not be considered appropriate for any president to comment on legal disputes to which the USG is a party, beyond broad expressions of agreement or disappointment.

[ChumpDumper]

lol SA210's unnecessary escalation meltdown

[SA210]

:cry:cry My meltdown and stalking e-grudge continues! I can't quit SA210! I can't stop my lies!! :cry:cry

[ChumpDumper]

the flame war and name-calling clearly come first with you; principle is a mere afterthought.

[SA210]

:cry:cry SA210 owned me in that other thread so badly that I must follow him around and try ruining all other threads he's in for revenge, oh wait I always do this... I report people for doing these same things. Why can't I get over this butthurt and stop my lies?!! :cry:cry

[SA210]

:lmao @ chump quoting someone else to notify them that he needs help, again. Keep your meltdown and e-grudge in the appropriate thread, troll. lol

[Winehole23]

we can't prevent other countries from deploying drones, and our present policy sets the example for their legitimate use. when we find ourselves on the receiving end of drone attacks, expect the tone to change.


The proliferation of drone technology has moved well beyond the control of the United States government and its closest allies. The aircraft are too easy to obtain, with barriers to entry on the production side crumbling too quickly to place limits on the spread of a technology that promises to transform warfare on a global scale. Already, more than 75 countries have remote piloted aircraft. More than 50 nations are building a total of nearly a thousand types. At its last display at a trade show in Beijing, China showed off 25 different unmanned aerial vehicles. Not toys or models, but real flying machines.


It’s a classic and common phase in the life cycle of a military innovation: An advanced country and its weapons developers create a tool, and then others learn how to make their own. But what makes this case rare, and dangerous, is the powerful combination of efficiency and lethality spreading in an environment lacking internationally accepted guidelines on legitimate use. This technology is snowballing through a global arena where the main precedent for its application is the one set by the United States; it’s a precedent Washington does not want anyone following.http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321

[Winehole23]

NYT: Obama cites a Nixonian precedent (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/opinion/obamas-nixonian-precedent.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Your lies just keep getting worse. While I will continue to bash the Dems for having no back-bone and for allowing such a program to proceed to begin with, and IGNORING the issue during the election for political reasons, I am first and foremost for government accountability. That's why I bash the corrupt spineless Dems. Same as I bashed Republicans when they were in the White House. But you know, keep lying, or purposely misunderstanding my point of view. Any reason to try disagreeing with me, I know.
:lmao what are Democratic voters supposed to do exactly? Vote for Willard Romney instead? He'd be running the same exact drone programs Obama runs but in addition would be starting a multi-trillion dollar war in Iran.

[SA210]

:lol ^^ You mean the same war drums the current administration is also beating on Iran? The Dems could have held his feet to the fire and had a backbone, but he wears a D, so they didn't. He has already murdered at least 3 American citizens with no due process at all, that we know of, and they let him get away with it. But of course you already know all this, sellout.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao @ chump quoting someone else to notify them that he needs help, again. Keep your meltdown and e-grudge in the appropriate thread, troll. lolUm, you've done the same thing dozens of times, so thanks for admitting you cry for help all the time, I guess.

I just thought it was a good line. No help needed.

[SA210]

:yawn:

[boutons_deux]

Drone Warfare: Neither Cheap, Nor Surgical, Nor Decisive

www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175665/

[ChumpDumper]

:yawn:

[SA210]

Exactly :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly :tu

[Galileo]

A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_o f_u_s_citizens.html

[Wild Cobra]

NYT: Obama cites a Nixonian precedent (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/opinion/obamas-nixonian-precedent.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&)
You're joking. Anyone buying that argument?

Nixon and South Viet Nam, over just a short period, attacked 40,000 Viet Cong troops in Cambodia. We aren't talking about individial low to medium profile targets like Obomba is going after. This only lasted 14 months. Not a continuous process.

Largely buried in history? No it wasn't. I remember it, and the details are easily searched.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-majRHxMNXUA/UOn6NG-fh0I/AAAAAAAAC78/L3Nw0PNrn2c/s320/Happy100thBDayNixon-addressCambodiaBombings1969.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, if like the link says, it secretly began a year earlier, then Johnson started it. Not Nixon. It would be Nixon that told the public.

The NY Slimes...

Really now...

[Winehole23]

The NYT mentions that the bombings started under Johnson.

RIF . . .

[Wild Cobra]

The NYT mentions that the bombings started under Johnson.

RIF . . .
You are pretty bad with timelines, aren't you.

4/30/69, Nixon tells the public about bombing Cambodia. It was probably no secret when the first attack was under his watch.

The Slimes:


ON March 17, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon began a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia


They cited as historical authority a speech given May 28, 1970, by John R. Stevenson, then the top lawyer for the State Department, following the United States’ invasion of Cambodia.

They can't get the history correct. They are using May '70 for when the public was told, saying it was secret a year earlier, when Nixon told the world om March '69.

When will you people learn not to trust the NY Slimes?

[Wild Cobra]

The NYT mentions that the bombings started under Johnson.

RIF . . .
Yes, in '65.

Now that on is a shocker!

It wasn't until the 40,000 troops massed on the southern border of S. Viet Nam that we needed to attack.

[ChumpDumper]

So the Times was correct.

[Wild Cobra]

So the Times was correct.
Typical Chump.

Get one item right or wrong, and the rest applies is the same.

Go away troll.

[ChumpDumper]

But the Times was correct.

[Winehole23]

You are pretty bad with timelines, aren't you.

4/30/69, Nixon tells the public about bombing Cambodia. It was probably no secret when the first attack was under his watch.

The Slimes:





They can't get the history correct. They are using May '70 for when the public was told, saying it was secret a year earlier, when Nixon told the world om March '69.

When will you people learn not to trust the NY Slimes?according to your own cite, Nixon didn't tell the public until April 30, 1969.

are you having trouble following your own timeline?

[ChumpDumper]

You are pretty bad with timelines, aren't you.

4/30/69, Nixon tells the public about bombing Cambodia. It was probably no secret when the first attack was under his watch.

The Slimes:





They can't get the history correct. They are using May '70 for when the public was told, saying it was secret a year earlier, when Nixon told the world om March '69.

When will you people learn not to trust the NY Slimes?From the Nixon Library timeline:

March 17 (Eastern Standard Time) [1969]
Nixon orders secret bombings of Cambodia to destroy North Vietnamese supply routes and base camps, commencing with "Operation Breakfast."

http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/thetimes/timeline/index.php#1969

April 30 [1970]
Announces the launching of military attacks on enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia

http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/thetimes/timeline/index.php#1970

So the writer of the Times Op-Ed was correct.

[Winehole23]

looks like WC fudged the wikipedia cite.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/NixononCambodia.jpg/220px-NixononCambodia.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NixononCambodia.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf12/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NixononCambodia.jpg)
On 30 April 1970, President Nixon announced the attack into Cambodia. In a televised address to the nation, he justified it as a necessary response to North Vietnamese aggression


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign

[ElNono]

Slime Cobra, tbh

[Winehole23]

bias, self-certainty and tortured interpretation are more or less tolerable, but intentional deception works my nerve.

(smh)

[ChumpDumper]

You're joking. Anyone buying that argument?

Nixon and South Viet Nam, over just a short period, attacked 40,000 Viet Cong troops in Cambodia. We aren't talking about individial low to medium profile targets like Obomba is going after. This only lasted 14 months. Not a continuous process.

Largely buried in history? No it wasn't. I remember it, and the details are easily searched.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-majRHxMNXUA/UOn6NG-fh0I/AAAAAAAAC78/L3Nw0PNrn2c/s320/Happy100thBDayNixon-addressCambodiaBombings1969.jpg


You are pretty bad with timelines, aren't you.

4/30/69, Nixon tells the public about bombing Cambodia. It was probably no secret when the first attack was under his watch.

The Slimes:


ON March 17, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon began a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia

They cited as historical authority a speech given May 28, 1970, by John R. Stevenson, then the top lawyer for the State Department, following the United States’ invasion of Cambodia.
They can't get the history correct. They are using May '70 for when the public was told, saying it was secret a year earlier, when Nixon told the world om March '69.

When will you people learn not to trust the NY Slimes?OK, I see what happened here.

Rather than trust the NY "Slimes" op-ed written by a professor of law who specializes in the historical aspects of law during wartime, Wild Cobra decided to go all in citing the caption of a blog picture posted by a woman who is the webmaster of PaintingBallerina.com.

http://myblog.allthingsdigitalmarketing.com/2013/01/family-and-friends-celebrate-centennial.html

This, my friends, is the face of your pwnage:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dnx5DSXM0hY/THK_yuXjjuI/AAAAAAAAAIA/-6g8rmBujL8/S220/08142010-009-GloriaNewProfilePhoto.jpg

Look upon her and despair.

Also, hit her up if you are looking for an apartment in the Big Apple.

http://nycapartmentskd.com/

Better than the Slimes real estate section tbh.

[Winehole23]

Good sleuthing, there.

WC: I'm sorry I said you were being deceptive. Turns out you were counting on an unreliable source.

Will you admit now that the NYT was right?

[SA210]

bias, self-certainty and tortured interpretation are more or less tolerable, but intentional deception works my nerve.

(smh)


Obama must be workin your nerves a lot then I see.

[Wild Cobra]

It does appear the date in my photo is a year off, however, it was public knowledge we were operating in Cambodia in 1969. I clearly remember this preceded the Apollo 11 moon landing.

If anyone has Nexus, maybe they can find the dates. That is if it recorded all news events with an easy to find index before digital storage.

Now I would like you to consider the speech the graphic is on. He does not say we started a campaign against Cambodia, but announces a major operation against the North Vietnam forces in Cambodia.

3cAAnoqmksg

This is just Nixon's first speech on the subject I can find. It doesn't mean it was "secret" before the announcement.

[Wild Cobra]

Though I couldn't find the article itself, there is a 5/9/69 article by the NY Times referenced by other links, that addresses the bombing in Cambodia.

Secret, my ass...

[Winehole23]

Obama must be workin your nerves a lot then I see.yeah, he does. you see my cite from the NYT upstream?

[Winehole23]

Though I couldn't find the article itself, there is a 5/9/69 article by the NY Times referenced by other links, that addresses the bombing in Cambodia.

Secret, my ass...again, this was addressed in the article. the bombing was reported by journalists in 1969, but Nixon denied it (i.e., lied) for a year.

[Wild Cobra]

again, this was addressed in the article. the bombing was reported by journalists in 1969, but Nixon denied it (i.e., lied) for a year.
Can you show me a 1969 article where he denied it?

I remember much of 1969. The war, my uncle home on leave staying with us, playing chess with him and my father, the talks of war and the space missions...

[Winehole23]

lemme get this straight: you're denying that Nixon denied bombing Cambodia?

[TeyshaBlue]

omfg...only WC and boutons double down on retarded takes.

[ChumpDumper]

Though I couldn't find the article itself, there is a 5/9/69 article by the NY Times referenced by other links, that addresses the bombing in Cambodia.

Secret, my ass...It was secret, then somebody found out about it.

May 1969
Nixon orders FBI wiretaps to track the sources of leaks revealing secret bombings of Cambodia.


http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/thetimes/timeline/index.php#1969

Every fact in the NYT op-ed was correct. Live with it.


the details are easily searched.

[Winehole23]

Texas related: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/03/arlington-pd-embraces-drones-gets-faa.html

[Wild Cobra]

lemme get this straight: you're denying that Nixon denied bombing Cambodia?
It could be that he did. I would like to see a link on it however. I was trying to recall more of the time I spend with my father and uncle in '69. It could be he was in a position of knowing such secrets he wasn't suppose to speak of, but did to his brother. He was in the Air Force since the Korean war. He had rank and worked a unique position related to 3D mapping of the earth. Very likely helpful for bombing.

[ChumpDumper]

http://cat.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

[Jacob1983]

I want some celebrity that is an Obama koolaid drinker to step up to the plate and denounce Obama's nuthugging of drones.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you care so much about celebrities?

[Jacob1983]

It's not about me. It's the whole monkey see, monkey do aspect of it. If mindless Obama koolaid drinkers see Oprah, Will Smith, Eva Longoria, Beyonce, Tina Fey, or Jon Stewart bashing Obama on drones then they will follow suit.

This shit just makes me laugh. Bush waterboarded people and liberals bitched about it 24/7. Obama orders drone attacks that kill babies and little kids and people want to know who he has in the Final Four. It's a fuckin' joke.

[SA210]

It's not about me. It's the whole monkey see, monkey do aspect of it. If mindless Obama koolaid drinkers see Oprah, Will Smith, Eva Longoria, Beyonce, Tina Fey, or Jon Stewart bashing Obama on drones then they will follow suit.

This shit just makes me laugh. Bush waterboarded people and liberals bitched about it 24/7. Obama orders drone attacks that kill babies and little kids and people want to know who he has in the Final Four. It's a fuckin' joke.



:tu Some of the realist words ever spoken in here. +1

[Winehole23]

you like to hear an echo. I'm not sure you hear anything else.

[Winehole23]

boutons and jacob. you can keep em.

[boutons_deux]

I want some celebrity that is an Obama koolaid drinker to step up to the plate and denounce Obama's nuthugging of drones.

not me, but would you demand the same if Bishop Gecko was using drones to murder all over the planet?

[symple19]

NYT: Obama cites a Nixonian precedent (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/opinion/obamas-nixonian-precedent.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&)

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

It's not about me. It's the whole monkey see, monkey do aspect of it. If mindless Obama koolaid drinkers see Oprah, Will Smith, Eva Longoria, Beyonce, Tina Fey, or Jon Stewart bashing Obama on drones then they will follow suit. So you're just upset that celebrities don't influence people the way you want them to.

Wrongheaded imo.

[boutons_deux]

It's not about me. It's the whole monkey see, monkey do aspect of it. If mindless Obama koolaid drinkers see Oprah, Will Smith, Eva Longoria, Beyonce, Tina Fey, or Jon Stewart bashing Obama on drones then they will follow suit.

This shit just makes me laugh. Bush waterboarded people and liberals bitched about it 24/7. Obama orders drone attacks that kill babies and little kids and people want to know who he has in the Final Four. It's a fuckin' joke.

There's plenty of objection to drone murders in the liberal/progressive area.

Never heard any right-wingers here bitch about dubya blowing away Afghanistan wedding parties several times, 10s of people killed each time, nor right-wing outcry about the ongoing cancer, birth defects, etc among Iraqi civilians in Falluja and other depleted uranium bomb targers, just like the US Empire shitted decades of disease into VN.

[ChumpDumper]

And I don't get the faux outrage over the killing of innocents in the pursuit of greater war aims. The US got over that permanently in WWII.

[Wild Cobra]

There's plenty of objection to drone murders in the liberal/progressive area.

Never heard any right-wingers here bitch about dubya blowing away Afghanistan wedding parties several times, 10s of people killed each time, nor right-wing outcry about the ongoing cancer, birth defects, etc among Iraqi civilians in Falluja and other depleted uranium bomb targers, just like the US Empire shitted decades of disease into VN.
Wedding parties?

I thought it was only one. Besides, it was out in the open. All there were involved with the target. Not a great way to do things, but everyone knows if you hang out with criminals, you may have some blow-back on you.

These attacks Obomba's conducting are killing people who have no involvement with the target. In another country, not considered a war zone. Repeatedly. This should be considered manslaughter at international levels.

This would be like launching an attack on you next door neighbor, and killing you too.

[ChumpDumper]

These attacks Obomba's conducting are killing people who have no involvement with the target. In another country, not considered a war zone. Repeatedly. This should be considered manslaughter at international levels.So you naturally want Bush treated the same way, right?

[Wild Cobra]

So you naturally want Bush treated the same way, right?
Have you looked at the trend and frequency? There is a serious difference in the usage of drone attacks by president. There is obviously a different standard used between them. Bush was very conservative of his drone usage. Obomba is very liberal in using them.

I say Obomba doesn't give a shit about the innocent life around the target. I say he is a criminal.

[ChumpDumper]

Have you looked at the trend and frequency? There is a serious difference in the usage of drone attacks by president. There is obviously a different standard used between them. Bush was very conservative of his drone usage. Obomba is very liberal in using them.

I say Obomba doesn't give a shit about the innocent life around the target. I say he is a criminal.Do you think what Bush did should be considered "manslaughter at international levels" like Obama?

Yes or no.

[SA210]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/45245_592467910765979_263591860_n.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/45245_592467910765979_263591860_n.jpg

LOL...

Where is the liberal outrage of drones, which kill innocents rather than make enemies uncomfortable?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think what Bush did should be considered "manslaughter at international levels" like Obama?

Yes or no.
You are dumber than I thought if you think such a complex thing can be summed up to "yes" or "no."

Do you have a particular incident referring to Bush's drone usage to consider?

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

Where is the liberal outrage of drones, which kill innocents rather than make enemies uncomfortable?

You don't go where I do. There's PLENTY of progressives and liberals who object to drone assassinations, as I do.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't go where I do. There's PLENTY of progressives and liberals who object to drone assassinations, as I do.
Why don't I hear it in the news, like I did waterboarding?

[ChumpDumper]

You are dumber than I thought if you think such a complex thing can be summed up to "yes" or "no."Your answer was a quick, unqualified "yes" for Obama. Why are you hesitating now?


Do you have a particular incident referring to Bush's drone usage to consider?You didn't present one when you accused Obama of manslaughter. Why do you need one for Bush?

[Winehole23]

@WC: a quick search of this forum would disclose no small number of drone related threads, almost all of them based on internet, print or TV news.

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't I hear it in the news, like I did waterboarding?Because you're willfully ignorant.

[Winehole23]

by my casual count there are 20+ threads in this forum dedicated in the subject line to Obama's use of UAVs, almost all of them based on news reporting of some kind.

[SA210]

:lol We all know damn well when you turn the tv on, MSNBC, CNN, ABC NEWS, CBS, etc doesn't talk about Obama's drones, war crimes, and lies anywhere near the coverage they had on water-boarding, Bush criticism's, etc. Some issues, not at all.

They even ignored the issue completely during the election, purposely, although they knew it had been going on at a horribly accelerated rate. Now it's on TV here and there, but they still hardly get down to specifics such as the 16 year old murdered American boy, or they have some so called expert change the subject about it and give a bs excuse where the rest of the panel agrees with the schmuck and the dumb American audience is fooled, yet again. Fox ignored it because they love war, but now try attacking Obama on it bc they don't like him. I don't agree with Rand on many things, but he was right to Filibuster. If anything.. newspapers, and the independent media have done a better job. TV is who really influences the masses, and they've done a great job at letting the President get away with murder, literally.

lol msm

[Winehole23]

here's a link to a Bill Moyers TV interview from 2009: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128138&highlight=bill+moyers+drones

[Winehole23]

suggesting the MSM doesn't cover it is simply wrong. it's where you get most of your supporting links, SA210.

[Winehole23]

I could go on all day, but you wouldn't listen.

ta

[ChumpDumper]

How much TV coverage do people who bitch about TV coverage actually watch?

[SA210]

suggesting the MSM doesn't cover it is simply wrong. it's where you get most of your supporting links, SA210.


If you claim to not like dishonesty, why do you continue to be dishonest?

The point was that the coverage is very weak in comparison to the coverage of Bush. That is a fact. You know they ignored it during the election too, that's not by mistake, these issues ignored in the debates too, also NOT by mistake.

Obama is murdering Americans with illegal secret laws and taking away due process, throwing whistleblowers in prison while protecting Wall Street and the torturers, bailing out Wall Street from their crimes, just signed a bill protecting Monsanto, expanded wars into other countries when he campaigned on ending these types of wars, I too can go on and on.

Considering all that crime, lies and murder, and no transparency that he promised, the coverage is weak, it's garbage, and when they do cover it, it gets spun most of the time or it gets covered very shortly.

Major difference between that, and the lynching they gave Bush (and he deserved it), but since it's Obama and he wears a D, and he's the Messiah they made up, we all make excuses now.

I have posted a few Maddow/MSNBC stories, but most are newspaper, The Young Turks, Benn Swann or RT. Because they cover what most of TV won't. And they are consistent.

You know darn well, if this were Bush doing these things, it would be covered everyday, almost 24/7. Not just a story here and there. Be honest about that. No way Bush murders American with drones without due process with a secret kill list and the msm wouldn't be talking impeachment, treason, etc. No way.

[ChumpDumper]

If you claim to not like dishonesty, why do you continue to be dishonest?

The point was that the coverage is very weak in comparison to the coverage of Bush. That is a fact.Prove it.
You know they ignored it during the election too, that's not by mistake, these issues ignored in the debates too, also NOT by mistake.Both candidates pretty much agreed on the prosecution of the war. Beyond that, what was there to talk about?

[SA210]

Prove it.Both candidates pretty much agreed on the prosecution of the war. Beyond that, what was there to talk about?


I'm wasn't talking to you, troll. But to answer the question, they had a responsibility to talk about the drone program and assassinations of Americans, NDAA, etc.
The networks had a responsibility to ask those questions.

Even Gibbs admitted he was told to not even acknowledge the program. So mush for transparency.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm wasn't talking to you, troll.It's OK. It was largely rhetorical. I doubt anyone thinks you could actually prove it tbh.

[boutons_deux]

SA210 pushing the old bullshit about liberal media biased against dubya and excusing Barry.

the entire press really, really beat up and questioned dubya and his back-burner-ing of Afghanistan to lie his way into Iraq. :lol

[SA210]

It's OK. It was largely rhetorical. I doubt anyone thinks you could actually prove it tbh.

Well, I answerd your 2nd question, whether you agree with it or not. The first question is bs, you are a liar and you know the truth. But thanks for trying to ask a question that you can try spinning for pages and pages. :tu You do a great service for talking about what's truly important, not.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I answerd your 2nd question, whether you agree with it or not. The first question is bs, you are a liar and you know the truth.Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Prove it.

Not rhetorical.

[SA210]

SA210 pushing the old bullshit about liberal media biased against dubya and excusing Barry.

the entire press really, really beat up and questioned dubya and his back-burner-ing of Afghanistan to lie his way into Iraq. :lol

No, they helped him start the war of course, but later when all wanted "change", they torched him and built Obama as the Messiah who would never do the things we are talking about in this thread. And just bc you say it's an old argument to say the liberal media backs the liberal candidate doesn't mean it isn't true. Fox sucks too. I'm not defending them, but I can call a duck a duck.

[SA210]

Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Prove it.

Not rhetorical.

There is the troll attempt for the pages and pages of nonsense. :lol Nothing to prove tbh. You already know it's true, and you are a liar. The end :tu

[ChumpDumper]

There is the troll attempt for the pages and pages of nonsense. :lol Nothing to prove tbh. You already know it's true, and you are a liar. The end :tuNo, I don't know that it's true. I don't know the total TV coverage of either issue. Just knowing you posted it makes me question its veracity. Your refusal to even attempt proving it doesn't help you at all either.

Now you're just trying to shut down a perfectly valid challenge to your assertions with ad hominems and general whining. Not unexpected.

[SA210]

You do know, you are just a liar. It's not something that needs to be researched or proven, it's basic common knowledge. You lie about not knowing such things, that's not unexpected. Instead of talking about dead innocent kids, his lies about ending wars, lies about transparency, his campaign lies, and the obvious common known truth that msm TV gives him a pass and did so during election time, you'd rather waste your life arguing nonsense and sidetracking from more important issues.

That is not unexpected from you. I have no interest in playing your games right now on an issue that you actually know to be true and you will just keep lying about it. This issue is too important to play games with a little troll. Find another playmate, if you can't I can only assume you are still sprung for me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The major publishers as well as the libertarians and more left wing all have been vocal against drone strikes. Rand Paul as well as a group of Democratic senators were all big news lately. Obama has been mocked about it because he dodged the inquiries for most of a year.

The US cleric in Yemen and his son that they killed were all huge news and every ACLU filing and Senate inquiry has been plastered.

The dead kid thing is just typical propaganda everytime there is some collateral damage. It's been true of every was since photographs were invented. War is hell goes the cliche. If you believe that there are people in those locations planning military strike in our country then we are compelled in my view to act. People die.

The MSM fearmongering that far right radio and shitty youtube productions tries and portray is what is dishonest. While it draws you into their 'us vs. them' bullshit it is still bullshit. TV news is entertainment news ie ratings driven. If you don't like pop news I recommend reading.

[rjv]

i personally do not think that drone warfare should be politicized but of course it has been (more so by the right as their opposition seems more disingenuous). nevertheless, drones are the next major moral issue of war-today'd version of dresden or hiroshima (or nuclear weapons), with the same potential for very dire consequences that the latter has always presented.

[Jacob1983]

I only want Obama to be criticized and bashed as harshly as Bush was. Bush used waterboarding and torture. Obama uses drones that kill little kids and babies yet there is no outrage. That's not equal. I thought liberals were suppose to be about tolerance and equality. I'm not seeing equality and tolerance.

[Winehole23]

there's a lot you don't see. maybe you should open your eyes a little wider.

[Wild Cobra]

@WC: a quick search of this forum would disclose no small number of drone related threads, almost all of them based on internet, print or TV news.
Yes, there are sources reporting it. Just not as prevalent as sources that reported any suspected wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

Are you trying to say you don't see the bias?

[Wild Cobra]

here's a link to a Bill Moyers TV interview from 2009: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128138&highlight=bill+moyers+drones
A commentary program. Not a major news program.

[Wild Cobra]

I never said it wasn't in the media anywhere. I said "why don't I hear it in the news, like I did waterboarding?"

What does the qualifier "like I did" mean to you?

What does "news" mean to you?

Do you consider the Bill Moyers Journal a news program? It's commentary, isn't it?

[Winehole23]

Yes, there are sources reporting it. Just not as prevalent as sources that reported any suspected wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

Are you trying to say you don't see the bias?I see plenty of bias -- both ways. The tabloidization of the press is a fait accompli.

Whatever your bias is, there's a news outlet that caters to it. It's been this way for about 15 years now.

[Winehole23]

Bush got more grief because he botched two unnecessary wars and was horrible at PR. Simple as that.

[Winehole23]

A commentary program. Not a major news program.TV news commentary with a liberal tilt, calling Obama out on drones in 2009. Some bias there, eh?

What was the phrase, "old wine in a new bottle?"

[Winehole23]

Do you consider the Bill Moyers Journal a news program? It's commentary, isn't it?All news is commentary.

[Winehole23]

Bill Moyers has done plenty of news gathering and investigation, if that's what you mean. More on the NOW program than Bill Moyers journal.

Dunno, seems you're splitting hairs to me.

[Wild Cobra]

I see plenty of bias -- both ways. The tabloidization of the press is a fait accompli.

Whatever your bias is, there's a news outlet that caters to it. It's been this way for about 15 years now.
Well, what I see is that the majority of news programs have been favorable to treating Obomba with a soft touch, while attack Bush for any little thing they could.

I beginning to thing I have to emphasis words, and you think they don't have meaning.

Just how many viewers did the PBS program , The Bill Moyers Journal, have anyway? What are the majority of people watching news programs seeing? How many other programs that you seem to think constitute as news, is critical of Obomba's drone usage?

[Winehole23]

Bush used waterboarding and torture. Obama uses drones that kill little kids and babies yet there is no outrage.you're wrong about that. you can find plenty on this board and in the press, if you care to look for it.

[Winehole23]

btw, the Obama bashing in the press started before he was inaugurated and hasn't let up. the idea that Obama has gotten a free ride is delusional.

[Wild Cobra]

Bill Moyers has done plenty of news gathering and investigation, if that's what you mean. More on the NOW program than Bill Moyers journal.

Dunno, seems you're splitting hairs to me.
Still, what do the majority of Americans see when they look at their normal programs of their normal day to day habits. This is what I refer to, as being heavily biased.

[Wild Cobra]

btw, the Obama bashing in the press started before he was inaugurated and hasn't let up. the idea that Obama has gotten a free ride is delusional.
LOL...

The bashing he gets isn't much at all. I wish he would be treated as badly by the press as they treated Bush.

[Winehole23]

Well, what I see is that the majority of news programs have been favorable to treating Obomba with a soft touch, while attack Bush for any little thing they could.

I beginning to thing I have to emphasis words, and you think they don't have meaning.

Just how many viewers did the PBS program , The Bill Moyers Journal, have anyway? What are the majority of people watching news programs seeing? How many other programs that you seem to think constitute as news, is critical of Obomba's drone usage?I don't rely on the TV news and seldom watch it. I couldn't really give a fuck about the dumbshits who expect the TV to spoon feed them what they need to know. The information is out there for anyone who wants to know.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't rely on the TV news and seldom watch it. I couldn't really give a fuck about the dumbshits who expect the TV to spoon feed them what they need to know. The information is out there for anyone who wants to know.
You and I are different than the general public.

Think about what the majority sees.

[Winehole23]

I tend to doubt the TV news hasn't covered it, WC. Have you checked anything besides your own fuzzy recollection of what you think you've seen and haven't seen on TV?

[Winehole23]

You and I are different than the general public.

Think about what the majority sees.What do they see?

[ChumpDumper]

You do know, you are just a liar. It's not something that needs to be researched or proven, it's basic common knowledge. You lie about not knowing such things, that's not unexpected. Instead of talking about dead innocent kids, his lies about ending wars, lies about transparency, his campaign lies, and the obvious common known truth that msm TV gives him a pass and did so during election time, you'd rather waste your life arguing nonsense and sidetracking from more important issues.

That is not unexpected from you. I have no interest in playing your games right now on an issue that you actually know to be true and you will just keep lying about it. This issue is too important to play games with a little troll. Find another playmate, if you can't I can only assume you are still sprung for me.Look, I know you are angry when you use so many words and say basically nothing. You can't prove what you asserted, and no -- I have no way of knowing this because I don't watch every TV news program every day the way you imply you do. Furthermore, I don't believe the network TV news audience is what you think it is.

I simply don't believe you do what you imply here.

That said, there are other ways of finding out such information. You are simply too lazy to even try to investigate such avenues. You are content to do what you always do, resort to personal insults and insist everyone everywhere enjoy smelling your farts the way you enjoy smelling your own farts.

It won't happen. Tough shit for you.

Grow a pair and back up what you say.

[Winehole23]

LOL...

The bashing he gets isn't much at all. I wish he would be treated as badly by the press as they treated Bush.Kenyan Muslim Marxist destroying the American way of life. From day one. that's been in the press too.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

The bashing he gets isn't much at all. I wish he would be treated as badly by the press as they treated Bush.Seeing as you have gone through great pains to excuse Bush for what you characterize as manslaughter, forgive us if we don't consider you to be bias free here.

[SA210]

:cry I'm a liar, I make things up like a little girl all the time and project it onto others, I have no life. :cry

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you just proved me right here.

Thanks, I guess.

Keep sniffing.

[SA210]

Still on these nuts lol

[ChumpDumper]

I understand you can't talk about the topic anymore.

Not the first time tbh.

[Winehole23]

prefers name calling and homoerotically tinged banter to topical conversation, clearly

[Winehole23]

easy as counting the posts in any given thread. how many are topical and how many are devoted to gay baiting and name calling?

isn't even a contest, tbh.

[SA210]

prefers name calling and homoerotically tinged banter to topical conversation, clearly

You both like lying about the msm TV News and how they protect Obama, and you like sucking Chumps tit when he tries trolling, even knowing that you both are lying.

But by all means get back to dead murdered babies and how the msm TV News gives the Prez a pass on that and on many issues. Talk about how these issues were ignored completely during the election and the debates. Oh that's right, that's the one that's too real and true for you, so it's subject changing time for you guys again, I know. Spinning the issue and 2009 PBS link time! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

We were talking about exactly what you were talking about. I don't watch network TV news and I seriously don't think you ever watched enough to make the blanket statement you made. It was pretty clearly unsubstantiated and when asked you confirmed that with your ad hominems. You did nothing but put a finer point on the fact that you were talking out of your ass. Getting angry about it and trying to change the subject that you brought up in the first place won't change that.

Neither will emoticons.

[SA210]

easy as counting the posts in any given thread. how many are topical and how many are devoted to gay baiting and name calling?

isn't even a contest, tbh.

You are lying again WH. Without counting Chumps butthurt fued against me in those other threads recently where I trolled the troll for his troll attempt, I'm usually pretty serious and post important topics in here. Mr 74k post count troll is the name caller, and that's pretty well known here. It isn't even a contest, tbh. 74k posts and several years to back that up.

Keep up the lies though :tu I have seen that lying is actually a regular thing with you. You must really work your own nerves lol

[SA210]

We were talking about exactly what you were talking about. I don't watch network TV news and I seriously don't think you ever watched enough to make the blanket statement you made. It was pretty clearly unsubstantiated and when asked you confirmed that with your ad hominems. You did nothing but put a finer point on the fact that you were talking out of your ass. Getting angry about it and trying to change the subject that you brought up in the first place won't change that.

Neither will emoticons.

I was talking about it and you tried lying about common knowledge. So you tried trolling because you know Obama is wrong on this issues and you know he is a liar like yourself, so you try to find other things to spin and lie about so we don't focus on important things. It's pretty clear. You talk out of your ass. Getting angry about it, then lying and trying to spin the subject that I'm right about won't change anything.

Neither will your emotions.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not spin. You were simply asked to back up your claim.

You didn't.

You got angry.

You went into ad hominem mode.

You're still in it.

You're still angry.

You want to be the sole arbiter of what is important and what will be discussed and you whine and try to attack anyone feels differently from you in any way on any issue.

Tough shit for you.

[SA210]

:cry I'm still lying, and whining. I do this for a living :cry

[ChumpDumper]

I understand you can't talk about the topic anymore.

[SA210]

:cry I'm still suffering from the ass whoopin SA210 gave me in the thread I made about him. I still can't quit him. I will stalk him out of anger :cry

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, you have to declare e-victory once more to compensate for your complete inability to back up your claim.

Do what you have to do to avoid it.

[SA210]

Yes, you have to lie about common knowledge and pretend others are avoiding a trick question. You have declared e-victories for over ten years and now project that onto others :lol
Funny thing is my statement is actually true. You are still butthurt from the ass whoopin'. Let it burn, troll lol

Do what you have to do to avoid it.

[ChumpDumper]

If it's common knowledge it will be easy for you to prove empirically.

Go right ahead.

[Winehole23]

I'm usually pretty serious and post important topics in here.yes, but it devolves quickly into towelsnapping and locker room repartee. you have a hard time staying on topic.

nothing wrong with that, but it sorts ill with the gravitas you improbably affect.

[Winehole23]

you did ok in this thread: about a 50-50 split between topical posting and flames.

[Winehole23]

AP, today: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIE8Sw9Uk_19EQxj9xWq-n4ObfSg?docId=e102387fa1524bb392555b90da6d3e66

via HuffPo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They wouldn't like artillery. They wouldn't like conventional aircraft bombing. They wouldn't like an army battalion.

I really wish they would quit fixating on the weapon. It shouldn't matter if they're shooting US citizens with hellfire missiles or with an M-16. It should matter that it has been done without regard to due process and little to no accountability.

ME doesn't like fighting drones because it's a damn effective weapon that they cannot really fight back against. Even if they 'kill' the target, the same pilot can flip a switch and they put up another plane.

If you accept that there are military targets in the hills, deserts, random bunker, then why on Earth do you have an issue with sending in a plane with a camera on it? If you think that there should be no violent response that is one thing but the fixation on the weapon is besides the point from what I see.

[ChumpDumper]

Right, when Rand Paul grandstanded he didn't ask the real question, which is "Would you kill any US citizen suspected of terra-ism on US soil in any fashion without due process?"

The answer is pretty much yes, and the further implication is people like Paul are OK with it -- as long as big (small) bad pilotless planes aren't used for the assassination.

[rjv]

They wouldn't like artillery. They wouldn't like conventional aircraft bombing. They wouldn't like an army battalion.

I really wish they would quit fixating on the weapon. It shouldn't matter if they're shooting US citizens with hellfire missiles or with an M-16. It should matter that it has been done without regard to due process and little to no accountability.

ME doesn't like fighting drones because it's a damn effective weapon that they cannot really fight back against. Even if they 'kill' the target, the same pilot can flip a switch and they put up another plane.

If you accept that there are military targets in the hills, deserts, random bunker, then why on Earth do you have an issue with sending in a plane with a camera on it? If you think that there should be no violent response that is one thing but the fixation on the weapon is besides the point from what I see.


i think one concern is that ultimately this type of warfare will be one that will be based on algorithms as opposed to human judgement. (hints of skynet i suppose)

[Winehole23]

we're about halfway there, tbh. we don't always know who we're targeting to a dead certainty.

[boutons_deux]

the govt (police) murders American citizens every day.

Unarmed and not threatening to anyone, esp not the cop, just try running away from a cop and see far you get before you're shot dead.

Judge, jury, executioner, in a matter of seconds. The Wall of Blue and the judiciary will protect the cop every time.

[LnGrrrR]

i think one concern is that ultimately this type of warfare will be one that will be based on algorithms as opposed to human judgement. (hints of skynet i suppose)

Well, are the algorithms more correct, more often? :stirpot:

[rjv]

Well, are the algorithms more correct, more often? :stirpot:

some have argued that the use of technology has or will make the world a safer place. yet, the logic of drones is the same utilitarian calculus that facilitated the dropping of the A-bomb. we would lose less lives through the use of a weapon that could end the war (and would come out ahead in terms of cost-versus an ongoing war against japan).

drones and their eventual progeny are perfect soldiers-they never tire, will not go AWOL, do not require medical attention and are not concerned about self-preservation. maybe that is why the skynet analogy is used so often.

as to your question, however, it is not the algorithm itself but rather the nebulous region from which the inputs for the former come from. the scientist acting under the auspices of the military. how often has that pairing proved to be rather problematic ?

[LnGrrrR]

some have argued that the use of technology has or will make the world a safer place. yet, the logic of drones is the same utilitarian calculus that facilitated the dropping of the A-bomb. we would lose less lives through the use of a weapon that could end the war (and would come out ahead in terms of cost-versus an ongoing war against japan).

drones and their eventual progeny are perfect soldiers-they never tire, will not go AWOL, do not require medical attention and are not concerned about self-preservation. maybe that is why the skynet analogy is used so often.

as to your question, however, it is not the algorithm itself but rather the nebulous region from which the inputs for the former come from. the scientist acting under the auspices of the military. how often has that pairing proved to be rather problematic ?

As problematic as politicians and the military, I suppose. :D

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The drones aren't robots. They are human piloted. If they were to implement AI on weapons systems then I can see a line being crossed. Up to that point I see little difference between the move from knife to gun or from gun to cannon or from foot to horse or horse to plane. At least from that standpoint.

[Wild Cobra]

The drones aren't robots. They are human piloted. If they were to implement AI on weapons systems then I can see a line being crossed. Up to that point I see little difference between the move from knife to gun or from gun to cannon or from foot to horse or horse to plane. At least from that standpoint.
They are "robotic" as a backup. They can be programmed to finish a mission should comms be lost. They are already programmed to return home when comms are lost.

[rjv]

The drones aren't robots. They are human piloted. If they were to implement AI on weapons systems then I can see a line being crossed. Up to that point I see little difference between the move from knife to gun or from gun to cannon or from foot to horse or horse to plane. At least from that standpoint.

considering that the US army funded a study entitled "Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots” i'd say it's inevitable. the technology is in place. the question is once again: do we open that pandora's box? if i was a betting man i'd say we probably will. hubris trumps all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

considering that the US army funded a study entitled "Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots” i'd say it's inevitable. the technology is in place. the question is once again: do we open that pandora's box? if i was a betting man i'd say we probably will. hubris trumps all.

How about we cross that bridge when and if it comes to bear then? Humanism is a form of hubris in and of itself btw.

[rjv]

How about we cross that bridge when and if it comes to bear then? Humanism is a form of hubris in and of itself btw.

there are actually quite a few humanists who are in support of drones.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

there are actually quite a few humanists who are in support of drones.

That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.

[rjv]

That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.


actually that is exactly my point. there are several humanists (including humanist of the year, steven pinker) who argue that the removal of men from the process of war would, along with our increasingly technological weaponry, create a less violent world. this serves the purpose of humanism quite well because it uses reason as its primary impetus and it would ulitimately aim to preserve the dignity of humans. man does not have to literally be at the controls. of course, it is a point of debate amongst humanists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

actually that is exactly my point. there are several humanists (including humanist of the year, steven pinker) who argue that the removal of men from the process of war would, along with our increasingly technological weaponry, create a less violent world. this serves the purpose of humanism quite well because it uses reason as its primary impetus and it would ulitimately aim to preserve the dignity of humans. man does not have to literally be at the controls. of course, it is a point of debate amongst humanists.

I did not know that. Interesting to say the least. I don't buy the notion of objective 'dignity' one whit though. Seems like another pie in the sky form. I do get the notion that human behavior being what it is tends to escalate when at the controls.

What do you mean in terms of 'at the controls' though? I can get that at the point of attack it would be wise to exclude emotional beings. At the same time at the higher levels of control ie overall command are you really saying that humanists would support being subordinate to machines?

[rjv]

I did not know that. Interesting to say the least. I don't buy the notion of objective 'dignity' one whit though. Seems like another pie in the sky form. I do get the notion that human behavior being what it is tends to escalate when at the controls.

What do you mean in terms of 'at the controls' though? I can get that at the point of attack it would be wise to exclude emotional beings. At the same time at the higher levels of control ie overall command are you really saying that humanists would support being subordinate to machines?

personally, i don't agree very much with pinker nor the argument he presents in his book, the better angels of our nature. he essentially argues that we are living in more peaceful times as a result of our advances in warfare technology. his actual response to the question of drones was: "I will challenge the assumption that drone warfare leads to greater loss of civilian life. This is exactly backwards. Drones are targeted against enemy individuals, and thus kill a small fraction of the civilians that used to be killed by the indiscriminate carnage of artillery, aerial bombardment, and search-and-destroy raids. The difference is that today we care more about civilian lives, so an errant drone attracts more condemnation than the “collateral damage” of previous wars. This concern is obviously a welcome development, but it distorts appreciation of the historical trend away from high-casualty wars."

whether or not some humanists or pinker would defer completely to automation i would not know. but since he seems to believe we are becoming a more moral society and use technology to serve this greater morality perhaps he would.

[Winehole23]

That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.the removal of man, the target, weighs here.

the target of humanism perhaps resembles humanity as well. whether or not the target resides at the very crux, would clearly be for an expert such as you to declare . . .

[Winehole23]

"anti-drone":


I am wearing a silver hoodie that stops just below the nipples. Or, if you prefer, a baggy crop-top with a hood. The piece – this is fashion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion), so it has to be a "piece" – is one of a kind, a prototype. It has wide square shoulders and an overzealous zip that does up right to the tip of my nose.

It does not, it's fair to say, make its wearer look especially cool. But that's not really what this hoodie is about. It has been designed to hide me from the thermal imaging systems of unmanned aerial surveillance (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/surveillance) vehicles – drones (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/drones). And, as far as I can tell, it's working well.


"It's what I call anti-drone," explains designer Adam Harvey. "That's the sentiment. The material in the anti-drone clothing is made of silver, which is reflective to heat and makes the wearer invisible to thermal imaging."http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/mar/31/anti-drone-hoodie-big-brother

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the removal of man, the target, weighs here.

the target of humanism perhaps resembles humanity as well. whether or not the target resides at the very crux, would clearly be for an expert such as you to declare . . .

I used the standard definition of humanist as opposed to say nihilist or deist. It is so amusing that my pedantry gets umbrage from you of all people.

For someone that fancies himself as a sophisticate you do a poor job of it. rjv directed the conversation well. It seems obvious to me that he termed his post as he did trying to evoke the response that he got. He used that to segue into the conversation about pinker. I thought it was very well done on his part.

Try being more of a conversationalist if you are going to front as you do.

[Winehole23]

no umbrage taken, I wasn't seeking your approval. your post is barely responsive and pedantry is a good word for it.