We cannot let those who choose to live outside of our society use the protections of the Constitution to murder those of us who live as part of our society.
We cannot let those who choose to live outside of our society use the protections of the Constitution to murder those of us who live as part of our society.
How many people was al-alwaki charged with killing? How many people was his 16 year old son charged with killing?
We cannot let those who choose to live outside of our society use the protections of the Constitution to murder those of us who live as part of our society.
How many people was al-alwaki charged with killing? How many people was his 16 year old son charged with killing?
How many would he have killed had he not been taken out? How many would his son? How many would be killed by the six other militants killed with his son?
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
So we should assassinate people now under the mere assumption that they may commit a crime?
The odd thing is people like Timothy McVeigh even got trials. I guess Obama is now judge, jury, and executioner
...
So... is it better that McVeigh committed the crime and killed all those people... or would it have been better to kill him prior to the crime? Remember, McVeigh was an innocent, American Citizen before the bomb went off.
...
And trust me... I understand where you are coming from. But, i also understand this isn't a black and white issue. It is complicated and there is no one simple solution.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Declared war is real and legal, undeclared bombings without intelligence of an imminent threat (self defense) seems wrong to me...As I said earlier, I don't feel sorry for people who take up arms, but things like this are why I think this undeclared war on an idealism is so dangerous...too many lines get blurred.
That is a problem with fighting an enemy that isn't a governing body of a nation. How are we to fight per the rule book when the enemy observes no rules whatsoever?
It's funny how "we" decide who "our" enemy is. :fp: Or who a terrorist is. But then again, it's always easy viewing the world through American eyes...... :roll:
We cannot let those who choose to live outside of our society use the protections of the Constitution to murder those of us who live as part of our society.
How many people was al-alwaki charged with killing? How many people was his 16 year old son charged with killing?
How many would he have killed had he not been taken out? How many would his son? How many would be killed by the six other militants killed with his son?
Not anywhere close to your LAST 2 presidents have killed that's for sure.
We cannot let those who choose to live outside of our society use the protections of the Constitution to murder those of us who live as part of our society.
Damn! And I thought you guys were a tough bunch! I've been checking out other forums & I can easily say I like it here much better.
If we accept the use of Drones now, where does that leave our kids in the future?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Good to know you rather let another Tim McVeigh murder hundreds of Americans rather than stop him.
That's one of the dumber things I've seen posted here. Nowhere have I advocated for allowing someone to kill people, in fact I've been arguing the exact opposite. You do not MURDER people based on the possibility that they might commit a crime, especially when you are the PRESIDENT!
Have you read NDAA? Do you know that once the American countryside is declared a battlefield that anyone can be held without charges or trial indefinitely for associating with al-Qaeda or other associated groups? What associated groups? The DHS has already declared Constitutionalists and preppers as a extreme group.
Executing a citizen without charges goes against the very basis for why this country was founded. Once we accept that as the norm we can never go back; we become savages.
Good to know you rather let another Tim McVeigh murder hundreds of Americans rather than stop him.
That's one of the dumber things I've seen posted here. Nowhere have I advocated for allowing someone to kill people, in fact I've been arguing the exact opposite. You do not MURDER people based on the possibility that they might commit a crime, especially when you are the PRESIDENT!
Have you read NDAA? Do you know that once the American countryside is declared a battlefield that anyone can be held without charges or trial indefinitely for associating with al-Qaeda or other associated groups? What associated groups? The DHS has already declared Constitutionalists and preppers as a extreme group.
Executing a citizen without charges goes against the very basis for why this country was founded. Once we accept that as the norm we can never go back; we become savages.
Actually it is not so please come down off your soapbox. We were discussing al-alwaki and you shifted to Tim McVeigh, pretending they are the same. They are not. McVeigh was operating within the United States and there were other options for dealing with him. Those options did not exist for al-alwaki.
The American countryside is not about to be declared a battlefield. That is fearmongering at its most blatant.
I'll say this again since it has been glossed over and distorted by Tim McVeigh and DHS taking over the countryside: Americans who leave the United States to assist Al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization plot to kill other Americans should not be able to use the constitution as protection to carry out those plans. I said early on in this thread that the need to do this should be unthinkable. Unfortunately it is not.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
An American citizen is an American citizen, regardless of their location.
I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
Yep, arresting someone in Yemen is exactly the same as arresting someone in Oklahoma. No difference at all. Just as easy as pie. One pair of FBI agents should be able to do it.
I also said earlier that none of us knows what kind of intelligence had been gathered before these poor innocent victims were targeted. I could not care less that no charges were filed.
I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
I agree that there are legitimate concerns down the road. Not guarantees that this power will ever be abused, just possibilities. I still feel safer knowing we are eliminating these threats today.
I agree that there are legitimate concerns down the road. Not guarantees that this power will ever be abused, just possibilities. I still feel safer knowing we are eliminating these threats today.
what strikes me is that you are ok with eliminating "threats" currently on what they MIGHT do, and yet you are ok with the power to kill american citizens being used until someone abuses it. that doesn't make sense to me.
he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither. When we start invading constitutional protections of what might happen, we are doing exactly that, and quite frankly, if the American people are ok with this they deserve what they will get.
And people wonder why some don't trust the gov't at all
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
I agree that there are legitimate concerns down the road. Not guarantees that this power will ever be abused, just possibilities. I still feel safer knowing we are eliminating these threats today.
Yes I hear you.
If possibilities of abuse are a real threat of tomorrow, that is a threat to our freedom.
I'm not a gambler, that 'if' might be too much for me and I don't feel safer.
I believe a hidden enemy is much more of a threat than one face to face.
I agree that there are legitimate concerns down the road. Not guarantees that this power will ever be abused, just possibilities. I still feel safer knowing we are eliminating these threats today.
what strikes me is that you are ok with eliminating "threats" currently on what they MIGHT do, and yet you are ok with the power to kill american citizens being used until someone abuses it. that doesn't make sense to me.
he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither. When we start invading constitutional protections of what might happen, we are doing exactly that, and quite frankly, if the American people are ok with this they deserve what they will get.
And people wonder why some don't trust the gov't at all
I pointed out in my first post that I know not many agree with me on this. I'm OK with that and I realize I probably won't be able to change many minds.
Just to be clear: I am OK with our government eliminating threats not based on what they might do but what we have solid intelligence they are a) planning to do or b) aiding and abetting others to do. I don't see it as a maybe or might situation.
I pointed out in my first post that I know not many agree with me on this. I'm OK with that and I realize I probably won't be able to change many minds.
Just to be clear: I am OK with our government eliminating threats not based on what they might do but what we have solid intelligence they are a) planning to do or b) aiding and abetting others to do. I don't see it as a maybe or might situation.
I know where you stand, I appreciate your attempts to have the conversation.
But, maybe and might are true things. I could plan a murder every day for 10 years and never commit it. Should I have been killed before I did anything worth dying over. If he is killed trying to arrest him that is one thing, but he was a citizen. Like it or not that should carry weight with the executive branch of gov't. No one feels sorry for the guy, for me it isn't about him as much as if this could happen to him who else could it happen to? I don't trust gov't officials with this kind of power, the constitution is there to protect us and limit gov't power. When you blatantly ignore it because of someone you don't like, that is trouble.
guilt or innocence of an American citizen is decided in a court of law, not in an oval office.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Some say U.S. president is waging a 'war on whistleblowers'
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:32 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 6, 2013 2:56 PM ET Read 157
In 2001, when Israel started killing militant Palestinian enemies (and, often, innocent bystanders) with missiles fired from helicopters hovering so high you could barely see them, foreign reporters were urged by the Israeli government to call the practice “targeted killing.”
Most of us, including many of my American colleagues, preferred the term “extrajudicial assassination.” We felt we were in the news business, not the euphemism business.
Today, 12 years later, the Washington Post carries a front-page headline about the U.S. drone program titled, “Targeted killings face new scrutiny.”
Yet another government document has been leaked, this time a so-called “white paper” in which the U.S. Department of Justice lays out the administration’s justification for killing American citizens it suspects of belonging to Al-Qaeda.
U.S. media outlets, it seems, are perfectly comfortable with the term “targeted killing,” now that it is a major tool for the Pentagon and CIA.
It’s also clear American media outlets are comfortable suppressing news the government does not want published. Today’s story reveals not just that the Americans have operated a secret drone base for years in Saudi Arabia, but that the Post, along with various other news organizations, have been keeping that fact to themselves at the government’s request.
History of suppressing sensitive information
It isn’t the first time such information has been suppressed. In 2005, bowing to the White House, the New York Times for months kept confidential the fact that the Bush administration had been carrying out warrantless wiretapping. The revelations eventually provoked Congress to pass a new law.
Reports on the U.S. drone program, also based on leaks, have described how Barack Obama’s administration has become ever more dependent on remote-controlled killing. Obama himself reportedly signs off personally on each target.
U.S. President Barack Obama, who once denounced George W. Bush-era security measures, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.
The American public has been largely unconcerned with the program, except when the person killed has been an American citizen. (The U.S., unlike many other countries, accords its citizens special protections from government intrusions.)
That is the focus of the latest leak. The “white paper” in today’s story appears under the arid title “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaeda or an Associated Force.”
The term “senior operational leader” appears to be key. An American citizen who is a low-level fighter would appear to enjoy a legal immunity that does not extend to foreign nationals suspected of planning or involvement in attacks on Americans.
As the Post story rather dryly notes, “The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
There is an accompanying article today on the astonishing fact that 54 countries, including Canada, have participated in or enabled the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program of sending suspected militants to be interrogated, sometimes under torture, in secret prisons and by totalitarian regimes worldwide.
Twelve years ago, reporters had a different term for that sort of thing, too: kidnapping.
Obama's 'war on whistleblowers'
All these hardened security measures were begun under the Bush administration. President Obama, who once denounced them and even, as president, ordered Bush legal memos be made public, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun vigorously hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.
And that is one initiative the American media is not so comfortable with.
Some are calling it Obama’s “war on whistleblowers.” Current Attorney-General Eric Holder has prosecuted more officials for leaking information to reporters than any of his predecessors since the Second World War.
The government has hunted down intelligence officials who leaked details of expensive programs to spy on internet traffic, wiretaps placed in the Israeli embassy in Washington and of Obama’s personal involvement in selecting drone targets.
The lawyer for one of those officials said Holder’s prosecutors “don’t distinguish between bad people – people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money – and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions.”
Several news outlets have noted, rather acidly, that the administration seems fairly expert at leaking classified material that makes the government look good.
None of this makes Obama different from any previous president. It just demonstrates his ability to keep the nation’s media on board, and mete out punishment when they publish the wrong sorts of secrets.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
Read NDAA, then we can continue the conversation.
Don't you people read these bills?
Yes that bill, the actions taking place today, are the threat to freedom.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The guy was a spreader of evil who convinced his lackeys to kill or try to kill Americans.
fuc 'em. World is better off without him. Society is much better off without him
How many people was al-alwaki charged with killing? How many people was his 16 year old son charged with killing?
How many would he have killed had he not been taken out? How many would his son? How many would be killed by the six other militants killed with his son?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Should we wait until they assassinate you or me? And you have no idea what kind of intelligence was gathered on these people.
I will lose no sleep because these people met their ends while aiding and abetting foreign hostiles.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's still illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and worthy of impeachment.
I guess it really is becoming Minority Report. Murder on suspicion. Frightening.
So... is it better that McVeigh committed the crime and killed all those people... or would it have been better to kill him prior to the crime? Remember, McVeigh was an innocent, American Citizen before the bomb went off.
...
And trust me... I understand where you are coming from. But, i also understand this isn't a black and white issue. It is complicated and there is no one simple solution.
Hail, Hail!!!
Good to know you rather let another Tim McVeigh murder hundreds of Americans rather than stop him.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's funny how "we" decide who "our" enemy is. :fp: Or who a terrorist is. But then again, it's always easy viewing the world through American eyes...... :roll:
Not anywhere close to your LAST 2 presidents have killed that's for sure.
There is NO MORE constitution.
If we accept the use of Drones now, where does that leave our kids in the future?
That's one of the dumber things I've seen posted here. Nowhere have I advocated for allowing someone to kill people, in fact I've been arguing the exact opposite. You do not MURDER people based on the possibility that they might commit a crime, especially when you are the PRESIDENT!
Have you read NDAA? Do you know that once the American countryside is declared a battlefield that anyone can be held without charges or trial indefinitely for associating with al-Qaeda or other associated groups? What associated groups? The DHS has already declared Constitutionalists and preppers as a extreme group.
Executing a citizen without charges goes against the very basis for why this country was founded. Once we accept that as the norm we can never go back; we become savages.
Actually it is not so please come down off your soapbox. We were discussing al-alwaki and you shifted to Tim McVeigh, pretending they are the same. They are not. McVeigh was operating within the United States and there were other options for dealing with him. Those options did not exist for al-alwaki.
The American countryside is not about to be declared a battlefield. That is fearmongering at its most blatant.
I'll say this again since it has been glossed over and distorted by Tim McVeigh and DHS taking over the countryside: Americans who leave the United States to assist Al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization plot to kill other Americans should not be able to use the constitution as protection to carry out those plans. I said early on in this thread that the need to do this should be unthinkable. Unfortunately it is not.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What crimes were they charged with?
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.
I also said earlier that none of us knows what kind of intelligence had been gathered before these poor innocent victims were targeted. I could not care less that no charges were filed.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I agree that there are legitimate concerns down the road. Not guarantees that this power will ever be abused, just possibilities. I still feel safer knowing we are eliminating these threats today.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
what strikes me is that you are ok with eliminating "threats" currently on what they MIGHT do, and yet you are ok with the power to kill american citizens being used until someone abuses it. that doesn't make sense to me.
he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither. When we start invading constitutional protections of what might happen, we are doing exactly that, and quite frankly, if the American people are ok with this they deserve what they will get.
And people wonder why some don't trust the gov't at all
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
If possibilities of abuse are a real threat of tomorrow, that is a threat to our freedom.
I'm not a gambler, that 'if' might be too much for me and I don't feel safer.
I believe a hidden enemy is much more of a threat than one face to face.
I pointed out in my first post that I know not many agree with me on this. I'm OK with that and I realize I probably won't be able to change many minds.
Just to be clear: I am OK with our government eliminating threats not based on what they might do but what we have solid intelligence they are a) planning to do or b) aiding and abetting others to do. I don't see it as a maybe or might situation.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I know where you stand, I appreciate your attempts to have the conversation.
But, maybe and might are true things. I could plan a murder every day for 10 years and never commit it. Should I have been killed before I did anything worth dying over. If he is killed trying to arrest him that is one thing, but he was a citizen. Like it or not that should carry weight with the executive branch of gov't. No one feels sorry for the guy, for me it isn't about him as much as if this could happen to him who else could it happen to? I don't trust gov't officials with this kind of power, the constitution is there to protect us and limit gov't power. When you blatantly ignore it because of someone you don't like, that is trouble.
guilt or innocence of an American citizen is decided in a court of law, not in an oval office.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Any luck?
U.S. media complicit in Obama's drone doctrine
Some say U.S. president is waging a 'war on whistleblowers'
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:32 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 6, 2013 2:56 PM ET Read 157
In 2001, when Israel started killing militant Palestinian enemies (and, often, innocent bystanders) with missiles fired from helicopters hovering so high you could barely see them, foreign reporters were urged by the Israeli government to call the practice “targeted killing.”
Most of us, including many of my American colleagues, preferred the term “extrajudicial assassination.” We felt we were in the news business, not the euphemism business.
Today, 12 years later, the Washington Post carries a front-page headline about the U.S. drone program titled, “Targeted killings face new scrutiny.”
Yet another government document has been leaked, this time a so-called “white paper” in which the U.S. Department of Justice lays out the administration’s justification for killing American citizens it suspects of belonging to Al-Qaeda.
U.S. media outlets, it seems, are perfectly comfortable with the term “targeted killing,” now that it is a major tool for the Pentagon and CIA.
It’s also clear American media outlets are comfortable suppressing news the government does not want published. Today’s story reveals not just that the Americans have operated a secret drone base for years in Saudi Arabia, but that the Post, along with various other news organizations, have been keeping that fact to themselves at the government’s request.
History of suppressing sensitive information
It isn’t the first time such information has been suppressed. In 2005, bowing to the White House, the New York Times for months kept confidential the fact that the Bush administration had been carrying out warrantless wiretapping. The revelations eventually provoked Congress to pass a new law.
Reports on the U.S. drone program, also based on leaks, have described how Barack Obama’s administration has become ever more dependent on remote-controlled killing. Obama himself reportedly signs off personally on each target.
U.S. President Barack Obama, who once denounced George W. Bush-era security measures, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.
The American public has been largely unconcerned with the program, except when the person killed has been an American citizen. (The U.S., unlike many other countries, accords its citizens special protections from government intrusions.)
That is the focus of the latest leak. The “white paper” in today’s story appears under the arid title “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaeda or an Associated Force.”
The term “senior operational leader” appears to be key. An American citizen who is a low-level fighter would appear to enjoy a legal immunity that does not extend to foreign nationals suspected of planning or involvement in attacks on Americans.
As the Post story rather dryly notes, “The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
There is an accompanying article today on the astonishing fact that 54 countries, including Canada, have participated in or enabled the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program of sending suspected militants to be interrogated, sometimes under torture, in secret prisons and by totalitarian regimes worldwide.
Twelve years ago, reporters had a different term for that sort of thing, too: kidnapping.
Obama's 'war on whistleblowers'
All these hardened security measures were begun under the Bush administration. President Obama, who once denounced them and even, as president, ordered Bush legal memos be made public, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun vigorously hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.
And that is one initiative the American media is not so comfortable with.
Some are calling it Obama’s “war on whistleblowers.” Current Attorney-General Eric Holder has prosecuted more officials for leaking information to reporters than any of his predecessors since the Second World War.
The government has hunted down intelligence officials who leaked details of expensive programs to spy on internet traffic, wiretaps placed in the Israeli embassy in Washington and of Obama’s personal involvement in selecting drone targets.
The lawyer for one of those officials said Holder’s prosecutors “don’t distinguish between bad people – people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money – and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions.”
Several news outlets have noted, rather acidly, that the administration seems fairly expert at leaking classified material that makes the government look good.
None of this makes Obama different from any previous president. It just demonstrates his ability to keep the nation’s media on board, and mete out punishment when they publish the wrong sorts of secrets.
Well, considering my Congressman is a newly elected Democrat in Illinois I am not expecting anything.
Read NDAA, then we can continue the conversation.
Don't you people read these bills?
"What do you want to impeach him for this week?"
-- a newly elected Congressman in Illinois
"...I changed by not changing at all..."