"Geeze we should be the ones up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions. I think this is a very important watershed moment.”
OK... sure.
Except he wasn't sticking up for a REAL civil liberties issue because those don't generally affect his white, upper-middle class and paranoid lunatic base.
He invented a totally bat-shit crazy civil liberty violation that would - if it was real -affect the gun nuts, tea tards and paranoid, anti-government lunatics who think that Barrack Obama is out to get them.
He didn't solve a civil liberties issue... he forced the administration to even acknowledge his batshit conspiracy theory, thus further feeding the paranoia of the people who think FEMA is building concentration camps and building a black army to exterminate the white race.
"Geeze we should be the ones up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions. I think this is a very important watershed moment.”
OK... sure.
Except he wasn't sticking up for a REAL civil liberties issue because those don't generally affect his white, upper-middle class and paranoid lunatic base.
He invented a totally bat-shit crazy civil liberty violation that would - if it was real -affect the gun nuts, tea tards and paranoid, anti-government lunatics who think that Barrack Obama is out to get them.
He didn't solve a civil liberties issue... he forced the administration to even acknowledge his batshit conspiracy theory, thus further feeding the paranoia of the people who think FEMA is building concentration camps and building a black army to exterminate the white race.
They really killed an American citizen and his family members with a drone strike. we are just supposed to believe that he was intimately involved with crimes against the state? In what way is it ok to do this without at least Judicial review?
That quote is from Van Jones, do you think he was looking for a reason to support Rand Paul?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not a "tea tard", anti-gov't lunatic in any way. I do not believe that there is a black army being amassed to kill me and the rest of the whities. You put us in these boxes so we are easy to disregard as crazy. I am far from crazy. Actually very intelligent.
Parameters need to be set in the use of Drones militarily and otherwise. Is it hypothetical? yes. After they used a drone to kill an American citizen, it became a valid question about procedures and how far they can take it and should have been asked and answered already.
You don't think the possibility of the 5th amendment being violated is a real civil liberty situation? what is in your mind?
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
They really killed an American citizen and his family members with a drone strike.
On American soil?
OK, unless I'm REALLY not paying attention... I don't think that happened.
no not on american soil. that is why the question was asked. For CLARIFICATION on the policy of using drones in targeted killings. People are being killed in non-combat situations, i.e. actively doing harm... So they asked the question.
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
They really killed an American citizen and his family members with a drone strike.
On American soil?
OK, unless I'm REALLY not paying attention... I don't think that happened.
It did not happen on American soil.
Every administration expands its power greater than the one before it. If the economy remains stagnant and the Republicans don't completely implode in the next 4 years, is it not conceivable that the country could elect a hawkish Republican president, who would be willing to assassinate American citizens?
But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?
how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way
it is the nature of the job.
If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly
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
But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?
how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way
it is the nature of the job.
If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly
Arresting someone in Miami isn't quite as dangerous as arresting someone in enemy controlled territory of country that doesn't have a functional government.
The whole point of it is to kill as many foreign combatants and "fuck anyone within bomb distnace" while still staying out of the US news so the people are woefully unaware of the fact that we're at war.
The fact that we're at war and few people even take notice is stunning. That it's been going on for 12 years (when we were told it would be maybe 6 months by Donald Rumsfeld) is stunning.
But the drone program is a major part of that. Conservatives in America are shrieking about "spending and government waste" and few of them mention the trillions of dollars we've poured into the military and defense that doesn't need to be spent. Why do we still have enough nukes to literally blow up the entire world about 10 times? Is that even necessary? Is there even a threat to us that we'd NEED stuff like that?
But the drone program is a major part of that. Conservatives in America are shrieking about "spending and government waste" and few of them mention the trillions of dollars we've poured into the military and defense that doesn't need to be spent. Why do we still have enough nukes to literally blow up the entire world about 10 times? Is that even necessary? Is there even a threat to us that we'd NEED stuff like that?
I agree with you, it is asinine.
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
But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?
how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way
it is the nature of the job.
If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly
Arresting someone in Miami isn't quite as dangerous as arresting someone in enemy controlled territory of country that doesn't have a functional government.
In fact, it's not even comparable.
I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.
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 am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.
The enemy we are fighting is not represented by a nation.
Most U.S. officers are not engaging in combat. Yet they are directing forces to attack targets. Would you consider them to be non-combatants?
I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.
The enemy we are fighting is not represented by a nation.
Most U.S. officers are not engaging in combat. Yet they are directing forces to attack targets. Would you consider them to be non-combatants?
The officers would be doing so from a us military installation, which would make them combatants.
That is an interesting question though, I have to say it took me a while to figure it out.
We declared war on an idea, and in that way we need to be better than that idea. Killing people in the middle of cities, killing innocents who happen to be standing next to a "terrorist", that shit ain't right. Once in a while you hit a fucking wedding. If you want to continue to fight the war, be prepared to pay the cost to fight it the right way.
The enemy we are fighting is whoever the gov't decides it is, where ever they decide a war zone is, and that is the problem. We are supposed to believe them when they say someone is a member of some terrorist organization, but yet an American, no matter how shitty, is killed overseas in a non combat area and they don't have to even check with a judge or show their evidence to a sealed grand jury or indict him. That shit ain't right.
This is a never ending war, we will never say "there, we got them all", so if we are going to perpetually fight it, than we need to fight it the right way. Drone strikes might minimize American casualties, but everything has a cost, and I am afraid the cost of the war on terror and drone programs might be the soul of our Country and everything that made it great.
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
The officers would be doing so from a us military installation, which would make them combatants.
That is an interesting question though, I have to say it took me a while to figure it out.
We declared war on an idea, and in that way we need to be better than that idea. Killing people in the middle of cities, killing innocents who happen to be standing next to a "terrorist", that shit ain't right. Once in a while you hit a fucking wedding. If you want to continue to fight the war, be prepared to pay the cost to fight it the right way.
The enemy we are fighting is whoever the gov't decides it is, where ever they decide a war zone is, and that is the problem. We are supposed to believe them when they say someone is a member of some terrorist organization, but yet an American, no matter how shitty, is killed overseas in a non combat area and they don't have to even check with a judge or show their evidence to a sealed grand jury or indict him. That shit ain't right.
This is a never ending war, we will never say "there, we got them all", so if we are going to perpetually fight it, than we need to fight it the right way. Drone strikes might minimize American casualties, but everything has a cost, and I am afraid the cost of the war on terror and drone programs might be the soul of our Country and everything that made it great.
I see where you are coming from, but this is more of a slippery slope perspective as far as I see it. Al-Aulaqi was an associate of Al-qeada. This isn't just some possible supposed terrorist organization. These are the guys that took down the twin towers, blew up the pentagon, and killed a bunch of people in a field ... With commercial airliners.
It is cut and dry to me that this guy was a legitimate enemy of the United States of America.
Diplomatic immunity revoked, as the great Murtaugh once said.
I won't vote for Sen Paul when he runs for president. I will however commend him for using one of the oldest and best ways to get an answer to a VALID question. Filibustering serves a purpose in a checks and balance system.
Yes the drone attack was not on American soil. But, what would stop Obama or any other future president from ordering an attack in America without a written answer?
Edit: was it a publicity stunt? Of course. Anytime a politician makes a public political stand it is a publicity stunt. This one served a purpose though.
But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?
how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way
it is the nature of the job.
If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly
Killing an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan is also completely different than sending a missile from on high when they are leaving the piggly wiggly. This is where the argument breaks down for me. I don't believe even the most hawkish President would start assassinating average Americans in this way. It has never happened. We have had hawkish presidents before and none of them would have needed drones to carry out assassinations if they were so inclined. I do think this argument is fearmongering.
Comments
I'd believe it.
:P
OK... sure.
Except he wasn't sticking up for a REAL civil liberties issue because those don't generally affect his white, upper-middle class and paranoid lunatic base.
He invented a totally bat-shit crazy civil liberty violation that would - if it was real -affect the gun nuts, tea tards and paranoid, anti-government lunatics who think that Barrack Obama is out to get them.
He didn't solve a civil liberties issue... he forced the administration to even acknowledge his batshit conspiracy theory, thus further feeding the paranoia of the people who think FEMA is building concentration camps and building a black army to exterminate the white race.
They really killed an American citizen and his family members with a drone strike. we are just supposed to believe that he was intimately involved with crimes against the state? In what way is it ok to do this without at least Judicial review?
That quote is from Van Jones, do you think he was looking for a reason to support Rand Paul?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not a "tea tard", anti-gov't lunatic in any way. I do not believe that there is a black army being amassed to kill me and the rest of the whities. You put us in these boxes so we are easy to disregard as crazy. I am far from crazy. Actually very intelligent.
Parameters need to be set in the use of Drones militarily and otherwise. Is it hypothetical? yes. After they used a drone to kill an American citizen, it became a valid question about procedures and how far they can take it and should have been asked and answered already.
You don't think the possibility of the 5th amendment being violated is a real civil liberty situation? what is in your mind?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
On American soil?
OK, unless I'm REALLY not paying attention... I don't think that happened.
no not on american soil. that is why the question was asked. For CLARIFICATION on the policy of using drones in targeted killings. People are being killed in non-combat situations, i.e. actively doing harm... So they asked the question.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It did not happen on American soil.
Every administration expands its power greater than the one before it. If the economy remains stagnant and the Republicans don't completely implode in the next 4 years, is it not conceivable that the country could elect a hawkish Republican president, who would be willing to assassinate American citizens?
how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way
it is the nature of the job.
If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In fact, it's not even comparable.
The whole point of it is to kill as many foreign combatants and "fuck anyone within bomb distnace" while still staying out of the US news so the people are woefully unaware of the fact that we're at war.
The fact that we're at war and few people even take notice is stunning. That it's been going on for 12 years (when we were told it would be maybe 6 months by Donald Rumsfeld) is stunning.
But the drone program is a major part of that. Conservatives in America are shrieking about "spending and government waste" and few of them mention the trillions of dollars we've poured into the military and defense that doesn't need to be spent. Why do we still have enough nukes to literally blow up the entire world about 10 times? Is that even necessary? Is there even a threat to us that we'd NEED stuff like that?
I agree with you, it is asinine.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Most U.S. officers are not engaging in combat. Yet they are directing forces to attack targets. Would you consider them to be non-combatants?
The officers would be doing so from a us military installation, which would make them combatants.
That is an interesting question though, I have to say it took me a while to figure it out.
We declared war on an idea, and in that way we need to be better than that idea. Killing people in the middle of cities, killing innocents who happen to be standing next to a "terrorist", that shit ain't right. Once in a while you hit a fucking wedding. If you want to continue to fight the war, be prepared to pay the cost to fight it the right way.
The enemy we are fighting is whoever the gov't decides it is, where ever they decide a war zone is, and that is the problem. We are supposed to believe them when they say someone is a member of some terrorist organization, but yet an American, no matter how shitty, is killed overseas in a non combat area and they don't have to even check with a judge or show their evidence to a sealed grand jury or indict him. That shit ain't right.
This is a never ending war, we will never say "there, we got them all", so if we are going to perpetually fight it, than we need to fight it the right way. Drone strikes might minimize American casualties, but everything has a cost, and I am afraid the cost of the war on terror and drone programs might be the soul of our Country and everything that made it great.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is cut and dry to me that this guy was a legitimate enemy of the United States of America.
Diplomatic immunity revoked, as the great Murtaugh once said.
A main example of a non-combatant ...
Where does Joe rank on the all time scale of Nazi scumbags???
An argument could be made for #1
As someone who lost direct family members in the Holocaust I can safely say that Goebbels was #2
just behind you know who and just ahead of Goering
But as I've read, it looked like he was trying to make a power play to become the biggest a-hole in the history of mankind at the end of the war.
Classic megalomaniac.
Yes the drone attack was not on American soil. But, what would stop Obama or any other future president from ordering an attack in America without a written answer?
Edit: was it a publicity stunt? Of course. Anytime a politician makes a public political stand it is a publicity stunt. This one served a purpose though.
Props to you guys discussing this civilly.
Killing an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan is also completely different than sending a missile from on high when they are leaving the piggly wiggly. This is where the argument breaks down for me. I don't believe even the most hawkish President would start assassinating average Americans in this way. It has never happened. We have had hawkish presidents before and none of them would have needed drones to carry out assassinations if they were so inclined. I do think this argument is fearmongering.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Some of the tea is very good....now if only they'd drop the social crap.