If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   A better question is "When are drone killings not Illegal?"   (cnn.com) divider line 232
    More: Scary, Hellfire missile, targeted killings, United Nations Special Rapporteur, sovereign states, lethal force, research professor, right to life, use of force  
•       •       •

9763 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 11:41:22 AM
"It is all bullchit and it is bad for you"
GC
 
2012-08-16 11:42:03 AM

Name_Omitted: I think authorization could be written in such a way as to allow for this. The military has a framework for assessing targets, and while I understand that the target that have made it to the President's desk have most likely gone through that framework, I would prefer some sort of codification to it as it got there. Having one person in charge of life in death, well... as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."


In my opinion, it would be easier to simply get the hell out of the middle east and end the 'war on terror' than to try to cherry pick when it's OK or not OK to kill people.

MugzyBrown: If I google habeas corpus will it also show me how it's constitutional to execute criminals w/o trial or even formal charges?


Yup.

You can start by looking at policemen who are legally authorized to kill people without a trial or formal charges and work your way to the more complicated international cases when you get a handle on the topic.
 
2012-08-16 11:42:06 AM

sprawl15: Illegal and unconstitutional. Google 'habeas corpus'.


Wrong. Google "child moslesting movie director."
 
2012-08-16 11:42:25 AM

BullBearMS: Here's a study that's now a couple of years old and out of date. It also only covers the death of innocents in Pakistan.

the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has issued a new study on civilians killed by American drones, concluding that at least 385 civilians have been killed in the past seven years, including at least 168 children.


Well, gosh, that's terrible. We should launch a full out invasion and kill 100,000 innocents. That would be much better, right?
 
2012-08-16 11:43:02 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.


And I don't know why you think there is a difference. Do you actually buy into that Partisan crap?
Meet the new boss, same, same, same
 
2012-08-16 11:43:56 AM

Banned on the Run: U.S. law doesn't distinguish between murder with a sniper rifle or murder with a knife.


Actually, it does. Sort of. It's not really explicit in determining if the charge is 1st or 2nd degree murder, but the closer the kill, the more depraved it is considered. It generally affects sentencing.
 
2012-08-16 11:44:39 AM

qorkfiend: Go read the 9/11 AUMF and get back to us when you're a bit more educated on the subject.


That the one that says "if you're in a land where we happen to be shooting and we even halfway think you're connected to terrorists, then it's legal"?

Yeah. Lots of things are declared illegal after the fact. Ask every wartime president, ever.
 
2012-08-16 11:45:14 AM

snocone: And I don't know why you think there is a difference.


This was my point, genius.
 
2012-08-16 11:46:09 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.


They should like Obamacare, too. Because they're the ones who proposed it - conservatives like Heritage Foundation, not just one-time moderates like Romney.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-08-16 11:46:47 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: snocone: And I don't know why you think there is a difference.

This was my point, genius.


Then say so Mutt.
 
2012-08-16 11:46:57 AM

snocone: arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.

And I don't know why you think there is a difference. Do you actually buy into that Partisan crap?
Meet the new boss, same, same, same



*woooooooooooosh*
 
2012-08-16 11:46:57 AM

Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...


Teddy Roosevelt would like a word with you, but unfortunately he's dead
 
2012-08-16 11:47:43 AM

Banned on the Run: Why is this an issue? Honestly.

What difference does it make whether we bust in and shoot him (Osama), or a drone fires a missile (every al Queda #2 ever)?

U.S. law doesn't distinguish between murder with a sniper rifle or murder with a knife.

I don't get it. Dead is dead.


Drones are not really the issue addressed by TFA. That word was just headline-bait. TFA discusses, at great and vague length, when killing by military force is legal under international law. Only in the next to last paragraph does it give a cogent answer:

"Today, the United States is engaged in armed conflict only in Afghanistan. To lawfully resort to military force elsewhere requires that the country where the United States is attacking has first attacked the United States (such as Afghanistan in 2001), the U.N. Security Council has authorized the resort to force (Libya in 2011) or a government in effective control credibly requests assistance in a civil war (Afghanistan since 2002)."
 
2012-08-16 11:49:09 AM

vygramul: arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.

They should like Obamacare, too. Because they're the ones who proposed it - conservatives like Heritage Foundation, not just one-time moderates like Romney.

[www.bitlogic.com image 472x800]



Inexplicable and hypocritical opposition to a President from the Other Party only started when we elected a black President.

Got it.
 
2012-08-16 11:49:35 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Wrong. Google "child moslesting movie director."


Polanski showed for his court case, and was there up until sentencing when he bailed. That's not a trial in absentia. Go take your medicine.
 
2012-08-16 11:53:16 AM

sprawl15: Why?


Because citizens are afforded protection by and from the US government. We are or maybe at war with other humans. These other humans are citizens of sovereign nations and not under the authority of the USA. The USA has no standing to impose or afford its American "values" or "rights" on the citizens of other sovereign nations. We aren't asserting authority over these humans in my view but are at war with them. Asserting authority and war they are not the same thing, far from it.
 
2012-08-16 11:53:20 AM

sprawl15: That's not a trial in absentia.


Sentencing isn't part of a trial? And he's only one example, there have been lots of trials where the defendant fled before evidence was closed.

Besides, we're at war, remember? The government assures us that for our own safety, the regular rules don't apply.

Although I doubt so much as a single Muslim has ever set foot on my part of Pisgah Ridge, so I can't make that same leap.
 
2012-08-16 11:54:00 AM

Artillero: Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...

Teddy Roosevelt would like a word with you, but unfortunately he's dead


Are you trying to suggest that death isn't stopping TR from maintaining kill lists of some type?

?
 
2012-08-16 11:54:04 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.


It also ignores the fact that we have refused to hold any of the people responsible for torture accountable for their actions, even though this is a violation of treaties we have adopted and the laws of the US

Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.

In an interview with the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Manfred Nowak, explained that Obama's grant of immunity is likely a violation of international law.

As a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is obligated to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens that are believed to have engaged in torture.

The United States has, like all other Contracting Parties to the UN Convention Against Torture, committed itself to investigate instances of torture and to prosecute all cases in which credible evidence of torture is found.

Indeed, Article 2 of the convention on torture explains that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" can be used to legally justify torture. Further, the convention states that an "order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."


Remember that Obama promise that there would be "no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient"? Apparently, he doesn't.

Then there is the part where we have continued the Bush policy of sending people overseas to be tortured.

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no protection against abuse.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
 
2012-08-16 11:55:21 AM

Nem Wan: sprawl15: planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons

The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.


An organization that was involved in those events is still extant, and still plotting.

The AUMF is still relevant.
 
2012-08-16 11:58:32 AM

odinsposse: sprawl15: Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

That's US law. Killing people overseas would fall under international law. Which is what the article addresses.


Fortunately for Americans, only US law governs US actions, and only US law is applicable to US actions. "International law" can go DIAF in that regard.
 
2012-08-16 11:59:55 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Sentencing isn't part of a trial?


It's not the part of the trial that requires someone be present. A person must either be brought before the court or that person officially waive their right to be in front of that court to satisfy their habeas corpus rights. Polanski was brought before the court. al Awlaki was not.

Tyee: Because citizens are afforded protection by and from the US government.


Do you think that a foreign national that commits a crime within the borders of the US receives constitutional protections in their prosecution (say, a Brit gets drunk and punches someone), or are we allowed to treat them however the hell we want because their passport is foreign?

Tyee: We aren't asserting authority over these humans in my view but are at war with them.


I consider lobbing a bomb at someone 'asserting authority'. You'll have to work to convince me otherwise.
 
2012-08-16 12:05:38 PM
When clandestine military actions inside sovereign nations with no regard for the consent of the people are more important than quaint pretenses like "rule of law" and "separation of powers".

Duh.
 
2012-08-16 12:06:04 PM

sprawl15: person officially waive their right to be in front of that court to satisfy their habeas corpus rights


I don't know what to tell you big boy, but there are several convictions that have been upheld where the Defendant did not "officially" waive his right to be present in court.

snocone: Then say so Mutt.


I did. Clearly.

I said: He's the same as Bush

You said: There's no difference between the two.

BigNumber12 has a message for you:

BigNumber12: *woooooooooooosh*


.
 
2012-08-16 12:08:26 PM

BullBearMS: Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.


Not to quote myself, but I should have pointed out who the Obama administration did decide to prosecute related to our nations decision to torture people.

The CIA whistle-blower who made our use of torture public knowledge was prosecuted.

The people who did the actual torturing and covered it up were not.
 
2012-08-16 12:08:26 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: I don't know what to tell you big boy, but there are several convictions that have been upheld where the Defendant did not "officially" waive his right to be present in court.


You could start by linking an example.

That you started with Polanski, though, pretty much shows that you're full of shiat.
 
2012-08-16 12:11:41 PM

sprawl15: or are we allowed to treat them however the hell we want because their passport is foreign?


The countries have treaties and agreements on how they treat criminals, and these are different circumstances than acts of war, irrelevant.

I consider lobbing a bomb at someone 'asserting authority'. You'll have to work to convince me otherwise.

Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength. Lobbing a bomb is an attempt at making you dead, the dead have long since and never been able to behave in any manner other than dead. If you survive the lobbing and an attempt to occupy and control the area is made that I would agree would be and attempt at asserting authority.
You/I the USA has no control or authority over the dead, you can't make them do anything but vote in Chicago.
 
2012-08-16 12:16:52 PM

Tyee: The countries have treaties and agreements on how they treat criminals, and these are different circumstances than acts of war, irrelevant.


Wrong. The treaties determine extradition requirements and lay additional restrictions on how we act. If we find someone without a passport and can't find a country to extradite him to, we aren't allowed to just shoot him in the streets. He receives full Constitutional protections, as he is a human being under asserted authority of the United States government.

Tyee: Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength. Lobbing a bomb is an attempt at making you dead, the dead have long since and never been able to behave in any manner other than dead.


By this definition, police spraying bullets into protestors isn't an assertion of authority but launching tear gas into the crowd is.

I think I'll pass on accepting your silly ideas.
 
2012-08-16 12:20:03 PM

BullBearMS: sprawl15: Yemen has been working with us.

If by working with us you mean helping us cover it up when we murder dozens of innocent women and children in a single drone strike.

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area.

There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing.

It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."


Oh, horseshiat. We have NO obligation not to bomb an area with women and children unless we can prove the women and children are NOT combatants! Remember Viet Nam? I guaran-farking-tee you the women and children were every bit as much combatants there as the men. How do I know? Because I know too many Viet Nam vets who witnessed it firsthand, having little 7 or 8 year old kids toss grenades in vehicle gas tanks and shiat like that.

This war/conflict/whatever you want to call it is no different - women blowing themselves up in crowds of soldiers and civilians, little preteens and teens shooting at soldiers or blowing themselves up, little kids chucking grenades. When the author of that bit can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not one of those people was engaged in planting IEDs, shooting people, building bombs, financing terrorism, sending a kid off to be a suicide bomber or preparing to be a suicide bomber themselves, then I'll agree it was legitimate mass murder. Otherwise, accidents happen and it's called collateral damage.

When they start being outraged over the DELIBERATE bombing of civilians by - as some so eloquently put it - "the brown people," then they can biatch at the US and allied forces when bad intel results in a fark up. Until then, they can damn well cry and rant about the guys who deliberately murder their own people.

The idiot who wrote TFA is a clueless academic who's never been near a war zone. I have little to no use for Obama, but will defend him to my dying breath on this one.
 
2012-08-16 12:20:28 PM

Tyee:
Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength.


War is an attempt to impose a political solution. Or as Clauswitz put it "War is politics by other means."

If those folks lived or behaved in our desired manner, we wouldn't be lobbing bombs at them. If they start to live and behave in our desired manner, we will cease to lob bombs at them.
 
2012-08-16 12:21:09 PM

BurnShrike: The US has been murdering foreign nationals for decades now. The only difference now is that they don't have to send CIA teams in to do it any more.

An asshole bully nation will remain so as technology advances.


This is what some people actually believe.
 
2012-08-16 12:25:16 PM

MBooda: A better question is "When are drone any killings not Illegal?"

/not much better, but doesn't split hairs about technology


When they are conducted in self defense, legitimate revolution, the killing of animals to obtain food, etc.
 
2012-08-16 12:26:51 PM

cman: Rent Party: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.

You are correct. Thank you for your post


Proof that 9/11 was more than a jet-fuel-induced burning of a steel structure

Here we are again. 9/11 = justified terrorism on the USA's part. Terrorism, by definition, is using violence to alter the way of life of your target.

Drone killings of 4,400 people fit that definition. Precisely.

it's not terrorism when the USA does it though. Even when they are about to do it to their own civil population. Tell me I'm wrong. The existence of Trapwire and the Domain Awareness System in NYC are proof positive.

But You don't want to hear this, because... welll.. 'Murica.. Fuk Yea!1!

/cue the straw-man hatred.
//Wanna borrow my tinfoil?
 
2012-08-16 12:28:32 PM

Aigoo: Oh, horseshiat. We have NO obligation not to bomb an area with women and children unless we can prove the women and children are NOT combatants! Remember Viet Nam? I guaran-farking-tee you the women and children were every bit as much combatants there as the men. How do I know? Because I know too many Viet Nam vets who witnessed it firsthand, having little 7 or 8 year old kids toss grenades in vehicle gas tanks and shiat like that.

This war/conflict/whatever you want to call it is no different - women blowing themselves up in crowds of soldiers and civilians, little preteens and teens shooting at soldiers or blowing themselves up, little kids chucking grenades. When the author of that bit can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not one of those people was engaged in planting IEDs, shooting people, building bombs, financing terrorism, sending a kid off to be a suicide bomber or preparing to be a suicide bomber themselves, then I'll agree it was legitimate mass murder. Otherwise, accidents happen and it's called collateral damage.



So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.

After all, it helped us win the war in Vietnam, so why not keep doing it now?! For that matter, you know who was really good at winning wars? Genghis Khan! If we could just revive the reliable, time-tested tactic of wiping out villages as we encounter them, we wouldn't have to deal with this irritating "urban combat" situation at all!
 
2012-08-16 12:37:50 PM

Name_Omitted: FISA is not applicable. The point I was (poorly) trying to make is that the weak protections I have against wire-tapping are stronger than the protections I have against ending up on a kill list.


As Sprawl mentioned, the 'kill list' is basically a list of military targets; traditionally speaking the standard has always been lower for military action than criminal investigation and trial. Our ability to identify a US Citizen living among and assisting hostile combatants, making him a hostile combatant himself, is fairly new. Before we'd just blow the shiat out of them all and then go 'Huh, he was a dirty traitor', assuming we even recognized the body.

Don't want to end up on a kill list? Don't hang around terrorists with a specific beef against the USA and a history of making attacks on the USA. Especially don't renounce the USA while doing so, supporting said terrorists.
 
2012-08-16 12:37:56 PM
/subby
//you're welcome
 
2012-08-16 12:41:41 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.


For the life of me, I don't know why Democrats like Obama. If teh Bushiatler was evil incarnate, what possible defense do they have for the guy who continued or escalated his policies?
One guy prompts a million derp march in Washington, the other gets a farkin' Nobel Peace Prize--and all for the same shiat.
 
2012-08-16 12:43:23 PM

TiiiMMMaHHH: cman: Rent Party: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.

You are correct. Thank you for your post

Proof that 9/11 was more than a jet-fuel-induced burning of a steel structure

Here we are again. 9/11 = justified terrorism on the USA's part. Terrorism, by definition, is using violence to alter the way of life of your target.

Drone killings of 4,400 people fit that definition. Precisely.

it's not terrorism when the USA does it though. Even when they are about to do it to their own civil population. Tell me I'm wrong. The existence of Trapwire and the Domain Awareness System in NYC are proof positive.

But You don't want to hear this, because... welll.. 'Murica.. Fuk Yea!1!

/cue the straw-man hatred.
//Wanna borrow my tinfoil?


Oh wow, another Truther appears before me.

I must insist that your movement is 199% wrong. You guys are ignoring the Reptilian Jewish bankers who rule this world. Open your mind and learn
 
2012-08-16 12:44:58 PM
Lots of derp and fail in this thread.

Lots.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:23 PM
 
2012-08-16 12:47:22 PM

cman: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).



To elaborate slightly, when you have someone like me defending President Obama, a man who really does not like him, you know that your position is wrong


Racist.
 
2012-08-16 12:47:41 PM
Don't worry.

The Executive Branch is using this power only when they have to, and reviewed each case on it's merits.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:36 PM

BigNumber12: So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.


At least he's logically consistent enough to favor killing innocent women and children no matter which political party is in charge.

It's the Politics tab tards who suddenly change their opinion depending on which political party is in charge that piss me off.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-08-16 12:49:51 PM

BigNumber12: So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.

After all, it helped us win the war in Vietnam, so why not keep doing it now?!


i512.photobucket.com

It was a tie.
 
2012-08-16 12:53:34 PM

macadamnut: [i512.photobucket.com image 850x583]


I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.
 
2012-08-16 12:55:29 PM

BullBearMS: Indeed, newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks.

Let that sink in. Our official government policy is that if we kill them, they must be a terrorist.


Seems sexist.
 
2012-08-16 12:58:59 PM

jigger: macadamnut: [i512.photobucket.com image 850x583]

I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.


Truly? Wasn't it in Life magazine?
 
2012-08-16 12:59:05 PM

Firethorn: Name_Omitted: FISA is not applicable. The point I was (poorly) trying to make is that the weak protections I have against wire-tapping are stronger than the protections I have against ending up on a kill list.

As Sprawl mentioned, the 'kill list' is basically a list of military targets; traditionally speaking the standard has always been lower for military action than criminal investigation and trial. Our ability to identify a US Citizen living among and assisting hostile combatants, making him a hostile combatant himself, is fairly new. Before we'd just blow the shiat out of them all and then go 'Huh, he was a dirty traitor', assuming we even recognized the body.

Don't want to end up on a kill list? Don't hang around terrorists with a specific beef against the USA and a history of making attacks on the USA. Especially don't renounce the USA while doing so, supporting said terrorists.


The problem is when you don't know that a terrorist is living near you. Kinda like when the cops kick in your door at O'Dark:30 because a guy who lives in the same building you do sells drugs and they got a warrant to search the entire building because they don't know which apartment is his.

Polly Ester: arethereanybeernamesleft: vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.

His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.

For the life of me, I don't know why Democrats like Obama. If teh Bushiatler was evil incarnate, what possible defense do they have for the guy who continued or escalated his policies?
One guy prompts a million derp march in Washington, the other gets a farkin' Nobel Peace Prize--and all for the same shiat.


Both questions can be answered by looking at the letter in parentheses after his name. For most it has nothing to due with policies and behavior. It's all about which team he's on.
 
2012-08-16 01:08:41 PM

macadamnut: jigger: macadamnut: [i512.photobucket.com image 850x583]

I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.

Truly? Wasn't it in Life magazine?


Still,
Be prepared for a time out.
I've been made to sit in the corner for less.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:11 PM

BullBearMS: BullBearMS: Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.

Not to quote myself, but I should have pointed out who the Obama administration did decide to prosecute related to our nations decision to torture people.

The CIA whistle-blower who made our use of torture public knowledge was prosecuted.

The people who did the actual torturing and covered it up were not.


They might as well pardon Sandusky and make him head of the Department of Education.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report