Is that supposed to be "Whateva! They can do what they want"

Whatever.

Won't help Vincent Foster.

Anyone who dates his daughters?

Subby's lack of faith in dear leader is disturbing...

As far as the CIA is concerned, Barack Obama is just another subject and has the same potential as any Afghani or any other civilian.

The CIA does whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, whenever the hell it wants.

Because there is nobody in the world that can tell them no.

It's not bad when liberals do it. Just get over it. Republican bad, liberal good. It's simple as that. If you have trouble with it, too bad, you're probably racist anyway.

So they're making up their own rules so there's no impropriety in their own extrajudicial actions.

Sounds legit.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: So they will be a Hard Target that is Marked for Death that will Die Hard?

Only if the Op-Center determines that the targets represent a Clear and Present Danger will these Rules of Engagement apply.

stirfrybry: It's not bad when liberals do it. Just get over it. Republican bad, liberal good. It's simple as that. If you have trouble with it, too bad, you're probably racist anyway.

Just gonna phone it in, huh?

It's kinda weird that only a tiny minority of the populace has a problem with this. Not even 10% of us can get upset about the CIA using flying death robots with no oversight. I guess we're either incredibly stupid, or desensitized to killing. Probably both

WhoopAssWayne: I'm sure all the fark liberals screaming for a Bush war crimes trial will just happily add Obama to the list, right? Right? Yeah, that's what we thought.

Some guy was crowing last night about Bush being a "war criminal" and how he couldn't visit certain countries without fear of getting arrested, and I pointed out that many countries aren't particularly happy with The Administration's use of hunter/killer drones, and how is that working out for you.

/hypocritical slurpers gonna slurp

halfof33: WhoopAssWayne: I'm sure all the fark liberals screaming for a Bush war crimes trial will just happily add Obama to the list, right? Right? Yeah, that's what we thought.

Some guy was crowing last night about Bush being a "war criminal" and how he couldn't visit certain countries without fear of getting arrested, and I pointed out that many countries aren't particularly happy with The Administration's use of hunter/killer drones, and how is that working out for you.

/hypocritical slurpers gonna slurp

I know you're both just trolls, and I do think there's a lot of illegality in the way Obama does things. But this is a lot different than manufacturing evidence in order to invade a sovereign country. Can you not see the difference? Wait, don't answer that. If Obama starts assassinating people based on lies he created and fed to the media, while relying on those media statements as proof of his assertions, then we can talk. Still shouldn't kill citizens without due process.

stirfrybry: It's not bad when liberals do it. Just get over it. Republican bad, liberal good. It's simple as that. If you have trouble with it, too bad, you're probably racist anyway.


I don't like it when it's American citizens that are targeted, which of course was done, but then again if you're in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. hanging out with known enemies of the US you pretty much deserve  your fate.

Screw you guys as Cartman would say.

BigNumber12: You forgot "blindly partisan" or "afraid of being called a bigot."

Seems that 50% of this country has zero problem with being called a bigot. Seems they invite it even. And even though there are a lot of people who are blindly partisan for both sides, just shocked that so few people care about it.

/Remember, the last president to go against the CIA was JFK

jmr61: I don't like it when it's American citizens that are targeted, which of course was done, but then again if you're in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. hanging out with known enemies of the US you pretty much deserve your fate.

My problem with that is, how do we know these aren't just weekend warriors playing tough. We have a ton of these guys in the US. A bunch of people up in McVeigh's neck of the woods play revolutionary in the woods every weekend. How do we know this isn't the same thing? Seems there should be some sort of process involved, other than doing whatever we want. And association shouldn't be enough to kill someone without more anyways. Seems we've killed a hundred terrorists for every one attack. Disproportionate at least.

Can we start using drone strikes in the US then? Much more effective and quicker than our current justice system.

Let's start by nuking Adam Lanza from orbit.

Champion of the Sun: I know you're both just trolls, and I do think there's a lot of illegality in the way Obama does things. But this is a lot different than manufacturing evidence in order to invade a sovereign country. Can you not see the difference? Wait, don't answer that. If Obama starts assassinating people based on lies he created and fed to the media, while relying on those media statements as proof of his assertions, then we can talk. Still shouldn't kill citizens without due process.

I like it when a guy who has been here a month starts right out with the ad hominems.

So it is not a problem that the Administration is assassinating people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

Ok then.

For the people biatching about how it's "okay when Obama does it":

No, not really. But as stated above there's a farkton more blame for Bush here. We, as a country, wouldn't be doing this if a certain War On An Abstract Concept didn't get started on the first place. But that would've required an atmosphere in 2001-3 wherein actual debate could've occurred, instead of the swarm of chest-thumping, flag-waving idiots we had terrifying politicians into rubber-stamping shiat like the Patriot Act.

My father had the gall to tell one of his co-workers that he thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the response he got was that he obviously just wanted to see Americans die.

Should Obama or the CIA be doing this? Is it moral, ethical or legal? fark NO. But you conservative assholes let the genie out of the bottle, and people tend not to give power back, as you might have noticed from the umpteenth extension of warrantless wiretapping recently. You didn't just condone torture and murder and the destruction of civil liberty, you cheered for it. And some of you are still out there cheering for it as long as Obama doesn't get the credit. You ceded any pretense of moral authority the United States of America ever had because you got scared.

You destroyed this country, and you're whining like little biatches now that it looks like you might have to pay the price too. fark off.

PchopSandwiches: Can we start using drone strikes in the US then? Much more effective and quicker than our current justice system.

Let's start by nuking Adam Lanza from orbit.

FTFM

/mondays...

Anonymous Bosch: For the people biatching about how it's "okay when Obama does it":

Actually, we were pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying it is only bad when Bush did it.

Small but significant difference, and one that there was no way in hell was going to get in the way of your little rant, right sport?

protip: Obama's not ACTUALLY using the drones in Iraq, so... yeah. Bush bad, we get it. Thanks for posting.

halfof33: I like it when a guy who has been here a month starts right out with the ad hominems.

So it is not a problem that the Administration is assassinating people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

Ok then.

Listen brah, this is my fourth or fifth login here. Been around a long time. (Never used them for trolling/sockpuppetting) And it doesn't take much reading to see that you a troll. I was just laughing at the fake liberal you guys were making up. I said these are illegal actions, just that comparing targeted drone strikes and invasion of a sovereign country based on lies you created are so wildly different, that comparing them would be idiotic. There's a chance Obama could be a war criminal, anyone that isn't a partisan knows Bush is one. And you're the kind of piece of excrement that Anonymous Bosch was talking about. You don't care that these drone strikes are occurring, you only care that Obama is the one okaying them.

stirfrybry: It's not bad when liberals do it. Just get over it. Republican bad, liberal good. It's simple as that. If you have trouble with it, too bad, you're probably racist anyway.

Can you imagine the reaction if the TSA scanners were put into use under Bush? I guess under Obama it's ok to be a pervert. Actually, it was ok for Bill Clinton to rape a woman and for his administration to cover it up. Read George StayOnTopOfThis' book about the incident. But Bill raped the woman who deserved it.

And that's the way it should be.
The Silent Wings of Death, need to keep people on their toes guessing.

Anonymous Bosch: For the people biatching about how it's "okay when Obama does it":

No, not really. But as stated above there's a farkton more blame for Bush here. We, as a country, wouldn't be doing this if a certain War On An Abstract Concept didn't get started on the first place. But that would've required an atmosphere in 2001-3 wherein actual debate could've occurred, instead of the swarm of chest-thumping, flag-waving idiots we had terrifying politicians into rubber-stamping shiat like the Patriot Act.

My father had the gall to tell one of his co-workers that he thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the response he got was that he obviously just wanted to see Americans die.

Should Obama or the CIA be doing this? Is it moral, ethical or legal? fark NO. But you conservative assholes let the genie out of the bottle, and people tend not to give power back, as you might have noticed from the umpteenth extension of warrantless wiretapping recently. You didn't just condone torture and murder and the destruction of civil liberty, you cheered for it. And some of you are still out there cheering for it as long as Obama doesn't get the credit. You ceded any pretense of moral authority the United States of America ever had because you got scared..

This, exactly. As long as the guy in the White House has an (R) after his name, all of things they're complaining about now are just fine and anyone who dares sugges otherwise must Hate America. And of course, they're determined that pointing out that anything they're complaining about started while their guy held the reigns means you support it under the current administration. I have this exact exchange with derptards on my local news channel's FB feed every day, but I had never managed to put it as clearly and eloquently as you just did.

/Hat's Off
//Totallly going to paraphrase this the next time some idiot whines about drones.

Champion of the Sun: You really only care because it's Obama doing it.

I am pretty sure I already said the opposite.

In fact, what i said at the beginning of this thread is the same people who are calling Bush a War Criminal should be calling Obama one as well.

/to clarify for the hypocrites: I don't think either is a War Criminal. Hell, I think they should have fired off the drones in Benghazi.

Hmmmm, it appears one cannot point out where people on fark called George Bush a war criminal yesterday.

Calling someone a "piece of excrement"? That's a go.

rolls eyes.....

The so-called "signature strikes", where we go out and shoot missiles at people because they're Muslims of military age gathered in a group or something like that, has to be one of the scariest precedents of all the "innovations" of the War on Terrorism.

Surprise, surprise, the mainstream media doesn't agree. At least not for the next four years.

halfof33: Hmmmm, it appears one cannot point out where people on fark called George Bush a war criminal yesterday.

Calling someone a "piece of excrement"? That's a go.

rolls eyes.....

Cry more.

Champion of the Sun: halfof33: Hmmmm, it appears one cannot point out where people on fark called George Bush a war criminal yesterday.

Calling someone a "piece of excrement"? That's a go.

rolls eyes.....

Cry more.

Quality post. hee, hee!

Champion of the Sun: It's kinda weird that only a tiny minority of the populace has a problem with this. Not even 10% of us can get upset about the CIA using flying death robots with no oversight. I guess we're either incredibly stupid, or desensitized to killing. Probably both

/No, it's more the fact that the terrorists hide in buildings with civilians in them. Or churches. You can't expect to bomb and not have civilian casualties. I'm sure (and ive seen alot of those vids) that they try their hardest to not lob a hellfire into someone's house that is not involved, but ya, it's war. It sucks, but it's much better than the carpet bombing of WWII.

Bit'O'Gristle: Champion of the Sun: It's kinda weird that only a tiny minority of the populace has a problem with this. Not even 10% of us can get upset about the CIA using flying death robots with no oversight. I guess we're either incredibly stupid, or desensitized to killing. Probably both

/No, it's more the fact that the terrorists hide in buildings with civilians in them. Or churches. You can't expect to bomb and not have civilian casualties. I'm sure (and ive seen alot of those vids) that they try their hardest to not lob a hellfire into someone's house that is not involved, but ya, it's war. It sucks, but it's much better than the carpet bombing of WWII.

That's a completely different argument than the one we're having. But I don't think we're at war with the many countries in which we use predator drone strikes.

Even if we hit zero innocent civilians, we haven't shown even by circumstantial evidence that the people we are killing are actually terrorists. So who's actually a civilian? A secret oversight committee subject to no one tells you so.

Also relevant.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has sent an extraordinary letter to top White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, President Obama's choice to lead the CIA. The letter poses questions about executive power, like "How much evidence does the President need to determine that a particular American can be lawfully killed?" and "Does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender before killing them?" We're used to such questions from organizations like the ACLU, journalists like Charlie Savage, and various concerned citizens. And though rules that confer death should always be transparent, the fact that they're being kept even from Wyden is especially indefensible.

The body he sits on, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is charged with providing "vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States," to ensure "that they conform with the Constitution and U.S. law." There is no one in America more justified in demanding to know the official legal rationale behind actions like targeted killings. Obama isn't just keeping this information from the American people. He isn't just hiding his legal reasoning from the U.S. Congress. He is stonewalling one of 15 senators that federal law establishes as the most important check on secret abuses by the CIA.

/just a graph, I have no opinion about it.

Anonymous Bosch: You destroyed this country, and you're whining like little biatches now that it looks like you might have to pay the price too. fark off.

You da man, now the man in yellow.

Among the subjects covered in the playbook are ... the legal principles that govern when U.S. citizens can be targeted overseas

I have a very hard time with this one in particular...

cryinoutloud: Anonymous Bosch: You destroyed this country, and you're whining like little biatches now that it looks like you might have to pay the price too. fark off.

You da man, now the man in yellow.

Is yellow the one you use for not making sense? Because that shiat should be canary.

Pay the price too? You mean the Obama administration might be accused of being war criminals too? Is that what you mean by "paying the price"?

5 years in, they are getting around to making rules.

cryinoutloud: /just a graph, I have no opinion about it.

Gee, I wonder why so many of those killed are called "militants"?

ndeed, 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.

Forward with Hope & Change!

I'm so glad Obama bombed Libya. Otherwise, we would have terrible problems in Mali right now.