Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   Obama administration weighing targeted drone strike on unnamed American citizen in unknown country doing unrevealed things   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 404
    More: Scary, American citizens, Obama, Americans, United States, Obama administration, Gadahn, Anwar al-Awlaki, risk aversion  
•       •       •

5068 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-11 08:30:11 AM  
This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-11 08:31:57 AM  

jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]


Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.
 
2014-02-11 08:33:43 AM  

Nabb1: YixilTesiphon: Nabb1:"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

Apparently they think that "due process of law" means "the President says so".

Well, not any President. Just this one.


And there is another set who trusted Bush with it, but not this one.

Apparently it's alien to people that if you don't trust somebody who could possibly be President with a power, no President should have that power.

/do they really want Ted Cruz to decide who lives and dies?
 
2014-02-11 08:34:28 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.


that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.
 
2014-02-11 08:34:35 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


Wow. The glow of stupidity emanating from this post is so bright it blinds.
 
2014-02-11 08:34:49 AM  

Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?


What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.
 
2014-02-11 08:35:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


Where's it written in the Constitution that it applies only when the US citizen is on US soil? The document is a declaration of freedoms of a US citizen in relation to their government's authority. Leaving the US does not invalidate or cancel those protections. You still have freedom of speech against the US government no matter where you happen to be on or around this planet.
 
2014-02-11 08:36:57 AM  

lohphat: irate vegetable:
the same government they are taking up arms against?

Yes, that government. They can be charged with treason, captured, and brought before a court to stand trial by their accusers instead of being called a criminal and executed without due process.

Remember the old white guys who wrote a document in protest against this and similar gripes against a monarch who could disappear you for any reason?


So guys in the middle of Yemen, or Pakistan, with no police forces in the country to speak of,can be captured?
 
2014-02-11 08:38:26 AM  
Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:08 AM  
Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:23 AM  

irate vegetable: As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.


Actually there are limitations when using force when it's shown the suspect was not a threat during the crime. Shoot and kill a fleeing suspected unarmed burglar and expect to get a murder charge handed to you.
 
2014-02-11 08:43:19 AM  

Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.


Either America killed your brother, or it didn't. I don't think they give a fark beyond that.

irate vegetable: What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.


So, the executive branch determines that it's not possible to bring somebody they believe committed a crime to trial and then they kill him?

It is not illegal to shoot somebody pointing a gun at the gas station clerk. It is illegal to shoot somebody making a plan to rob the gas station.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:13 AM  

irate vegetable: lohphat: irate vegetable:
the same government they are taking up arms against?

Yes, that government. They can be charged with treason, captured, and brought before a court to stand trial by their accusers instead of being called a criminal and executed without due process.

Remember the old white guys who wrote a document in protest against this and similar gripes against a monarch who could disappear you for any reason?

So guys in the middle of Yemen, or Pakistan, with no police forces in the country to speak of,can be captured?


Nope. But he also can't harm the United States.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:14 AM  
ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:39 AM  

Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.


If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:26 AM  
The Obamikado- I've got a little list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b_gmO7AJS4
 
2014-02-11 08:45:41 AM  

Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.


The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:53 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.


Due process applies before custody - arrest warrants, probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, etc.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:53 AM  

ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.


You make life/business as painful as possible for those sheltering the suspect.

E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

The 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why did we invade Iraq? They had proper IDs on them. Why does the TSA enforce ID checks when they're not needed?
 
2014-02-11 08:47:52 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.


So what?
 
2014-02-11 08:49:41 AM  

ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.


After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...
 
2014-02-11 08:49:45 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


That is setting quite a precedence for all of the Presidents out there in fear of the terrorist here.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:55 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?


Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:59 AM  

Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...


So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.
 
2014-02-11 08:51:38 AM  

The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.


is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:08 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.


I think his point is, who gives a damn what Republicans think?
 
2014-02-11 08:52:21 AM  
How can anyone have a issue with this.  the story I read on this stated this is for those who are

1.  In a country that will not work with the US to arrest the person(ie will not go in and arrest him and turn him over or who will not let us go in and do it our self).

and or

2. Is so protected as to make it to much of a risk to a team of special forces to go in after the person.

Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:52 AM  
Of the 776 people rounded up in Guantanamo, 600 were eventually released without charge. That's how good we are at this.

Honestly I really don't understand what we are fighting to protect anymore.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:57 AM  
It truly is amazing how many people are entirely fine with secret courts and powerful figures executing people without showing any justification, beyond their own assertions that those people deserved it.

I don't know if it has been posted around here, but take a look at this:   http://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret- r ole/  Drone strikes are being done targeting cell phones, not people.  If a cell phone has called other targeted cell phones a few too many times, we'll drone strike that cell phone regardless of who was holding it at that time.

Does anyone out there actually think we're trying to win this "war on terrorism"?  Isn't it abundantly clear that this is just used to prop up the MIC and instill a secretive system so it never has to answer to the American public ever again?
 
2014-02-11 08:53:05 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.


Those two are a lot more similar than either is to killing zero.
 
2014-02-11 08:53:13 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.


Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-11 08:53:42 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.


Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?
 
2014-02-11 08:53:54 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.


Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:48 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

Those two are a lot more similar than either is to killing zero.


unless you or your family members are numbers 2 - hundreds of thousand on the list of civilians killed, then they are very, very different.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:52 AM  

Biological Ali: YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.

Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.


Constitutionality is determined by the Constitution. What rules the government follows is determined by the courts, and increasingly by pulling them out of the President's anus.
 
2014-02-11 08:56:52 AM  

Nabb1: war crimes


[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]
 
2014-02-11 08:56:54 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.

Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?


I'm not saying 'you' personally. I'm saying that Republicans have blocked several attempts by the administration to bring suspected terrorist to the United States based on (surprise, surprise) fear.

How would you handle it? You've already said what you wouldn't do
 
2014-02-11 08:58:00 AM  

jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.


We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.
 
2014-02-11 08:58:23 AM  

lohphat: E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.


So essentially...
US drone killing him without trial is bad, but...
US forcing Pakistan to kill him for us without trial is Ok.  It's like claiming you didn't commit the murder, because the hitman you hired technically did.
And then you have the matter of Pakistani soldiers' lives lost during the conflict to capture or kill him.  Or the fact that Pakistan might just fly over and drop a bomb on him anyway.
 
2014-02-11 08:59:08 AM  

MattStafford: It truly is amazing how many people are entirely fine with secret courts and powerful figures executing people without showing any justification, beyond their own assertions that those people deserved it.

I don't know if it has been posted around here, but take a look at this:   [redacted]  Drone strikes are being done targeting cell phones, not people.  If a cell phone has called other targeted cell phones a few too many times, we'll drone strike that cell phone regardless of who was holding it at that time.



That's some nice Snowden propaganda there, but it's not going to cross into anywhere close to fact until Snowden and his helpers are experiencing due process in a US court, in US custody - with no immunities.
 
2014-02-11 08:59:15 AM  

Biological Ali: YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.

Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.


No, there has not been a ruling on the summary execution of citizens abroad. The case was dismissed on standing.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:33 AM  

MattStafford: jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.

We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.


We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:35 AM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: war crimes

[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]


Ask Amnesty International. That's what they've labeled out drone program.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:38 AM  

sethstorm: That's some nice Snowden propaganda there, but it's not going to cross into anywhere close to fact until Snowden and his helpers are experiencing due process in a US court, in US custody - with no immunities.


Yeah, ok.
 
2014-02-11 09:01:50 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.

Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.


Poor Obama. He can't stop now. Look what Bush made him do.
 
2014-02-11 09:01:51 AM  

Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.


Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.
 
2014-02-11 09:03:06 AM  

MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.


So fabricated evidence is cool then?
 
2014-02-11 09:04:38 AM  

Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?


No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?
 
2014-02-11 09:05:38 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

So essentially...
US drone killing him without trial is bad, but...
US forcing Pakistan to kill him for us without trial is Ok.  It's like claiming you didn't commit the murder, because the hitman you hired technically did.
And then you have the matter of Pakistani soldiers' lives lost during the conflict to capture or kill him.  Or the fact that Pakistan might just fly over and drop a bomb on him anyway.


That would allow Pakistan to handle it in a way that Pakistan wants to handle it, drop a bomb on their own nation, it's not us invading their sovereignty and causing diplomatic problems on a global scale.
 
2014-02-11 09:05:47 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?


Nothing?
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report