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 20
    More: Scary, American citizens, Obama, Americans, United States, Obama administration, Gadahn, Anwar al-Awlaki, risk aversion  
•       •       •

5056 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-11 07:03:09 AM
6 votes:

propasaurus: And it just so happens that Ted Cruz is currently traveling overseas. Coincidence?


The article said it was an American, not a Canadian.
2014-02-11 07:34:05 AM
3 votes:

gfid: "That's the good thing about being president.  I can do whatever I want." - Obama


that's what he says when he snags Malia's toaster strudel on the way by the breakfast table in the morning.
2014-02-11 07:31:38 AM
2 votes:

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Ask Rodney King.

Dorner, anyone?  That was an unabashed, unapologetic assassination.  There were never any orders to capture him, it was "shoot to kill."


That was done purely for his safety.
2014-02-11 12:25:56 AM
2 votes:
al-Qaeda terrorist! why didn't we think of this before?

static-secure.guim.co.uk
2014-02-11 09:32:17 PM
1 votes:
Obama's exact quote:

"I didn't want to drone 'em. I felt I owed it to them."
2014-02-11 01:37:23 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.

cool fact



i62.tinypic.com
2014-02-11 10:07:16 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.

Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.

From a legal standpoint. Again, you probably can't, so maybe just forget it.


Stop. You're hurting my feelings. Your approval is very important to me.
2014-02-11 10:05:02 AM
1 votes:

YixilTesiphon: Epic Fap Session: YixilTesiphon: sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?

just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target

Does that trouble you?

No. I'm not:

A) a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or associate of known terrorists.

B) pants-pissingly afraid of the President of the United States of America (regardless of political persuasion).

So your argument is that this is OK because the government doesn't make mistakes? I guess we're done here.


Yes. That's exactly my argument. I used those other words as a sort of code.
2014-02-11 09:49:34 AM
1 votes:
A "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in a city of several million based on trumped up evidence just feels more lawful to me.
2014-02-11 09:12:40 AM
1 votes:

YixilTesiphon: Epic Fap Session: 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?

WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS


Actually, in cases involving people deemed "enemy combatants" we don't.

Thanks for the all caps and bolded response. Now I know you mean business.
2014-02-11 08:56:52 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: war crimes


[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]
2014-02-11 08:18:30 AM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?


He was the first American specifically targeted with a drone. He was not killed on a "battlefield". I also wanted to note the Orwellian twist that the American that inspired terrorism was droned and the American that committed the terrorism was charged with work place violence.
2014-02-11 07:39:12 AM
1 votes:

irate vegetable: DrPainMD: 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.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?


Police can only kill you in self defense.

Hahaha, yeah, that's a good one!
2014-02-11 07:29:30 AM
1 votes:

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?

You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?


I have a former colleague who was working inYemen before the bottom fell out for an oil company.

All it takes in Afghanistan is some warlord to make a statement, no matter if it's true or not, that so and so "is a terrorist" to have them disappeared to Gitmo.

Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

And yes. I have a problem with that.
2014-02-11 07:21:40 AM
1 votes:
We get it, he's black.
2014-02-11 07:20:24 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: 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.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.


It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.
2014-02-11 07:16:28 AM
1 votes:
Wait a sec. About a decade ago, I remember folks saying that anyone who is actively working with terrorist organizations is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such.

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.
2014-02-11 07:08:12 AM
1 votes:
I do find it amusing that as far as some Americans are concerned, the President could drone strike 8 billion people, just as long as none of them are peripherally connected to the US in their past and therefore might technically be a citizen, which would obviously be an outrage of horrendous proportions.
2014-02-11 03:03:12 AM
1 votes:
And it just so happens that Ted Cruz is currently traveling overseas. Coincidence?
2014-02-11 12:59:34 AM
1 votes:
Everything a soldier does when he's fighting is criminal. Soldiers are the worst criminals in the world. That's why it's legal to shoot them ON SIGHT.

It happens that the terrorist soldiers can't see as far as the American ones. Them's the breaks. If you don't like the rules, you can always refrain from joining the game.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report