Drones and football

[RC]

I would like for you all knowing all seeing poster to explain theses two things for me.

1. When Bush poured a little water on some muslim terrorists, you socialists went into a frothing at the mouth rage.  This was going to end our civilization.  Now your leader will KILL citizens with a drone, and there is just a peep about it. No trial, no due process, just boom.

2. Your leader says he would have to think about letting his son play football, but it is fine to put girls in the front line fox holes.

[Palehorse]

 

Again; PROVE IT!

[me]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141

Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens

woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.

Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.

" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.

Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.

But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.

taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.

[Palehorse]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141

Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens

woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.

Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.

" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.

Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.

But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.

taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.

[me]

That is from ABC news not Fox. 

[followsthewolf]

I would like for you all knowing all seeing poster to explain theses two things for me.

1. When Bush poured a little water on some muslim terrorists, you socialists went into a frothing at the mouth rage.  This was going to end our civilization.  Now your leader will KILL citizens with a drone, and there is just a peep about it. No trial, no due process, just boom.

2. Your leader says he would have to think about letting his son play football, but it is fine to put girls in the front line fox holes.

Cuz jeebus hates you and makes you wonder about such things.

[me]

http://wamc.org/post/holder-spells-out-why-drones-target-us-citizens

Holder Spells Out Why Drones Target U.S. Citizens


Attorney General Eric Holder discusses the controversial U.S. drone program during a speech at Northwestern Law School in Chicago on Monday.

Originally published on Tue March 6, 2012 12:01 am

    Listen   
    4:24

It's one of the most serious actions the U.S. government could ever take: targeting one of its own citizens with lethal force.

Since last year, U.S. drones have killed three Americans overseas. But Attorney General Eric Holder says the ongoing fight against al-Qaida means those kinds of deadly strikes are now a way of life. And judging from the reaction to his national security speech at Northwestern University Law School on Monday, so is the hot debate over the legality of the U.S. drone program.

Since President Obama took office, he's deployed drones against terrorism suspects in an unprecedented way. But the program is covert, so although foreign governments and reporters have chronicled those strikes, no U.S. official is supposed to mention them directly. Instead, as Holder acknowledged, they use euphemisms like targeted killing or use of force.

"The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen," Holder said Monday.

Why The Critics Object

That bothers Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"They are claiming the authority to kill any American citizen whom the president deems to be an enemy of the state," Jaffer says, "and that authority is not reviewable before the fact by any court and it's not reviewed after the fact by any court."

Jaffer is working with the family of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, who was killed by a drone in Yemen last September.

Prosecutors say Awlaki instructed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, to blow up a plane flying over Detroit in 2009, and inspired several other homegrown terrorists. They say Awlaki, an influential cleric, became a leader in the group al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. But they never publicly charged Awlaki with a crime, so he never had his day in court, raising questions about whether he got due process under the U.S. Constitution.

The Justice Department has refused to even acknowledge it prepared a memo authorizing the strike against Awlaki. Instead, after months of internal debate, the attorney general gave a speech setting out the broad legal rationale for targeting Americans overseas — never mentioning Awlaki by name.

When U.S. Acts

Holder said the government analysis starts with the question of geography: "Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan."

The Obama administration says al-Qaida has mostly moved out of Afghanistan and spread into Yemen and Somalia. Holder said the legal authorization Congress passed a week after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, stretches to cover military action there.

But that point is hotly challenged by Notre Dame Law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell.

"Killing persons far from armed conflict zones must follow law enforcement rules to comply with fundamental human rights," she says. "The president cannot assert that the U.S. is in a worldwide war or use the interstate right of self-defense to do an end run around law enforcement principles."

Holder said the administration acts after considering whether it has "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States."

In other words, the U.S. wants to know whether the foreign country has the law enforcement power, and the political will, to capture a suspected terrorist who's still alive.

Trusting The Administration

There's precedent for taking out an enemy leader. During World War II, the U.S. tracked the airplane flying the commander of the Japanese Navy — the man who presided over the attack on Pearl Harbor — and shot it down. But modern technology, in the form of drones, has introduced a new wrinkle, as Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson pointed out in his own recent speech at Yale University.

"What is new is that with advances in technology, we are able to target military objectives with much more precision, to the point where we can identify, target and strike a single military objective from great distances," Johnson said.

Jaffer, of the ACLU, says the Obama administration is playing it both ways: giving speeches on the controversial targeted killing program, but claiming the program is a state secret when it gets sued.

Jaffer cites recent polls that say many Americans seem to accept Obama's "just trust us" approach. But, he asks, "Do you trust the next administration as well? Are you confident the next president will use this power in a way that you think is responsible?"

Matthew Waxman, who teaches law at Columbia University, says neither end of the political spectrum is likely to feel satisfied with the status quo.

"Even if the administration comes forward with further disclosures, many of the details about this operation are going to remain opaque," Waxman says.

They'll remain hidden from view, Waxman says, because that's the nature of the modern fight against terrorism, which clashes with Obama's promise of transparency.

[followsthewolf]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141

Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens

woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.

Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.

" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.

Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.

But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.

taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.

Terrorists that are U.S. citizens and are outside the boundaries of the U.S. pose the threat of murdering other citizens. Do you prefer they do that?
Terrorists that have essentially declared war on the U.S. are guilty of treason, punishable by death.

If we have them within our control (i.e., at Gitmo) we have the ability to apply judicial system procedures.

When they are not under our control, we have no choice if we wish to protect other citizens.

Of course, you would piss and moan until you bleed if this dirtbag (or another p.o.s) were to order a strike and kill hundreds (perhaps thousands) of American citizens and you knew that it could have been averted by a simple strike.

You know I'm right and you're done.

[Palehorse]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141

Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens

woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.

Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.

" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.

Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.

But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.

taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.

Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.

There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.

So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?

Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?



Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .

[Palehorse]

Oh. . . and how about we discuss this second bit of balderdash?

Again, there is a distinct difference between war and parenting.

Making women eligible for placement onto the front lines of war is an act of equality as it relates to service to our country within the military. A lot of women serving WANTED that, as is their right. They are subject to the same rules, the same pay scales, and the same responsibilities as male members.

As a parent, given the fact that football is a dangerous sport that has a demonstrated likelihood to impose serious injury and death, I too would have to think about whether or not to allow my son or daughter to participate within the sport.

WTF is wrong with that?   

[RC]

You people PH Wolf, give me a great laugh.  Not one honest bone in either of you. Just drink the obama kool-aid and get going.  Terrorists that are citizens deserve the Constitution protections that are for all citizens. If they are found guilty of a crime, then give them the death penalty.  Non citizens, deserve nothing and what every they do to get info is fine.

Women are unique and special, and deserve to be honored and protected.  They are in deed equal in all regards except in the front lines of combat.  I want no part of a culture that says it is alright to send them to the front line.

You all need some new insults I am getting tired of the old ones.  Put your brain cell to work and come up with some.

[me]

Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.

There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.

So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?

Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?



Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .

So I guess ABC is just short of being classified as not being a reliable news source now too.  You all really need to quit ignoring and excusing some of these things that are going on.

[followsthewolf]

You people PH Wolf, give me a great laugh.  Not one honest bone in either of you. Just drink the obama kool-aid and get going.  Terrorists that are citizens deserve the Constitution protections that are for all citizens. If they are found guilty of a crime, then give them the death penalty.  Non citizens, deserve nothing and what every they do to get info is fine.

Women are unique and special, and deserve to be honored and protected.  They are in deed equal in all regards except in the front lines of combat.  I want no part of a culture that says it is alright to send them to the front line.

You all need some new insults I am getting tired of the old ones.  Put your brain cell to work and come up with some.

You wouldn't understand anyway.

I'll bet "me" is dancing with joy.

Someone with fewer skills has finally joined the fray.

He's your savior, "me."

I know -------- this will just further convince you that there is a jeebus. He sent rc to take the heat off you.

If you play your cards right, you'll come off looking like a genius by comparison.

[me]

Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.

There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.

So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?

Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?



Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .

Uh, water boarding does not kill drones do.

[me]

You wouldn't understand anyway.

I'll bet "me" is dancing with joy.

Someone with fewer skills has finally joined the fray.

He's your savior, "me."

I know -------- this will just further convince you that there is a jeebus. He sent rc to take the heat off you.

If you play your cards right, you'll come off looking like a genius by comparison.

Yep, if ya can't come up with something constructive to say about the subject reply with a put down of some sort.  Right out of the play book.