chess online
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 MusketAlso, it's my understanding that the CIA and Saudi intelligence organizations have informants in Al-Qaeda. I read last year about an undercover officer in al-Qaeda who came out of his cover to foil a terrorist plot against a US commercial aircraft. |
||||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 19:47 |
Lets be clear the type of "citizen" we are talking about. www.nytimes.com Lets be clear there is a classified justification actually used and what is leaked is a summary white paper. Because it is classified it is provided only to a select few in Congress. The classified document is much more specific about the protocols for approving the drastic step of targeting citizens who are associated with an organization that is at war with and has targeted the USA for terrorism. www.abajournal.com And reading the full text of the white paper, news.yahoo.com, note that it it concludes as follows: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida without violating the Constitution or the federal statutes discussed in this white paper under the following conditions: (l) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force. As stated earlier, this paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful, nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances. It concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation in a foreign country directed against a U.S. citizen with the characteristics described above." It was the GOP that railed against Clinton for using missile strikes against countries that supported terrorism. But when Bush was elected, suddenly the sky was the limit. Now Obama is President and so the right rants and raves again about powers that are implicit in what Congress has passed and the President's authority as Commander in Chief. I can smell hypocrisy a long way off.... |
||||||||
|
Now, before anyone says otherwise, I support this now and I supported it in 2001. This isn't about the US not having or needing evidence, it's about the US not needing to declare the evidence which it has. This does not legalize the US to commit war crimes. Until evidence of any kind surfaces that the US deliberately targeted civillians or used false pretences for a strike, I'm not changing my tune with regard to drone strikes. Especially when they have done serious damage to an enemy of the west. |
||||||||
|
DM |
||||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 20:03 |
|
||||||||
|
The most ironic statement of the week lawl cyber warriors for Obama up in this bish . . . |
||||||||
|
The fact that Bush started it doesn't make it right, in fact it only makes it WORSE that now the liberal obama toe suckers are apologizing for it because their team is up to bat. It's sick. lol |
||||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 20:08 |
|
||||||||
|
I have to often tell me son, "I don't care what your friend Michael did, you don't get to do it back" Children . . . They are all alike. Ha! |
||||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Feb-13, 20:56 |
Citizen or not, we should have consistent standards. I have not seen abuse yet from any drone strikes on al Qaeda citizens or in the way the policy is applied so far If they are an ongoing terrorist threat it should not matter. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Musket "The thing is, the Powers-That-Be have now decided that they can broadly and flexibly redefine 'combatants', 'terrorists' and 'soldiers' any way they choose and give themselves near unlimited 'license' to kill anyone they decide to call, 'enemies'. Almost anyone can now be defined as such and the weapons originally designed to limit civilian causalities can be turned into tools of assassination and murder." THAT is what worries me. There seems to be no accountability, no chain of command for decision making, no restrictions, no oversight. What is to stop the President from saying that he "knows" there is a group located in the U.S. (or in any country) that is affiliated with Al Qaeda and that they are planning to attack NYC? We just agree that he must know? And, it must be true? |
||||||||
|
tat |
||||||||
|
When you become a prisoner of war, the Law that applies forbids torture. Also easy to understand. Besides the fact that people love to play partisan games, what is so hard to understand about this? When Bush was President, I was called unpatriotic because I was against torture. In my opinion, torture does not help you to win the war. I am for winning the war, and that includes killing any mealy mouthed son of a b**** in the Yemeni desert planning terrorist attacks against America... even if they just happen to be American citizens. Take 'em out. The a**hole had it coming. I really don't see what all the confusion is about. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Change I like to pat myself on the back for being against Bush and his notions that torture is good. I also consider myself a patriot and nothing is more pleasing to me then to think about members of Al-Quaddah, facing Mecca and moldering away (or getting eaten by crabs). I really don't care if they were born here or not. To my way of thinking, the difference I see is that one way is effective and the other way isn't. And the fact that the wrong way was championed by an semi - illiterate poll watcher didn't help. |
||||||||
|
Illi |
||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Feb-13, 07:00 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 08-Feb-13, 07:12.
|
||||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Feb-13, 07:23 |
|
||||||||
|
illi, dm, others But, once again (and this is the important point): Thumper said it best and I repeat it for emphasis: "The thing is, the Powers-That-Be have now decided that they can broadly and flexibly redefine 'combatants', 'terrorists' and 'soldiers' any way they choose and give themselves near unlimited 'license' to kill anyone they decide to call, 'enemies'. Almost anyone can now be defined as such and the weapons originally designed to limit civilian causalities can be turned into tools of assassination and murder." THAT is what worries me. There seems to be no accountability, no chain of command for decision making, no restrictions, no oversight. What is to stop the President from saying anything, about anybody? |
||||||||
|
This is the same fear many around the world have to live with every day softy, welcome to the club. |
||||||||
|
change |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Feb-13, 08:34 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 08-Feb-13, 09:47.
|
||||||||
|
I forget the details but an American reporter who communicates with terrorist organizations or covers terrorist organizations viewed the bill as a threat, and challenged it. |
||||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Feb-13, 08:45 |
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
****************************************************************** Imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and a Republican president had issued an order that permitted the killing of American citizens with drones. The country would go gonzo. Liberals would be screaming at the tops of their lungs about the president’s intentional violation of due process and civil rights. Liberals would be demanding the president be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Jesse Jackson and Al Not-So-Sharpton would be lisping their ebonic mumbo-jumbo that the policy and the president are racist and bigoted. They would organize protest marches in front of the White House, where they would burn effigies of the president. The Huffington Post would run headlines such as: ”President wants to kill Americans” or “The butcher-in-chief.” Red-faced with anger, Michael Moore would devour another dozen or so donuts, feign personal hygiene and then start his movie camera. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would sling all kinds of slurs and disparaging remarks at the president and claim he is usurping his authority. They would encourage Americans to revolt. The “99-percenter” crowd of intentionally unemployed Americans would move into Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, where they would pitch their tents and refrigerator boxes, ingest massive amounts of mind-altering chemicals and then try to storm the gates of the White House. Scores of Hollywood actors would scramble to be on television to proclaim they are leaving the country until the president is charged with murder and forced to resign. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would ban all images of the president in New York City and encourage New Yorkers to fly the American flag upside-down as a distress symbol. Piers Morgan would be so angry that he would encourage Americans to buy AR-15s and revolt. CNN would be running 24/7 coverage with panels of guests condemning the president and with live reports from the White House. Wolf Blitzer would be howling at the moon. The residents of East St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago and other cities would burn their own neighborhoods in protest. Left-wing musicians would organize a massive pay-per-view concert to protest the president. The musicians would call the president a murderer from the stage. A big banner behind the stage would have a picture of the president and Adolf Hitler with the words, “Can you spot the difference?” The heads of the ACLU would spin completely around and then spontaneously combust. Vice President Joe Biden would say something so outrageously stupid that even CNN wouldn’t air it. Bill Maher would piously stand on his comedy stage and say, ”I told you that you couldn’t trust a Republican, and now they are going to kill us all.” MSNBC’s rating would increase to more than 60 viewers! Jimmy Carter would encourage military members to desert, and then he would fly off to the Middle East where he would meet with Hamas leaders and apologize for America. The National Education Association would go on strike and claim it was doing it to benefit the children. Representatives from NARAL, the pro-abortion group, would say had they known the Republican president was going to issue such an order, they would have wished their parents had aborted them. But what has been the left’s response to President Obama’s decree to kill Americans who are suspected of being or associating with terrorists? Nothing. The big goose egg. The reason for their condemnable silence is that President Obama is Democrat, a big-government liberal like themselves. Need any more proof that liberals are two-faced hypocrites? Liberalism is hypocritical poison, and it’s on full parade for all the world to see. Read more at www.wnd.com |
||||||||
| |||||||||
Log in 
