Reply With Quote
why? you set nothing by citizenship and the rights and immunities attaching thereto?
Is this America in general or is it directed at me?
fwiw, I'm not pissed off at illegal downloaders. I simply have no sympathy for them when they get busted.
As for murdering US citizens, I find it mildly disgusting that it's the "US citizen" part that really matters to many.
why? you set nothing by citizenship and the rights and immunities attaching thereto?
if the government calls someone a bad guy all bets are off? you can just waste em?
I find that more than mildly disgusting . . .
regardless of whether he was targeted, he was killed. is that proper, in your opinion?
if so, why?
Regarding war? No.
Why are you treating the American citizen as being more special than the Pakistanis?
Last edited by Blake; 02-10-2013 at 10:45 AM.
I'm still determining whether our military attacks in Yemen, Pakistan et al are justified.
I'd also like to know if he was considered an enemy of war or a casualty of war, in order to determine how sad I should be about his death.
Last edited by Blake; 02-10-2013 at 01:22 PM.
This is from 2011.. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...097899,00.html
MSM always ignoring Obama
Does anyone know if this is still considered a causality or was this kid actually targeted?
Personally speaking, killing a foreigner isn't setting any sort of precedent I'm aware of. But killing an American without trial does set a precedent, one Id rather not see set.
This is what I'm talking about. We've become frog hot water regarding foreigners getting assassinated.
Sill waiting for msm to key in and focus exclusively on the targeted murder without due process of the innocent 16 year old American boy from Colorado and the lack of evidence against him.
Rand Paul: 'Very unseemly' that president decides drone strikes
Sen. Rand Paul says there must be a review process before a president can authorize drone strikes on U.S. citizens.
“It’s very unseemly that a politician gets to decide the death of an American citizen," the Kentucky Republican said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "They should answer about this 16-year-old boy, al-Awlaki’s son, that was killed, not in collateral damage but in a separate strike. They never answered that. I think you should be tried for treason if you’re an American citizen, you go overseas and you take up arms. I’m probably for executing you but I want to hear the evidence.”
Paul said he won't vote to confirm John Brennan as CIA director until Brennan clarifies his answer about whether U.S. citizens can legally be killed by drone strikes within the United States.
“The president, a politician, Republican or Democrat, should never get to decide someone’s death by flipping through some flash cards and saying, ‘You want to kill him? Yeah, let’s go ahead and kill him,'" Paul said.
You should probably, you know, follow the msm because they have you silly turd.
TYT:Obama's Kill List and White Paper Memo with David SirotaThe Justice Department's leaked "White Paper Memo" surfaced, detailing legal justification for drone strikes, killing American citizens, and other cons utional powers of the president that were once thought of as unthinkable. Does the Obama administration have the power to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants without concrete justification? David Sirota (Writer, Political Analyst) breaks down what the memo means, whatever happened to due process, and whether the problem is "too big to curtail"
.
.
Holy shyt. Damn, Cenk Uygur says exactly what I have been saying. He really torches the Democrats and the public for their hypocrisy, stupidity and gullibility.
TYT: America Loves Drone Attackswhen it comes to drones, the fight in Washington has no parallel in the public at large. Put simply: Americans love drones."*
Liberals and conservatives agree: they love drone attacks. A Washington Post poll found the approval spans across parties. Why? Are people blindly following Obama and his administration? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
Last edited by SA210; 02-11-2013 at 02:13 AM.
citizenship matters. maybe not to you though.
I'm torn on that.
If it is absolutely clear that a citizen has any major roll in terrorist activity, or that of an enemy that can be deemed a target, I say he qualifies as a target as anyone else can. Citizenship should not protect one from clear treason.
You have the sanctimony going full throttle.
It matters to me because that's the way it is. I'd prefer one earth one people but I guess that's not in the cards for at least a few hundred, maybe thousand years.
Thank dog I hit the human lottery to be born here so that I can have super human rights and immunities.
Jeremy Scahill as usual with the goods, and sees through all the bull and spin
Great discussion
.
.
If Bush were doing this everything in Washington DC would stop today, congressional hearings would be called, there would be articles of impeachment, the entire press core would stop and focus all their attention on this cons utional overreach" -Scarborough
Joe Scarborough: Tears Into 'American King' Obama's 'Frightening,' 'Chilling' Drone Strike Defense
Is there a way to put youtube on ignore?
Comedy Central: Kroll Show, Drones
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
