This is what SA210 brings to the forum.
I like this topic. I hate spam. I laugh at butthurt. It's that simple.
SA210 brings it to the forum...If I don't like a topic, I don't post in it...it's that simple...
This is what SA210 brings to the forum.
I like this topic. I hate spam. I laugh at butthurt. It's that simple.
You are the one that came in here with the butthurt, and lies too. Butthurt about me telling the truth about your messiah Obama, and exposing your bff
You're so hurt you keep following me everywhere and ruining threads, being a troll all over the forum. This is a serious thread, you can just go back to the one your e-bff troll obsessively made for me and get trashed in there. lol
You're a ing idiot.
lol meltdowns need to stay in other thread, go have your meltdown over there please
that's another lie.
‘You’re My Best Friend,’ Says Obama To Drone That Appears Outside Bedroom Window Every Night >>
WASHINGTON—White House sources confirmed that after hearing a gentle tap on his window Thursday evening, President Barack Obama stepped out onto the Truman balcony to meet with the predator drone that appears outside his bedroom every night at 9 p.m. “Ah, there you are, old friend; almost thought you weren’t coming tonight,” the President reportedly said to the unmanned aerial vehicle before affectionately patting its antenna dome, telling the drone that it was “truly good” to see it, and asking about who it killed that day. “You’re the only one that gets me, the only one I trust. It’s just you and me from here on out, old pal. You’re my best friend in the whole world.” After leaning in, sharing a private joke with the remotely controlled vehicle, and laughing heartily, sources confirmed that the president said “Go get ’em!” and quietly watched the drone fly off into the night sky.
^^^ so fits in this thread.
Hope/Change/Transparency
AF removes RPA airstrike number from summary
By Brian Everstine and Aaron Mehta - Staff writers
Posted : Friday Mar 8, 2013 12:34:50 EST
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...dloZo.facebook
As scrutiny and debate over the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the American military increased last month, the Air Force reversed a policy of sharing the number of airstrikes launched from RPAs in Afghanistan and quietly scrubbed those statistics from previous releases kept on their website.
Last October, Air Force Central Command started tallying weapons releases from RPAs, broken down into monthly updates. At the time, AFCENT spokeswoman Capt. Kim Bender said the numbers would be put out every month as part of a service effort to “provide more detailed information on RPA ops in Afghanistan.”
The Air Force maintained that policy for the statistics reports for November, December and January. But the February numbers, released March 7, contained empty space where the box of RPA statistics had previously been.
Additionally, monthly reports hosted on the Air Force website have had the RPA data removed — and recently.
Those files still contained the RPA data as of Feb. 16, according to archived web pages accessed via Archive.org. Metadata included in the new, RPA-less versions of the reports show the files were all created Feb. 22.
Defense Department spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks said the department was not involved in the decision to remove the statistics. AFCENT did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The data removal coincided with increased scrutiny on RPA policy caused by President Barack Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Brennan faced opposition in the Senate over the use of RPAs and his defense of their legality in his role as Obama’s deputy national security adviser.
On Feb. 20, two days before the metadata indicates the scrubbed files were created, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to Brennan saying that he would filibuster the nomination over concerns about using RPA strikes inside the U.S., a threat he carried out for over 12 hours on March 6 (Brennan was confirmed the next day).
That same day, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., told a crowd in South Carolina that strikes by American RPAs have killed 4,700 people.
“Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qaida,” Graham was quoted by the Patch website as saying.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...ret-memo-.htmlEvery time you think the war on terror can't get any weirder, it does.
In the latest manifestation, White House officials are leaking to the news media that they are considering whether to use drone strikes to kill an unnamed American in Pakistan. This behavior is bizarre as a matter of national security: If a terrorist really poses an imminent threat, how exactly does the administration have time to test the political waters before taking him out? But it is the inevitable result of a more fundamental, long-term problem with the U.S.'s use of drone strikes. President Barack Obama's administration has kept secret the legal justification for such strikes on Americans, as well as the internal procedures to be followed in making the decision. The secrecy shrouds the drone program in a basic sense of illegitimacy. No wonder the administration feels it can’t just kill our enemies, but needs to send up trial balloons first: The whole program is operating under a bad legal conscience.
The backdrop to the current mess is the fundamental problem of secret legal opinions. In 2013, the Justice Department released a “white paper” -- not, it must be noted, a legal term -- vaguely explaining why it believed that it was cons utional and lawful to kill an American abroad if he or she was a “senior operational leader of al-Qaeda.”
The white paper offered a kind of sketch or “framework” based on a secret Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that presumably provides the actual legal arguments on which the government relies in making such a momentous decision. But the memorandum itself has never been declassified: We have no idea what it really says, or whether the white paper accurately summarized its reasoning.
The white paper argued most prominently that a citizen's due-process rights are not violated when the drone kills him, as long as a “high-level” government official deems him an imminent threat, capture is infeasible, and the strike satisfies the international laws of war. This argument may sound reasonable enough on the surface, but looked at more closely, it's full of holes. “Imminent threat” is defined incredibly broadly, and on the assumption that some parts of al-Qaeda “continually” pose an imminent threat. The word “imminence” has an ordinary cons utional meaning -- something is imminent if it is likely to happen soon. The white paper turns that meaning on its head. It says, for example, that if the target has in the past planned attacks and has not resigned from al-Qaeda, the requirement of imminence is satisfied without evidence of, well, imminence.
Obama thinking he's above the law.
https://fair.org/home/hales-crime-is...drone-program/But in 2015, the Intercept publishes something called “The Drone Papers.” The Drone Papers were a secret cache of do ents about the US drone program, given to the Intercept by an anonymous source. So now we’re one year out from the raid against Mr. Hale.
Then in 2019–and you will now note we’re five years on—Daniel Hale was indicted under four counts under the Espionage Act and one count of theft of government property. And if you read the indictment, it accuses him of taking classified information about the drone program and giving it to a journalist.
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
Chiming in with sperm shielding. Some things remain(ed) the same.
Also at the total psychopathy in that answer. Funny how all your fellow blue anons hate me calling you out on the obvious.
What did Daniel Hale give to the world? I mean, we hear “Espionage Act,” that sounds like a spy or a saboteur furnishing military secrets to a hostile enemy, troop movements to Al Qaeda or Putin, right? But no, he gave information to the Intercept about the US drone program that gave us an unprecedented look into the “kill chain,” right, the bureaucratic process by which people are basically chosen for summary execution by the president, showing they were culling data from the “terror watchlist.”
"Oh the humanity!"
How many times have you posted that little piece of psychopathy, derp?
100?
200?
Give me your ballpark figure.
Do you really think you can can shame me for calling you out on on it?
Are you folding again, derp?
Yes or no.
Moar flimflam.
You're folding again, derp.
Your own words made you fold
How does it feel?
Hale jailed ahead of sentencing.
Protip: don't leak to the Intercept unless you want to get caught.
https://shadowproof.com/2021/05/05/d...ad-sentencing/Hale is set to be sentenced on July 13. He could be sentenced to anywhere from three to five years.
Under President Barack Obama’s administration, he helped expose the targeted assassination program, including drone warfare.
Hale pled guilty on March 31 to one charge of violating the Espionage Act, when he provided do ents to Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill and anonymously wrote a chapter in Scahill’s book, The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program.
The guilty plea made Hale the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act during President Joe Biden’s administration.
Under President Barack Obama, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou was targeted in the Eastern District of Virginia with an Espionage Act prosecution. He wound up pleading guilty to violating the Intelligence Iden ies Protection Act in order to ensure he only went to prison for 30 months.
What did Daniel Hale give to the world? I mean, we hear “Espionage Act,” that sounds like a spy or a saboteur furnishing military secrets to a hostile enemy, troop movements to Al Qaeda or Putin, right? But no, he gave information to the Intercept about the US drone program that gave us an unprecedented look into the “kill chain,” right, the bureaucratic process by which people are basically chosen for summary execution by the president, showing they were culling data from the “terror watchlist.”
Norms matter
America, Russia; six of one, half dozen of the other.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)