Posted 06 February 2013 - 01:11 PM
...the good thing is if the BEEK and TASB joined you (Sorry Jack we are too old and Tabbooma did his service already) could keep an eye on the man and make sure he does not cast us under that tyranical yoke, sure would comfort the 2nd amenders
Edited, because I don't want to play in yet another sarcastic pissing contest, to just say:
Beek is too old as well...
Posted 06 February 2013 - 01:41 PM
Thank you Mr Helpers for your input, by the way Tabbooma was speaking to Joker, your responses are quite typical and expected to hear, again, where are all the americans that drones are killing, I now see 2, an alleged terrorist (Yeah Okay alleged) and his 16 year old son that was either in the wrong place or an active participant with some very bad folks... Okay TASB, still have not heard what law was broken, we are at war, the man is a partiicpant and was killed, what if he was shot on the ground, that would be okay? You all want more boots on the ground to go after these guys than Tabbooma suggests you go join the military, the good thing is if the BEEK and TASB joined you (Sorry Jack we are too old and Tabbooma did his service already) could keep an eye on the man and make sure he does not cast us under that tyranical yoke, sure would comfort the 2nd amenders
You're welcome.
And the responses can also not be refuted except through appeal to emotion. Seed post # 39. Which is probably why they are repeated and expected.
3.
You can't prove any of that. it's speculation. Objection.
The right to due process under the law as an American citizen. Which NOW, AFTER the fact, can be stripped on the whims of govt. by label of terrorism. How ever they decide to define that term. See NDAA 2012.
We are at war with an idea. Good luck winning a war of ideas with bombs and guns. It's working out stunningly well over the last 12 years. 
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:01 PM
You're welcome.
And the responses can also not be refuted except through appeal to emotion. Seed post # 39. Which is probably why they are repeated and expected.
3.
You can't prove any of that. it's speculation. Objection.
The right to due process under the law as an American citizen. Which NOW, AFTER the fact, can be stripped on the whims of govt. by label of terrorism. How ever they decide to define that term. See NDAA 2012.
We are at war with an idea. Good luck winning a war of ideas with bombs and guns. It's working out stunningly well over the last 12 years.
The only way to refute this is through emotional appeal?
I seem to be on the wrong side of this argument, and I have not made one emotional plea (At least I do not think I have). I was going with the more pragmatic approach of waiting for the facts instead of rushing to judgement, with speculation.
My point all along has been if the administration has done something wrong, they should be held accountable, until then I will reserve the right to pass judgement. Put pressure on them to come clean. But I feel these threads are passing judgement with out waiting for all the facts. Which is fine too, you have the right, just please dont hide behind semantics. (my second to last post was not directed at you joker, it was an in general "you", someone or anyone, not you per se. Disappoints me that you could not see that, and some how rip me for misquoting you, come on now).
I feel what these threads do, is exactly what I complain about the Democrats doing, parading out a victim/s, which is in itself an emotional appeal. I feel to tell me to ask a dead person a question implies that I am not right on this issue. Ya, know, because he is dead and can't answer the question. Please explain how I am wrong with this interpretation?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:09 PM
Let me know when you get the facts. In the meantime, the govt. will continue doing what they are doing regardless of the rules.
The only way to refute this is through emotional appeal?
I haven't seen an argument made where the rule of law can be applicable in this. except a DOJ lawyer using legal trickery and jargon to obfuscate the situation and murk the water. Or the age old appeal.
I seem to be on the wrong side of this argument, and I have not made one emotional plea (At least I do not think I have). I was going with the more pragmatic approach of waiting for the facts instead of rushing to judgement, with speculation.
You haven't made an argument favorable in assassinating american citizens without due process. You're sitting on the fence waitiing for the offenders to give you a reason to make a decision. Good luck.
My point all along has been if the administration has done something wrong, they should be held accountable, until then I will reserve the right to pass judgement. Put pressure on them to come clean. But I feel these threads are passing judgement with out waiting for all the facts. Which is fine too, you have the right, just please dont hide behind semantics. (my second to last post was not directed at you joker, it was an in general "you", someone or anyone, not you per se. Disappoints me that you could not see that, and some how rip me for misquoting you, come on now).
What facts? The fact that the president has an assassination list and American citizens were on that list and terminated without due process? What other facts would you like to have?
I feel what these threads do, is exactly what I complain about the Democrats doing, parading out a victim/s, which is in itself an emotional appeal. I feel to tell me to ask a dead person a question implies that I am not right on this issue. Ya, know, because he is dead and can't answer the question. Please explain how I am wrong with this interpretation?
Parading out a victim? I haven't posted any pictures of the victims or appealed to emotion on this subject. I've stayed completely to the rule of law and logic. I see no appeal to emotion over the terminated by assassination.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:24 PM
Let me know when you get the facts. In the meantime, the govt. will continue doing what they are doing regardless of the rules.
You let me know when you get the facts too. PLEASE!
I haven't seen an argument made where the rule of law can be applicable in this. except a DOJ lawyer using legal trickery and jargon to obfuscate the situation and murk the water. Or the age old appeal.
We are in agreement that if this is true. But if they were terrorists and were an imminent threat I AM OK with what happened.
You haven't made an argument favorable in assassinating american citizens without due process. You're sitting on the fence waitiing for the offenders to give you a reason to make a decision. Good luck.
And I am not going to. To make a decision? I want facts, and you saw earlier in thread I even gave a time period of when I will stop waiting for the facts?
Aren't you now on the perverbial soap box implying I am not right?
What facts? The fact that the president has an assassination list and American citizens were on that list and terminated without due process? What other facts would you like to have?
I want to know if these American Citizens were actually imminent threats for terrorist activitis. If they were I have no problem with what was done. Period. What dont you understand about that?
Oh due process? Do people with guns about to shoot people get due process? No, because they are imminent threat to an individual. In these cases, these victims were imminent threat to many (at least I hope they were so that our government is not as bad as you think and sometimes say).
Parading out a victim? I haven't posted any pictures of the victims or appealed to emotion on this subject. I've stayed completely to the rule of law and logic. I see no appeal to emotion over the terminated by assassination.
The constant mention and posting of threads to me is parading out vicitm/s. Asking me to ask a dead person a question is parading out a victim. Sorry you do not see that.
That last part was meant for Joker. I know you are all about the law aspect of this. Which is fine. I know it doesn't matter if they were guilty or not to you, they are US citizens and deserve the same treatment we get. That laws are circumvented, etc... That is why I go back to history of this happening since this country founded. Our leaders have been doing this forever, but I will not lose faith in the system. Even though it seems to be getting worse.
Sorry, some of my posting is meant for tasb and Joker and they sometimes meld into one post.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:26 PM
Joker please name the Americans that have been killed by US drones, Tabbooma sees you like to post alot about the US policy and drones and how we are killing innocent Americans... Name some names Joker
The names are up there now. I'm actually posting a lot about the lack of a drone policy and how we are killing Americans.
Thank you Mr Helpers for your input, by the way Tabbooma was speaking to Joker, your responses are quite typical and expected to hear, again, where are all the americans that drones are killing, I now see 2, an alleged terrorist (Yeah Okay alleged) and his 16 year old son that was either in the wrong place or an active participant with some very bad folks... Okay TASB, still have not heard what law was broken, we are at war, the man is a partiicpant and was killed, what if he was shot on the ground, that would be okay? You all want more boots on the ground to go after these guys than Tabbooma suggests you go join the military, the good thing is if the BEEK and TASB joined you (Sorry Jack we are too old and Tabbooma did his service already) could keep an eye on the man and make sure he does not cast us under that tyranical yoke, sure would comfort the 2nd amenders
And that "alleged" is a major part of the problem I have with the drone attacks. They're targeting people who might be guilty of wrongdoing or who could be an "imminent" threat. It's not a question of wanting more boots on the ground, I don't think anyone wants to see Americans put in harms way. However, Obama might think twice about sending troops in to take someone out if he's not sure the target is guilty of wrongdoing as opposed to not giving a second thought to sending in drones to take out that same "alleged" target and risking injury or death to any innocent people that might be in the area.
If we could send in the troops for bin Laden there's no reason we can't do the same for any other target that absolutely has to be killed.
It wasn't a case of his son being in the wrong place, he was targeted. Here's one of Obama's top advisors talking about the targeting of the kid and basically saying it's because his father was a terrorist.
"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children," former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. "I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."
With nothing reining them in what's to stop them from targeting others, who they merely suspect of wrongdoing, to death?
There needs to be a clear policy ASAP, as it stands now precedent has been set that it's acceptable for our government to bomb other countries and to take out Americans based on what might happen in the future.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:32 PM
You let me know when you get the facts too. PLEASE!
What facts?
We are in agreement that if this is true. But if they were terrorists and were an imminent threat I AM OK with what happened.
And I am not going to. To make a decision? I want facts, and you saw earlier in thread I even gave a time period of when I will stop waiting for the facts?
Aren't you now on the perverbial soap box implying I am not right?
I want to know if these American Citizens were actually imminent threats for terrorist activitis. If they were I have no problem with what was done. Period. What dont you understand about that?
Oh due process? Do people with guns about to shoot people get due process? No, because they are imminent threat to an individual. In these cases, these victims were imminent threat to many (at least I hope they were so that our government is not as bad as you think and sometimes say).
The constant mention and posting of threads to me is parading out vicitm/s. Asking me to ask a dead person a question is parading out a victim. Sorry you do not see that.
That last part was meant for Joker. I know you are all about the law aspect of this. Which is fine. I know it doesn't matter if they were guilty or not to you, they are US citizens and deserve the same treatment we get. That laws are circumvented, etc... That is why I go back to history of this happening since this country founded. Our leaders have been doing this forever, but I will not lose faith in the system. Even though it seems to be getting worse.
Sorry, some of my posting is meant for tasb and Joker and they sometimes meld into one post.
So you want to know if a man in Yemen was an imminent threat to the US? It would seem the answer is sefl explanatory. IF they knew this guy was a terrorist or an imminent threat, there should be no reason why he wouldn't be tried in Abstentia. The idea that a man half way across the globe in a sand trap with a towel on his head is an imminent threat to the most powerful militarized nation on the planet is absolutely hilarious.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:40 PM
What facts?
So you want to know if a man in Yemen was an imminent threat to the US? It would seem the answer is sefl explanatory. IF they knew this guy was a terrorist or an imminent threat, there should be no reason why he wouldn't be tried in Abstentia. The idea that a man half way across the globe in a sand trap with a towel on his head is an imminent threat to the most powerful militarized nation on the planet is absolutely hilarious.
Exactly on the facts. Hence me wating for them.
What if he was about to bomb the US embassy? What if he was about to kill US Soldiers in the area? What if he was going to Israel to kill people?
Oh yeah, he was just going to throw sand at us. 
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:51 PM
The battfield is global. The empire is running scared.
What if he was going to launch the worlds more powerful
What if he was about to bomb the US embassy? What if he was about to kill US Soldiers in the area? What if he was going to Israel to kill people?
Um, I don't know...if they knew that then wouldn't they just stop him from carrying out the task? Was he going to act alone when he bombed th embassy? Was he going to rambo in adn take out our soldiers, steal the blue prints for the worlds most powerful laser and then triple jump over to Israel for the sequal?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:55 PM
The battfield is global. The empire is running scared.
What if he was going to launch the worlds more powerful
Um, I don't know...if they knew that then wouldn't they just stop him from carrying out the task? Was he going to act alone when he bombed th embassy? Was he going to rambo in adn take out our soldiers, steal the blue prints for the worlds most powerful laser and then triple jump over to Israel for the sequal?
While your questions aim to mock mine. I say Exactly. What if? That is the point. Jump to conclusions, I will wait for the facts. If the government was in the wrong, then repercussion, including Impeachment.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:58 PM
Dude, no one is going to be held accountable, no "facts" are going to be given. Certainly no one is going to be impeached.
This is just another in a LONG list of abuses that will become the normal routine. Nothing will change until the bottom drops out.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:26 PM
Dude, no one is going to be held accountable, no "facts" are going to be given. Certainly no one is going to be impeached.
This is just another in a LONG list of abuses that will become the normal routine. Nothing will change until the bottom drops out.
So if the facts come out as you say, and he was not any threat, I do think there will be reprecussions.
See you add comments like, until the bottom drops out, and that is why I make reference to our cups earlier in this thread.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:34 PM
So if the facts come out as you say, and he was not any threat, I do think there will be reprecussions.
See you add comments like, until the bottom drops out, and that is why I make reference to our cups earlier in this thread.
You think?
Do you think that the government would release information that showed they had no idea whether or not these men were threats? And then turn around and hold each other accountable for their actions?
ROLMFAO
I'll wait patiently for that example I asked for earlier in the thread, dude.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:35 PM
So if the facts come out as you say, and he was not any threat...
The facts should come out, whether he was a threat or not. And I don't expect that they will.
I do think there will be reprecussions.
And I doubt there will be. How we doin' with the repercussions for Bush/Cheney/Powell sending young men and women to war under completely false pretenses?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:37 PM
The facts should come out, whether he was a threat or not. And I don't expect that they will.
And I doubt there will be. How we doin' with the repercussions for Bush/Cheney/Powell sending young men and women to war under completely false pretenses?
Things are different now. We now have a transparent and accountable government who will protect the rule of l....oh, nevermind.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:26 PM
And I doubt there will be. How we doin' with the repercussions for Bush/Cheney/Powell sending young men and women to war under completely false pretenses?
That is completely different. In this case the argument is an American Citizen was killed without due process.
You think?
Do you think that the government would release information that showed they had no idea whether or not these men were threats? And then turn around and hold each other accountable for their actions?
ROLMFAO
I'll wait patiently for that example I asked for earlier in the thread, dude.
No I do not think the Gubmint is going to release this info. I thought that is why we have the media. To do their job of journalism and bring these types of things to light.
Then they will hold each other accountable.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:02 PM
That is completely different. In this case the argument is an American Citizen was killed without due process.
Don't see how it's completely different. We know that they outright lied in a number of ways in order to go to war. They have not been held accountable.
If they were that blatant, and not taken to task, why should I expect this situation has any more hope of being rectified?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:02 PM
That is completely different. In this case the argument is an American Citizen was killed without due process.
No I do not think the Gubmint is going to release this info. I thought that is why we have the media. To do their job of journalism and bring these types of things to light.
Then they will hold each other accountable.
And where, prey tell, will the media get these government documents or information, if not from the government? Will they find them on a bum on the street? Or maybe from someone's insinuations such as Alex Jones?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:09 PM
And where, prey tell, will the media get these government documents or information, if not from the government? Will they find them on a bum on the street? Or maybe from someone's insinuations such as Alex Jones?
They were able to get stuff on Nixon, they were able to get stuff on Olie North, a wiki leaks type site, they got stuff on just about everything now a days.
Why should this be any different?
How the media should go about finding the story, is go and find the victims, and tell their story.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:14 PM
They were able to get stuff on Nixon, they were able to get stuff on Olie North, a wiki leaks type site, they got stuff on just about everything now a days.
Why should this be any different?
How the media should go about finding the story, is go and find the victims, and tell their story.
Well, it's been well over a year...maybe even two now. Are we going to get this information when it's declassified in 30 years when no one can be held responsible?
Aren't the victims dead? How can wwe know their side of the story? Ask the government?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:17 PM
Don't see how it's completely different. We know that they outright lied in a number of ways in order to go to war. They have not been held accountable.
If they were that blatant, and not taken to task, why should I expect this situation has any more hope of being rectified?
Individuals, against thousands of people. Sending us to war and killing civilians and thousands of US soldiers is not the same as targetting an individual who "they" believed was a terrorist.
That is why I think it is different.
In Iraq situation we did not circumvent the law, they just lied.
In this situation, there is intel that alleged that these Americans were threats. They circumvent a law, because one does not exist on using Drones.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:18 PM
Well, it's been well over a year...maybe even two now. Are we going to get this information when it's declassified in 30 years when no one can be held responsible?
Aren't the victims dead? How can wwe know their side of the story? Ask the government?
It has been a lot more than that. This goes back to Bush using drones too, with far less efficiency.
Do we go back and charge Bush for Drone usuage?
Didn't I answer how? The media. That is their job, not mine.
VibeGuide
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:20 PM
They were able to get stuff on Nixon, they were able to get stuff on Olie North, a wiki leaks type site, they got stuff on just about everything now a days.
Why should this be any different?
How the media should go about finding the story, is go and find the victims, and tell their story.
Wiki Leaks isn't that kinda illegal?
Others who report on such are often labelled as lunatics.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:21 PM
In this situation, there is intel that alleged that these Americans were threats. They circumvent a law, because one does not exist on using Drones.
You got a link to that intel? I'm especially interested in what they had on the kid.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM
Wiki Leaks isn't that kinda illegal?
Others who report on such are often labelled as lunatics.
This administration has come down hard on whistleblowers. Good luck finding people to step up
Obama’s War On Whistleblowers “Goes To Eleven”
http://wizbangblog.c...goes-to-eleven/
Obama has Prosecuted More Whistleblowers than All Other Presidents COMBINED
http://www.washingto...s-combined.html
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:33 PM
Individuals, against thousands of people. Sending us to war and killing civilians and thousands of US soldiers is not the same as targetting an individual who "they" believed was a terrorist.
That is why I think it is different.
In Iraq situation we did not circumvent the law, they just lied.
In this situation, there is intel that alleged that these Americans were threats. They circumvent a law, because one does not exist on using Drones.
Here's a list of possible illegal acts by the Bush Administration:
http://www.truth-out...n-by-bush-admin
That said, maybe I'm being dense today and not following you...repugnant as I feel the Obama Admin's drone policy and lack of transparency about it is, it seems to me that what happened under Bush was morally and legally, orders of magnitude worse. And no one has answered for that.
In light of that, how am I supposed believe that the right thing is ever going to happen when it comes to drones?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:53 PM
It has been a lot more than that. This goes back to Bush using drones too, with far less efficiency.
Do we go back and charge Bush for Drone usuage?
Didn't I answer how? The media. That is their job, not mine.
As far as we know, the Bush administration did not assassinate American citizens via drone. That's why it's a new low precedent. That's the discussion here. Whether or not American citizens have the right to due process of the law. Yes, Bush used drones, but not for the targeting of American citizens.
Am I the only one who finds this entire conversation extremely Orweliian?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:07 PM
As far as we know, the Bush administration did not assassinate American citizens via drone. That's why it's a newlowprecedent. That's the discussion here. Whether or not American citizens have the right to due process of the law. Yes, Bush used drones, but not for the targeting of American citizens.
Am I the only one who finds this entire conversation extremely Orweliian?
No one is disputing that it is abhorent behavior hiding behind whatever and not coming clean about every and anything.
IF IN FACT THESE PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY terrorists.
How many times can I state it. If they had credible evidence that other US citizens were in imminent danger I am fine with this. Otherwise I am not. Period, I feel like pulling a TASB and jump the shark. Cause I do not want to go in circles any more.
Yes this is Orwellian, but that is the reality of our government. Leaning more and more in that direction.
You got a link to that intel? I'm especially interested in what they had on the kid.
No, and nor do you. You have your conclusions, I have my own, and in agreement in general, until all the facts are provided. I have stated numerous times in this thread that I do not have the facts, but nor does anyone else.
And I like how my quote is out of context, from my comments directed for you.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:10 PM
Here's a list of possible illegal acts by the Bush Administration:
http://www.truth-out...n-by-bush-admin
That said, maybe I'm being dense today and not following you...repugnant as I feel the Obama Admin's drone policy and lack of transparency about it is, it seems to me that what happened under Bush was morally and legally, orders of magnitude worse. And no one has answered for that.
In light of that, how am I supposed believe that the right thing is ever going to happen when it comes to drones?
No one is stating Bush was not bad and did illegal things. You stated that he lied to take us to war, this is now completely different set of circumstances you provide. I am aware of them. This may be a better comparison than the previous one. That is all I was doing before showing that I did not think it was a good analogy.
You are entitled to feel that way about the right thing not happening. I will always be optomistic that the right thing will happen.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:18 PM
No one is stating Bush was not bad and did illegal things. You stated that he lied to take us to war, this is now completely different set of circumstances you provide. I am aware of them. This may be a better comparison than the previous one. That is all I was doing before showing that I did not think it was a good analogy.
You are entitled to feel that way about the right thing not happening. I will always be optomistic that the right thing will happen.
My point wasn't about the specific wrongs done, but about the general lack of accountability in the Executive Branch. Regardless of party affiliation, you can pretty much wipe your ass with the Constitution, send kids off to get killed on a whim, and make your rich friends/donors even richer.
As long as you don't leave a cumstain on an intern's dress...
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:21 PM
My point wasn't about the specific wrongs done, but about the general lack of accountability in the Executive Branch. Regardless of party affiliation, you can pretty much wipe your ass with the Constitution, send kids off to get killed on a whim, and make your rich friends/donors even richer.
As long as you don't leave a cumstain on an intern's dress...
Clinton was the father of the Sub Prime melt down with the lowering of standards of lending. Which was an eventual wiping of his arse with tax payer money.
I do not disagree, but as some say, that is living in the past and blaming previous people for our problems today. Which is true, but only the people today in power can change that.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:36 PM
You got a link to that intel? I'm especially interested in what they had on the kid.
BTW. This is something you and I have spoken about on numerous occasions. But somehow you still ask me rhetorical questions.
My point is, these are the types of questions you ask me, that make me feel like I am wrong.
Maybe we should ask the 16 year old American kid that was sentenced without a trial, targeted and then bombed to death.
Oh right, we can't do that because he was never given the chance to answer to the charges or to defend himself against them. Nor has the government seen fit to share their reason for killing him with those seeking answers.
The kid is dead, how can I ask him? Please advise on what the purpose of the above comment? You know how I feel about the comment. I do not want to imply what I think you mean.
You got a link to that intel? I'm especially interested in what they had on the kid.
After the amount of times we have discussed this and with you knowing that I am waiting for the facts, you ask me this? Why would you go there if not to imply that I am on the wrong side of this issue.
So instead of me spewing shit, Please advise on what the purpose of the above question and comment?
PS. I answered both probably not in the best manner but I at least tried to respond in kind.
