Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Leaked Obama administration memo sets out case for killing US citizens


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#101 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:56 PM

Yet it seems we repeatedly ignore the lessons and repeat the mistakes.   :bang:

 

Yep. But:

 

 

 

:lmao:



#102 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,689 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

Realistic Reggie. Get it right.

 

 

Penicillin Penny is that you?



#103 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:58 PM

Realistic Reggie. Get it right.

 

I am realistic too.  We just have different lolevals of optomism.



#104 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:00 PM

:lmao:



#105 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:02 AM

 

One of Tabbooma's favorites

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. :lmao:



#106 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:11 AM

Joker, two americans, one a known terrorist and the other his son, kid is killed with known terrorists, either in wrong place or he was active participant, 16 the younging was? Tabbooma was 17 when he enlisted, Tabbooma's father was 15 when he enlisted and was in combat when he was 16... My little buddy David was 23 when he was killed by an IED, we all knew David could be lost, dont like it one bit but we knew the consequences. This man is linked to three events that are known of, he lost all rights when he turned on the USA. Should we go home and hide our head in the sand or go after the ones that want to hurt us, the man preached on and on, he was active partcipant and got killed.



#107 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:39 PM

Again, I'm talking about the 16 year old they killed. What are you basing your assertions that he was either in the wrong place or he was an active participant on? 

 

Are you taking the word of the same government that is trying to hide what they're doing from us, while continually lying about this whole drone program and the people that have been killed?

 

Sucks about your dad and your friend but they enlisted and knew what could happen. Is there any evidence this kid was signed on and was an active member of a terrorist group? If so I'd like to see it but that hasn't happened because this administration continues to operate in secrecy and is doing all it can to keep us in the dark.

 

I'm all for going after the ones that hurt us. My point is we don't know if this kid was one of those who are hurting us.

 

This administration needs to show some of the transparency that Obama promised. Especially when they're targeting American children for death. Instead they continue to feed us lies and refuse to divulge the true facts.

 

There's a lot more to this article and there's links to even more of the lies we've been fed. This administration can't be trusted anymore than the Bush administration. Would you be ok with all this if Bush or another Republican were doing these things?

 

I'd venture to guess the answer would be a justifiable no

 

 

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

 

Extreme secrecy, as usual, shrouds this act, but it underscores how often the U.S. uses violence around the world

 

Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people. News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki’s son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: “anyone killed by the U.S.”), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson wrote: “Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government’s evidence — or the honesty of its claims — and about our own capacity for self-deception.” The boy’s grandfather said that he and his cousin were at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives. There are two points worth making about this:

 

(1) It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions. Indeed, it refuses even to admit it did this, since it refuses even to admit that it has a drone program at all and that it is engaged in military action in Yemen. It’s just all shrouded in total secrecy.



#108 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:44 PM

Why does it have to be a "white" paper?  I'm offended!



#109 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

Again, I'm talking about the 16 year old they killed. What are you basing your assertions that he was either in the wrong place or he was an active participant on? 

 

What are you assertions  or sources that he was not an active participant?

 

 

Are you taking the word of the same government that is trying to hide what they're doing from us, while continually lying about this whole drone program and the people that have been killed?

 

Yup.  You can paint this picture how ever you like, but YES I am talking about our government.  People my fellow americans voted for.  

 

 

Sucks about your dad and your friend but they enlisted and knew what could happen. Is there any evidence this kid was signed on and was an active member of a terrorist group? If so I'd like to see it but that hasn't happened because this administration continues to operate in secrecy and is doing all it can to keep us in the dark.

 

Where is your evidence that he did not sign on as an active member?

 

 

I'm all for going after the ones that hurt us. My point is we don't know if this kid was one of those who are hurting us.

 

If you can say this, how can you assume he was not an active participant?

 

 

This administration needs to show some of the transparency that Obama promised. Especially when they're targeting American children for death. Instead they continue to feed us lies and refuse to divulge the true facts.

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

There's a lot more to this article and there's links to even more of the lies we've been fed. This administration can't be trusted anymore than the Bush administration.

 

Ah the heart of the matter.  I think you parade this 16 year old out as your emotional plea for something to be done about the president.  Just like the rest of the democrats.  Parade out a victim to further your cause.

 

 

Would you be ok with all this if Bush or another Republican were doing these things?

 

I'd venture to guess the answer would be a justifiable no

 

 

I would be ok if Bush was doing this, and the Americans killed were active participants or imminent threats.  



#110 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,940 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

Wait, CA...has Jack actually written anywhere that Awlaki's son wasn't an active participant?

 

I believe what he's saying is that we don't know, and that it's incumbent upon the government to make a case that someone is, particularly if he's an American citizen, if he's going to be executed.

 

I maybe misreading him, but I don't think I am.



#111 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

Wait, CA...has Jack actually written anywhere that Awlaki's son wasn't an active participant?

 

I believe what he's saying is that we don't know, and that it's incumbent upon the government to make a case that someone is, particularly if he's an American citizen, if he's going to be executed.

 

I maybe be misreading him, but I don't think I am.

 

You're not the one misreading me... yet again



#112 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:17 PM

Wait, CA...has Jack actually written anywhere that Awlaki's son wasn't an active participant?

 

I believe what he's saying is that we don't know, and that it's incumbent upon the government to make a case that someone is, particularly if he's an American citizen, if he's going to be executed.

 

I maybe misreading him, but I don't think I am.

 

That is fair and I did not misread anything.

 

Why then why all rhertorical questions, or for me to ask a dead 16 year old questions?

 

My point is, If we do not know, why ask the questions posed here.  Just state that this is how YOU feal.  Why turn it back on others to respond to these questions?  

 

Like the questions comparing it to Bush, and then his assertion was wrong when applied to me.



#113 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

perhaps the real problem is that we don't know, because they are not telling us.  what do they have to hide if they are justified in their actions?



#114 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:40 PM

It's about time

 

Lawmakers to see classified drone memos ahead of Brennan confirmation hearing
 

 

The Obama administration plans to give lawmakers sensitive and long-sought documents Thursday morning that provide the legal rationale for drone strikes on Americans, in a bid to tamp down concerns ahead of the confirmation hearing for President Obama's CIA director nominee. 

 

Concerns about the drone program have flared in the run-up to John Brennan's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday afternoon. Unlike Chuck Hagel, the Defense secretary nominee who endured withering criticism last week from Republicans, Brennan is facing complaints largely from members of the president's own party. 

 

Lawmakers threatened a "confrontation" earlier this week over nominees if they did not receive classified legal memos on the drones. After one Justice Department document was leaked late Monday, the administration on Wednesday agreed to hand over the rest of the rationale. 

 



Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2KEDO9F87



#115 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:44 PM


It's about time

 

Lawmakers to see classified drone memos ahead of Brennan confirmation hearing
 

 

The Obama administration plans to give lawmakers sensitive and long-sought documents Thursday morning that provide the legal rationale for drone strikes on Americans, in a bid to tamp down concerns ahead of the confirmation hearing for President Obama's CIA director nominee. 

 

Concerns about the drone program have flared in the run-up to John Brennan's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday afternoon. Unlike Chuck Hagel, the Defense secretary nominee who endured withering criticism last week from Republicans, Brennan is facing complaints largely from members of the president's own party. 

 

Lawmakers threatened a "confrontation" earlier this week over nominees if they did not receive classified legal memos on the drones. After one Justice Department document was leaked late Monday, the administration on Wednesday agreed to hand over the rest of the rationale. 

 

 


Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2KEDO9F87

 

But will we get to see those documents?



#116 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,689 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

perhaps the real problem is that we don't know, because they are not telling us.  what do they have to hide if they are justified in their actions?

 

 

Otherwise the premise is innocent until proven guilty, or is that a thing of the past?



#117 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:56 PM

This was pretty good last night

 

Jon Stewart Shreds Obama On Hypocrisy Over Drones: You're Only 'Transparent About The Last Guy's Secrets'

 

Daily Show host Jon Stewart tore into President Barack Obama Wednesday night for what he perceived as hypocrisy on transparency over his administration's controversial policy on drone strikes. 

 

Stewart found the recently leaked white paper outlining the government's case for using lethal force on American citizens abroad to be disconcerting overall. He had a particular issue with the condition that a strike can only be carried out if the person presents an "imminent threat," the definition of which was very loosely defined.

 

"So, imminent threat, in other words, is 'imminent or not imminent,'" Stewart quipped.

 

But Stewart took particular issue with the difference in the administration's attitude toward being transparent with its own controversial policies vs. the Bush administration's policies. He pointed out how former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod was fine with releasing the Bush administration's so-called "torture memos" to take a last swipe at Bush.

 

"So we don't mind you knowing about [expletive] we do — when we don't do it anymore," Stewart said of the administration's thinking. "We're happy to share irrelevant information with the public. We told you we were going to be transparent — we just didn't tell you it was going to be about the last guy's secrets."

 

Watch the clips below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

 


Read more: http://www.businessi...2#ixzz2KEHUiATG

 



#118 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:01 PM

This was pretty good last night

 

Jon Stewart Shreds Obama On Hypocrisy Over Drones: You're Only 'Transparent About The Last Guy's Secrets'

 

Daily Show host Jon Stewart tore into President Barack Obama Wednesday night for what he perceived as hypocrisy on transparency over his administration's controversial policy on drone strikes. 

 

Stewart found the recently leaked white paper outlining the government's case for using lethal force on American citizens abroad to be disconcerting overall. He had a particular issue with the condition that a strike can only be carried out if the person presents an "imminent threat," the definition of which was very loosely defined.

 

"So, imminent threat, in other words, is 'imminent or not imminent,'" Stewart quipped.

 

But Stewart took particular issue with the difference in the administration's attitude toward being transparent with its own controversial policies vs. the Bush administration's policies. He pointed out how former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod was fine with releasing the Bush administration's so-called "torture memos" to take a last swipe at Bush.

 

"So we don't mind you knowing about [expletive] we do — when we don't do it anymore," Stewart said of the administration's thinking. "We're happy to share irrelevant information with the public. We told you we were going to be transparent — we just didn't tell you it was going to be about the last guy's secrets."

 

Watch the clips below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

 


Read more: http://www.businessi...2#ixzz2KEHUiATG

 

 

I am a fan of stewart, but how can you rip him for being one sided in the Gun Control thing, but then be on his side here?

 

Hmmm.



#119 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:12 PM

Joker for you.

 

 

 

John Brennan likely to face Democrats' scrutiny at hearing

http://security.blog...ring/?hpt=hp_t3

 

 

As President Barack Obama's pick for CIA director heads to Capitol Hill Thursday for his confirmation hearing, some in the president's own party are threatening to hold up John Brennan's nomination.

 

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden told reporters he would "pull out all the stops" to get answers about the legality of targeting Americans involved with al Qaeda overseas. Wyden was not satisfied with a confidential Justice Department memo that was sent to key congressional committees last year but only became public on Tuesday.

 

The 16-page white paper indicated the U.S. government could use lethal force against an American citizen overseas if the person is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or one of its affiliates and an attack is imminent. But it was a policy paper rather than the official legal document, which the American Civil Liberties Union says is 50 pages long.

 

One of the questions the committee submitted to Brennan in advance of the hearing asked how it was determined that an individual was associated with al Qaeda and that a threat was imminent to justify military force. The question did not distinguish between Americans and others. Brennan responded in writing that those determinations were made on a "case by case basis through a coordinated interagency process."

 

Christopher Anders, the ACLU's senior legislative counsel told CNN: "Sen. Wyden was trying to find out that very basic information and has been denied that. So you know the most basic questions about a program that John Brennan has been the architect of and the orchestrator of for four years, the most basic details of it have been withheld."

 

The wind may have been taken out of the sails late Wednesday when an administration official said some lawmakers will have access to the Justice Department legal opinion. "As part of the President's ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the President directed the Department of Justice to provide the congressional Intelligence committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject of the Department of Justice White Paper," the official said. The president, it was said, is turning over the information because he believes the scrutiny and debate is healthy.

 

But there are other controversies Brennan faces at his confirmation hearing.

 

There is his role in administration leaks about covert operations like the so-called STUXNET cyberattack on Iran's nuclear program and a foiled al Qaeda bomb plot in Yemen involving a mole.

 

Brennan acknowledged in his written responses to committee questions that he voluntarily was interviewed by prosecutors about those two leak investigations. He said in both cases his counsel told him he was only a witness in those probes, not a target.

 

Senators also want to know what he knew about harsh interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists when he was at the CIA during the George W. Bush years. Brennan, who was the deputy executive director of theagency at the time, said in his written responses that he "was aware of the program, but did not play a role in its creation, execution or oversight." He also said he privately discussed his objections to some of the program with some of his colleagues. Brennan promised "these techniques would not be used again by the CIA if I were the Director."

 

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said last month there have been contradictions in some of Brennan's statements. "He says that he had opposed 'enhanced interrogations,' or torture, but there are statements that clearly he made several years ago where he supported it," McCain said. "I'd like to see that issue resolved."

 

Brennan acknowledged in the questionnaire that he still needed to review the conclusions of the committee's 6,000-page classified report on the agency's detention and interrogation program before the hearing, and he may be asked to elaborate further on his response to a question about whether he thought coercive interrogations were "effective in producing reliable intelligence that saved lives." Although Brennan said he opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques, "a lot of information, both accurate and inaccurate, came out of interrogation sessions conducted by the CIA, including those where EITs were employed."

 

Outrage over the interrogation program scuttled Brennan's chances to lead the CIA in Obama's first term. But now he says he is ready for the political heat.

 

When Obama nominated him for CIA Director last month, Brennan said, "Although I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I very much look forward to working closely with those on both sides of the aisle."

 

As the president's top counterterrorism aide, Brennan continues to be seen as all-powerful.

 

"I do think John is regarded in terms of the intelligence community, even where he is now, as the first among equals," CNN contributor Frances Fragos Townsend said.

 

As CIA director, Brennan would report to James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. But when there's a call for highly secretive covert action, he would have a direct path to the president, talking to him on the phone or walking right into the Oval Office to brief him.

 

"While the CIA director will keep the director of national intelligence apprised of what he is doing, it is actually the direct responsibility of the CIA director to respond to the president in terms of covert action," Townsend said. She added that she doesn't see foresee a problem because of their long-term relationship. "They know each other, they respect each other and I think they like each other."

 

As for the confirmation hearing, expect to see some Washington drama, but no state secrets revealed. Any discussion of intelligence crown jewels will happen afterward in a closed-door, classified session.



#120 Arglebargle

Arglebargle
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

according to this article, for every terrorist killed by a drone stike in Pakistan, 49 innocent civilians are killed.

 

http://www.dailymail...l#axzz2KEawR6wm



#121 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:24 PM

Now THAT is efficiency!



#122 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,940 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:38 PM

I would submit that it's far more efficient than it first appears, since it reduces the number of potential future terrorists who might be motivated by US drone and other policies in the region.

 

:ranting:



#123 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

Those Pakistan drone attacks also add the fact that Obama is bombing and killing the citizens of one of our allies.

 

Interesting video here 

http://live.huffingt...2a7606b3c00002a

 

 

Pakistan Warns U.S. Drone Strikes Are 'Red Line'

 

 

Smarting under the U.S. drone attacks it calls a violation of its sovereignty and international law, Pakistan has threatened to withhold cooperation with the United States on counter-terrorism operations until the drone strikes stop.

 

Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said Tuesday that the continuing drone strikes are a "red line," but she declined to say whether Pakistan would order its U.S.-made F-16 fighters to shoot down the drones.

 

"I can't speak to that issue," Rehman said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. But she insisted that Pakistan does not privately okay drone strikes inside Pakistan. "I can assure you there is no quiet complicity in this, there is no question of a wink and a nod," said Rehman, a powerful Pakistani politician who graduated with honors from Smith College in Northampton, Mass.

 

More of this article here

http://www.huffingto..._n_2623262.html



#124 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,940 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia....aid_to_Pakistan



#125 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:45 PM

according to this article, for every terrorist killed by a drone stike in Pakistan, 49 innocent civilians are killed.

 

http://www.dailymail...l#axzz2KEawR6wm

 

 

That is just in Pakistan.  We should include the entire middle east when statistics are provided about drones, since this is not unquie to Pakistan (see 16 year old teenager killed in Yeman and jokers post about our allies).  As you know they can be massaged to fit a narrative.

 

Now THAT is efficiency!

 

See above.

 

I like how this comment is directed at me, since I argued that the efficiency of Obama's drone strikes were far more efficient than Bush's and may have been cause for less media coverage.

 

You saw the statistics, they were from a Joker post (326).  So I am not massaging the statistics in any way.

 

http://www.gathering...s-groups/page-7



#126 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:56 PM

You think everything is about you, Andy. :lmao:

 

It's not, dude. When I post, you're not on my mind unless I'm directly addressing you.



#127 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:48 PM

You think everything is about you, Andy. :lmao:

 

It's not, dude. When I post, you're not on my mind unless I'm directly addressing you.

 

No everything is not about me, but no one else spoke about the efficiency of the drones, except me.  Why wouldnt I think this?



#128 Bone Daddy

Bone Daddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:21 PM

http://www.newyorker...-saturdays.html



#129 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:36 PM

 LOL  Okay Joker you got me... misreading you again... You do make Tabbooma's day so much brighter when he reads your posts. Thanks ;)



#130 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:19 AM

Joker, two americans, one a known terrorist and the other his son, kid is killed with known terrorists, either in wrong place or he was active participant, 16 the younging was? Tabbooma was 17 when he enlisted, Tabbooma's father was 15 when he enlisted and was in combat when he was 16... My little buddy David was 23 when he was killed by an IED, we all knew David could be lost, dont like it one bit but we knew the consequences. This man is linked to three events that are known of, he lost all rights when he turned on the USA. Should we go home and hide our head in the sand or go after the ones that want to hurt us, the man preached on and on, he was active partcipant and got killed.

We should kill every last one of those sons a bitches that so much as utters a single bad thing about the US of A. I'm with ya. :wink:

#131 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:20 PM

We should kill every last one of those sons a bitches that so much as utters a single bad thing about the US of A. I'm with ya. :wink:

 

 

I apologize for this.  A bit passive aggressive.  Sorry.



#132 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,689 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:49 PM

:smile:



#133 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,546 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

We should kill every last one of those sons a bitches that so much as utters a single bad thing about the US of A. I'm with ya. :wink:

It's the American way   :troops:

 



#134 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:14 PM

LOL... :bouncey:



#135 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,399 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:18 PM

It's the American way   :troops:

 

 

 

 

Not much of a choice, is it.   :plain: 



#136 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:23 PM

South Park - A Little Bit Country, A Little Bit Rock n Roll

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skeeter: I'm a little bit country.
 
Randy: Well I'm a little bit rock-n-roll!
 
Skeeter: I'm a little for supportin' our troops.
 
Randy: And I'm a little for bringin' them home.
 
Skeeter: I believe freedom isn't free.
 
Randy: No, but war shouldn't be our goal.
 
Skeeter: We must defend our country.
 
Randy: If it means war, then we say NO!
 
Skeeter: Did you forget them towers in New York?
Did you forget how it made you feel
To see them towers come down?
Were you like me? Did you think it weren't real?
 
Randy: I like to rock, but I don't wanna rock Iraq!
The only kind of rockin' America should do is the kind that we can all dance to, yeah!
 
Skeeter: We got GPS, ICBMs, and good old-fashioned lead.
We're gonna show Saddam what America means; that son of a bitch will be dead.
 
Randy: Why are we fightin' this war?
There's a man in the office we didn't vote for.
They didn't give me a choice.
War is not my voice! Yeaaaaahhhh!
 
 


#137 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:35 PM

why is it acceptable for the government to meet hatred with hatred yet we teach ourselves and young that this is not an acceptable way to deal with conflict?



#138 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:44 PM

The goverment is us, no?  When did they switch in their life when dealing with conflict, when they were elected? Or were they never taught that at all?

why is it acceptable for the government to meet hatred with hatred yet we teach ourselves and young that this is not an acceptable way to deal with conflict?


#139 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

why is it acceptable for the government to meet hatred with hatred yet we teach ourselves and young that this is not an acceptable way to deal with conflict?

 

Because the state has monopoly on the use of force and violence. Which SHOULD make them illegitimate to most people. Sadly, it does not.



#140 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:52 PM

http://www.lewrockwe...rothbard62.html

 

The Anatomy of the State

by Murray N. Rothbard

 

What the State Is Not

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

 

What the State Is

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in "capital") into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources ("production") and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only "natural" course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by "mixing his labor" with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man's nature, therefore, is the path of "property rights" and the "free market" of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the "jungle" methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.



#141 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,689 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

Money, Greed, Corruption



#142 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:58 PM

The goverment is us, no?  When did they switch in their life when dealing with conflict, when they were elected? Or were they never taught that at all?

 

 

Supposed to be.  Maybe they never switched or perhaps money contributed to their change of ideals.  Don't know.

 

Do you agree that hatred breeds hatred?  If so, when does it stop then?  Are we just succumbing to the fact that we will always be hated so we might as well strike first?



#143 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

As for the subject/content of the thread at hand, when addressing the interests of the state, I believe this sums it up quite perfectly:

 

Thus, the State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. Since the State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist. In a sense, our position is the reverse of the Marxist dictum that the State is the "executive committee" of the ruling class in the present day, supposedly the capitalists. Instead, the State – the organization of the political means – constitutes, and is the source of, the "ruling class" (rather, ruling caste), and is in permanent opposition to genuinely private capital.

 

The interest of the state in the US when involved in a "war on terror", becomes extremely naked when you put the above into perspective. The state fears the loss of power, and always looks to move in direction that obtain more power adn authority. Through the only means that it has secured for itself. The monopoly on use of force and violence to attain it's goals. The use of drones to kill american citizens, although a complete breach of the establsihed boundaries of its authority to act alone, are erroded in order to continue it's only true function. As stated above.



#144 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,474 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

Absolutely hatred breeds hatred, Tabbooma has many relatives and friends in Ireland, has been to Northern Ireland multiple times during the troubles, watched the Brit soldiers treat catholics like dog shit, had his own run in with them in the early 80's, but no matter what the brits threw at them they never gave up, all they did was bring a people together.. So yes, all we are doing is creating more hatred but while we have soldiers over there drones should be used on the battle field, and Tabbooma believes drones should be used on certain targets, there is no dought that there are some real bad characters that would like no more than to kill a whole lot of American civilians, do we pull back and hope it goes away or wait till we get bombed again. Tabbooma does not know, if it was up to Tabbooma our troops would be home. As for a drone targeting some american that is connected to one attack and two other attemped attacks in this country he has to go, would of loved to see this guy brought into court but there are areas of this world we cannot just say hand him over, short of putting boots on the ground to go get him, he was found and taken out by a drone and Tabbooma is fine with that.

Supposed to be.  Maybe they never switched or perhaps money contributed to their change of ideals.  Don't know.

 

Do you agree that hatred breeds hatred?  If so, when does it stop then?  Are we just succumbing to the fact that we will always be hated so we might as well strike first?



#145 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:48 PM


I don't know the answer either.  I do however think we will pay ten fold if we continue down the path we are going. 


#146 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:01 PM

I don't know the answer either.  I do however think we will pay ten fold if we continue down the path we are going. 

 

Ten fold?  I doubt that bad, but there will be some reprecussions or side effects.



#147 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,427 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:06 PM

ok, 6 1/2 fold :smile:



#148 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:18 PM

ok, 6 1/2 fold :smile:

 

 

LOL.

 

:lol:



#149 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

 
Washington (CNN) -- The administration's top counterterrorism adviser said Thursday he was aware of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques that critics describe as torture while serving as a top official at the agency but did nothing to stop them because he had no oversight role.
 
"I did not take steps to stop the CIA use of those techniques," John Brennan told his Senate confirmation hearing. Brennan was nominated by President Barack Obama to lead the spy agency after Gen. David Petraeus resigned from the job over an extramarital affair.
 
The issue was controversial in the administration of former President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
 
In answering questions about the techniques, Brennan acknowledged that he knew another part of the agency was carrying out a directive from the Bush administration.
 
"I had awareness that the agency was being asked to do it; I was aware that the agency was moving ahead on it," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee, adding that he was not involved in managing it.
 
At the time, Brennan was the CIA's deputy executive director.
 
On the same issue, Brennan said a committee report on the interrogation techniques contained "disturbing" information that raised questions about whether he knew what really happened.
 
The 6,000-page report took six years to compile, and Brennan said he read the 300-page executive summary before Thursday's hearing.
 
"Now I have to determine what the truth is," he said. "I do not know what the truth is."
 
Under persistent questioning by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, Brennan pledged that waterboarding would never be used under his direction, but he refused to label it torture.
 
On the issue of drone strikes on terrorist targets abroad, Brennan defended the 2011 killing of Yemeni-American Anwar al-Awlaki as part of the war against al Qaeda.
 
Brennan said al-Awlaki's involvement in efforts to kill Americans made him a legitimate military target.
 
Under prodding from committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Brennan confirmed a connection between al-Awlaki and Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who failed in his attempt to detonate an explosive in his underwear as his Northwest Airlines flight approached Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.
 
However, Brennan offered no details of the connection, and noted al-Awlaki's role as a propagandist for al-Qaeda who fomented anti-American sentiments via the Internet.
 
The hearing was temporarily halted at the start when protesters repeatedly interrupted Brennan's opening statement. Some waved signs accusing him of war crimes because of the drone attacks.
 
Feinstein ordered the room cleared of spectators and told security officers to prevent the re-entry of protesters from Code Pink, which describes itself as a women-initiated group for peace and social justice.
 
Brennan is considered to be behind the administration's dramatic rise in the use of drones against terrorist suspects.
 
Several strikes have killed Americans, notably al-Awlaki.
 
Brennan defended the drone program, saying that Obama "insisted that any actions we take will be legally grounded, will be thoroughly anchored in intelligence, will have the appropriate review process, approval process before any action is contemplated, including those actions that might involve the use of lethal force."
 
"My role as the president's counterterrorism adviser was to help to orchestrate this effort over the past four years to ensure, again, that any actions we take fully comport with our law and meet the standards that I think this committee and the American people expect of us as far as taking actions we need to protect the American people, but at the same time ensuring that we do everything possible before we need to resort to lethal force," he said.
 
An unclassified outline of the administration's policy given last summer to Congress indicated that the government could use lethal force against an American overseas if the person was a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or one of its affiliates and an attack was imminent.
 
The Senate Intelligence Committee received a classified document on Thursday that seeks to justify the administration's policy of targeting Americans overseas via drone attacks, a congressional aide told CNN.
 
The document was demanded by lawmakers, mainly Democrats concerned about secrecy in national security decision making, before Brennan's hearing.
 
It outlines the Justice Department's legal rationale for the policy of using lethal force against U.S. citizens fighting on behalf of terrorist groups.
 
According to an official who spoke on the condition of not being identified, Obama decided to turn over the legal opinion because he believes the scrutiny and debate is healthy.
 
On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Obama calling on him to share with the committee any legal memos on the targeted killings of Americans abroad.
 
"The deliberate killing of a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by our Government raises significant constitutional and legal concerns that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee," they wrote.
 
One of the questions the committee submitted to Brennan in advance of the hearing asked how it was determined that an individual was associated with al Qaeda and that a threat was imminent.
 
Brennan responded in writing that such decisions were made on a "case-by-case basis" in a process involving other agencies.
 
The White House said this week that questions on the matter have been weighed against legal concerns and discussed publicly.
 
The Supreme Court has held that the military may use force against an American who is part of enemy forces.
 
Still civil liberties and other groups want more answers.
 
Amnesty International said Congress should grill Brennan on his claim that the Obama administration's drone strikes are "conducted in full compliance with the law."
 
 
Other controversies at hand
Brennan's chances to lead the CIA at the start of Obama's first term were scuttled by questions about the enhanced interrogations of terrorist suspects.
 
At Thursday's hearing, Brennan said he had raised objections with colleagues to the enhanced interrogation techniques, but denied any role in managing or enabling their use.
 
Asked if the techniques had yielded intelligence that saved lives, Brennan did not answer directly. Instead, he repeated his insistence that such techniques would never be used under his watch.
 
Senate lawmakers also asked about Brennan's role in administration leaks about covert operations, including a foiled al Qaeda bomb plot in Yemen involving a mole.
 
He denied any wrongdoing, saying that he had gotten involved only after the leaks became public and that he tried to stem a "hemorrhaging" of leaked information in the matter.
 
Brennan acknowledged in his written responses to committee questions that he voluntarily was interviewed by prosecutors about two investigations. He said in both cases his counsel told him he was being interviewed as a witness, not a target.
 
A powerful figure at White House
As CIA director, Brennan would report to James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. But he would also have a direct path to the president, talking to him on the phone or briefing him personally.


#150 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,462 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

 

Under prodding from committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Brennan confirmed a connection between al-Awlaki and Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who failed in his attempt to detonate an explosive in his underwear as his Northwest Airlines flight approached Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.
 
However, Brennan offered no details of the connection, and noted al-Awlaki's role as a propagandist for al-Qaeda who fomented anti-American sentiments via the Internet.

 

 

 

 
 

:lmao: