40 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Actually the 'dicey' part
is the wording.......Supreme Court "who is a PART of enemy forces"
BO's wording of "SUSPICION" being enough 'proof' to kill them.
Well, the guy whose picture was in that article....
.....was a self-professed member of Al Qaeda. I'm sure he'd appreciate your support if he was still around.
And that statement from you
regarding the 'man whose picture was in the article' has exactly what to do with your other statement that was an actual quote that you bolded?
You're objecting to attacking Islamic terrorists
because their American citizens? even when they live overseas with other terrorists together and participate in terrorist training, propanganda, and activities?
Can't see it, if we can drone attack centers of terrorism, we can't stop to ask for passports of everyone there.
OK....an ferinstance for you
What if an American student journalist goes overseas in order to get a 'scoop' by interviewing terrorists? Happens all the time with people who want to make a name for themselves, including that one guy who kept going back and forth to Afghanistan to find and kill OBL, remember him? He was a private citizen on a mission but wasn't himself a terrorist......but obviously he would have had to have contact with SOME elements in order to get information regarding location and hangouts, etc. Would HE be considered to be a target for a drone attack because he was 'hanging with terrorists'?
This administration's own memo states that BO's people would only have to SUSPECT them of an action.....
Whereas with Bush, good people were forced to resign over three....count them....three waterboarding events that gleaned valuable information in finally getting to OBL. BO has already droned three Americans, KILLING them. Nobody died during the waterboarding.......can't say that about BO's policies.
I have no problem with killing Americans who have been PROVEN to be terrorists via intel (which usually means infiltrating a cell by covert ops or capturing someone else who can prove it)........any American who has practiced any terrorist activity against the US deserves to die by any means we can come up with (just like the Ft Hood killer) even without a trial. I have a problem with the "I THINK you are, so I'm gonna kill you" attitude and now written policy. I'd be very interested in seeing BO's kill list exposed finally........he's conveniently forgotten that he was supposed to produce that since the Congressional Hearing committee requested it long ago.
RE: only have to SUSPECT them of an action
NO! NO! NO! NO!
From YOUR OP
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: A secret Justice Department memo claiming it is legal for the U.S. government to kill its own citizens abroad -- that is, if an informed high-level U.S. official believes they are senior al Qaeda leaders or engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans.
What IS your problem?
It's one thing to hate Obama...but to hate him so much you can't read, YOU have a problem.
1. Believe guilty
2. believe to be guilty
3. Hold in suspicion;
Step back from the keyboard, turn your monitor off and go for a walk....
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something,
to believe to be guilty, false, counterfeit, undesirable, defective, bad, etc., with little or no proof:
Learn English before you put your foot in your mouth.
"Suspect" is a noun, "To Suspect" is a verb and their meanings are quite separate in their usage from the adjective "Suspicion" particularly in Law.
It's usage in legal parlance is different too. You want to learn that difference, go to Law School.
I actually used an English dictionary
and I copy pasted the definitions of 'suspects'........you don't like the similarities between 'suspects' and 'believes' (used by JP), too bad.
What if he's "Canadian"?
Like one or more reputed to be in Algeria?
IF there was a Canadian IN CANADA
planning a terrorist act, A drone attack would not be necessary...., But you knew that anyways....You just wanted to make a post.
IF this "Canadian" is in a foreign country and a drone attack was launched against him/her, the drone attack would more than likely kill 10 or more Americans for every 1 Canadian...And the Canadian death would be considered collateral damage...As America has more enemies FROM within,(home grown terrorists) that Canadian enemies.
You guys have more than your share of nutbars.
so tak'em out you say.
Canada and Canadian are James' new bugbears.
You come here
while living in Canada and constantly go off about US matters and politics and so forth, deliberately and personally insult participants on a regular basis, and when something involving Canada or their citizens is validly mentioned, your thin skin can't take it whatsoever.
re reporters etc
targeting them as you point out would be a mistake, I wonder what story they told to get in touch with the terrorist though. Making people you believe you want to join in order to get in exposes you to the risk. Spies have been shot by their side before because their cover wasn't know to the shooter and they were with a known group.
Jonathan Miller, who was with NBC at the time.....
......managed to get an interview with bin Laden in 1996. You can probably find it on YouTube. He's also told the story of what he had to do to get to wherever OBL was at the time -- blindfolded in a car, etc.
Miller took a lot of high risk assignments. He did so many stories on John Gotti that he had to hire a bodyguard.
people like bin Laden need reporters
as long as they can control what the reporter learns.
Almost sounds like
how BO controls the press.......if BO hadn't had him killed, they could have been best of buds.
so you consider the two the same
it would seem you just as soon as have another terrorist bombing in the US than have Obama as President.
I was being sarcastic,
but with this president, it's only a matter of time.......the bad guys are getting bolder and bolder outside of the USA against us. You think they won't make another attempt here in the next four years with a weak opponent who stays disconnected to his own national security and leaves it all up to underlings?
of course they'll try, they have already done it
before, why wouldn't they try it again.
Nothing in the last dozen years has resulted in the radical Islamic terrorists backing off one wit in intent and attitude.
Not even the Afganistan and Iraq invasions stopped Al Qaeda from making attempts to attack the US around the world and in the US.
Violent religious terrorists aren't intimdated by fear or reason from trying again and again.
so, why not...
...set it up where they all have equal chance to hate and kill each other instead?
That "weak opponent".......
......took out bin Laden and has already killed more terrorists than his predecessor did in two full terms. Wasn't the premise of this thread that Obama has been TOO aggressive? Now he's weak?
Bottom line, total number of terror attacks on US soil under Bush: 1
Total under Obama: 0
No...the premise of this thread
is BO's overreach and hypocrisy........Bush was immoral and overreached according to BO when he was running for office because Bush ok'd waterboarding in three instances (and nobody died).....but BO can kill Americans using drones (four times already) under a suspicion that they are terrorists.
AND....I guess you are in line with BO's 'work related incident' and not a terror attack when it came to the Ft. Hood mass killings, even though the killer was chanting "Allah whatever" while pulling that trigger. AND.......aren't our embassies and consulates considered to be US SOIL?
OHHHH.....so you want to count embassies?
No comment on Ft Hood
being or not being an actual terrorist attack?
How many died during Embassy or Consulate attacks during the Bush Administration compared to BO's? How many were denied protection or had their existing protection pulled during Bush?
You asked. Here are the numbers:
Total killed in embassy/consulate attacks under Obama: 4
Total killed in embassy/consulate attacks under Bush: 31
Whether Fort Hood was terrorism is an interesting question. Terrorism usually involves an attempt to force some kind of social or political change. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that here. Just shouting "God is Great!" in Arabic doesn't by itself make something an act of terrorism.
I'm not trying to dodge, but I think both "workplace violence" and "domestic terrorism" have valid arguments. Clearly the guy snapped, which is not usually characteristic of terrorism. Terrorist acts are usually well planned by people who may be extremists but they're typically not crazy.
I wonder how Josh would consider
Son of Sam? Terrorist? Or not?