"Anwar Al-awlaki: What the media and government won't show you" - Page 6 - Politics and Economics

seattlelou · 07-12-2012, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

That part is at least subjective - but the seattlelou camp really can't argue that their position is "well it's important to abandon the rule of law when we get a little scared, okay?"

Yeah I recognized I am in way over my head on this one. I am sure a better person would care more about this than I do. Maybe we will go back and assassinate enemies the old school way if drones create to big a fuss.

insidemanpoker · 07-12-2012, 04:09 AM

OBG, I guess one of the biggest issues I take with your opinion here is why do you trust the government and the defense dept so much? I mean they started an actual war on the basis of lies. They have a pretty bad record of honesty, but when they decide to assassinate Americans, we are just supposed to blindly trust their benign judgement?

How have they so strongly earned your trust?

ScreaminAsian · 07-12-2012, 09:30 AM

you can't indict him or revoke his citizenship; he'd know we're after him.

you gotta cuddle up to him, tell him he's gonna get Made, bring him to the boat house on long island, and before he even realizes something is up, POP, one in the back of the head. they even shot him in the face so his mother couldn't have an open casket at the funeral.

adios · 07-12-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidemanpoker

OBG, I guess one of the biggest issues I take with your opinion here is why do you trust the government and the defense dept so much? I mean they started an actual war on the basis of lies. They have a pretty bad record of honesty, but when they decide to assassinate anyone they feel like, we are just supposed to blindly trust their benign judgement?

How have they so strongly earned your trust?

FYP

adios · 07-12-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

Yeah I recognized I am in way over my head on this one. I am sure a better person would care more about this than I do. Maybe we will go back and assassinate enemies the old school way if drones create to big a fuss.

A little history lesson on how the "old school way" became illegal:

Church Committee and Resulting Legislation

Huehuecoyotl · 07-12-2012, 10:48 AM

I'm not sure what land of the free has to do with drones though. It was pretty obvious that drones, the categorical term, were going to be allowed to fly over the USA. Not all drones carry hellfire missiles, and can be very useful.

Huehuecoyotl · 07-12-2012, 11:06 AM

Nice crystal ball Nostrodamus. It will get dealt with the same way police helicopters and security cameras got dealt with. UAVs can also be used for mapping and surveying agriculture, checking on watersheds, and a ton of environmental issues. There a ton of alternative uses other than spying on your sex life.

brad2002tj · 07-12-2012, 01:10 PM

Greenwald, as if on cue:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/excu...ation_secrecy/

Brons · 07-12-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Grunching

Has anyone provided any evidence that the YouTube Bandit did anything more than say bad things about Amurca yet?

Secret evidence though.

Spoiler:

Kept secret by the people who killed him

pvn · 07-12-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Yeah like that time the Union executed General Lee and Jefferson Davis. I remember that from the legendary history book **** That Never Actually Happened. I was almost brought to tears in Ken Burns The Civil War, For Tards when Lincoln authorized launching a cannon into Jefferson Davis's house while Ashokan Farewell played in the background.

You've managed to stumble on analogy that proves the exact opposite of your point -- the United States afforded civil liberties to the leadership of the Confederacy and didn't execute their leaders. Lee and the rest of the CSA leadership were indicted and eventually granted amnesty and Jefferson Davis was arrested, indicted for treason and imprisoned for a while. We didn't execute them.

And more importantly, there was actual, you know, due process.

Lincoln: not quite as bad as we previously made him out to be! Good job, Obama!

crzyjoedavola · 07-12-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

I'm not sure what land of the free has to do with drones though. It was pretty obvious that drones, the categorical term, were going to be allowed to fly over the USA. Not all drones carry hellfire missiles, and can be very useful.

yea man if you got nothing to hide, why worry.

Money2Burn · 07-12-2012, 08:11 PM

clubbingbabyseals.jpg

Hero Protagonist · 07-13-2012, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayg320

Yes but Osama was in the terrorist group Al Qaeda whose main objective is to kill as many Americans as possible according to one of the videos i saw of him speaking. I never said Anwar directly was responsible for 9/11 but the organization he works for was. They were Al Qaeda members. I guess it is the same as being a member of the mafia. As a low ranking member you are not responsible for what the main conspirators do, but know what you are joining. The main objective of the mob is to make money in any way possible, and Al Qaeda's is to recieve retribution for what they believe has been wrongfully done to them. Their retribution is "getting even with America and all of its supporters". France (train bombings, countless embassy bombings.) Like I said i never said their cause is not justifiable or whatever, cause as we all know our country has not been Mother Teresa and never will be. But i don't want to die. And if an organization who has repeatedly taken credit for countless attacks warns of impending and more severe attacks, then yes they should all be persecuted by association.

Millions of Americans fought and died and suffered unspeakable horrors for our freedom today. You, on the other hand, have suffered nothing, and would gladly give up those freedoms for an infinitesimal increase in safety. You are dishonoring all those who have fought and died for your freedom and you should be ashamed.

Huehuecoyotl · 07-13-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crzyjoedavola

yea man if you got nothing to hide, why worry.

Im not saying what you think I am saying.

Huehuecoyotl · 07-13-2012, 04:30 PM

http://americansecurityproject.org/b...own-scenarios/

Cliffs: Just because Obama hasn't given a justification for drone strikes and the International community has a right to demand one, doesn't mean not giving one means we don't have one. We could have one, here's a possible one, but don't expect the administration to use it because it's in our best interest not to claim one. In conclusion, this not having a justification for drones is overblown, trust me.

Edit: Also,

Quote:

In the cases of Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, both conditions are satisfied: all three countries have consented, explicitly or otherwise, to the US operating drones within their territories

Quote:

Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. Sherry Rehman recently made an unsurprising statement. She said that her government has not approved any drones strikes. "It hasn't okayed any American drone strikes on its territory in exchange for Washington's apology over the Salala attacks," she said in an interview with CNN.Rehman argued that there are more effective ways to go after terrorists inside Pakistan, and that the Pakistani government officially condemns "unilateral" drone strikes on its territory.

http://m.theatlantic.com/internation...SbnAKM.twitter

Oh.