Drone Strikes Are Act of Self-Defense...?!

[easyt65]

Reacting to the news that Britain's own 'Jihad John' might be alive after a drone strike several months ago:

British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the strike on a British citizen as an 'act of self-defense. Jeremy Corbyn, 'Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition', however, declared 'John' should have been arrested instead.

President Obama has argued that Terrorists...no, 'enemy combatants'...no 'UNlawful enemy combatants...NO - "unprivileged belligerents" (As of Jun 21, 2015) should have their 'due process' (day in court) rather than being incarcerated in GITMO .... WHILE simultaneously running his own personal Assassination Program in which he decides who is added to the list and HE decides who is to be killed...very violently denying them of their 'due process' he says they should all have....

Should terrorists have their 'due process', as Obama says...or be killed, as Obama says?
Is killing terrorists through drone strikes ok?
Is killing American citizens via drone strikes OK based solely on Obama's say-so?
Is it 'Self-Defense'?

 

[Moonglow]

You take up arms with our enemy and see what you get....

 

[Siete]

say what you will about drones, but I'd rather have drones flying over enemy territory like flocks of geese than I had one of these serving the pleasure of politicians ..



The End.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Camp]

Reacting to the news that Britain's own 'Jihad John' might be alive after a drone strike several months ago:

British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the strike on a British citizen as an 'act of self-defense. Jeremy Corbyn, 'Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition', however, declared 'John' should have been arrested instead.

President Obama has argued that Terrorists...no, 'enemy combatants'...no 'UNlawful enemy combatants...NO - "unprivileged belligerents" (As of Jun 21, 2015) should have their 'due process' (day in court) rather than being incarcerated in GITMO .... WHILE simultaneously running his own personal Assassination Program in which he decides who is added to the list and HE decides who is to be killed...very violently denying them of their 'due process' he says they should all have....

Should terrorists have their 'due process', as Obama says...or be killed, as Obama says?
Is killing terrorists through drone strikes ok?
Is killing American citizens via drone strikes OK based solely on Obama's say-so?
Is it 'Self-Defense'?

Drone targets are not based solely on Obama's say so. He approves or disapproves after various agencies have determined the target is an active threat and there are no means of arresting the individual(s).

 

[easyt65]

Drone targets are not based solely on Obama's say so. He approves or disapproves after various agencies have determined the target is an active threat and there are no means of arresting the individual(s).

Sorry, but when the program was 'outed' and came under scrutiny the WH declared that ONLY OBAMA - as President/Commander and chief - approves who is put on the List and is the only one who approves/orders the strikes. He is the SOLE 'OWNER' and 'Executor' of the List.

I am not saying no one else looks at it, but what I said is true - HE is responsible for people being put on the list, and his is the only and last voice that orders the assassinations.

...which is part of my point: The hypocrit8ical little bastard declares 'everyone has the right to due process' while he is trying to let the latest batch of terrorists caught on the battle field trying to kill American soldiers free but then simultaneously decides whose 'rights' he gets to violate by assassinating them.



Don't get me wrong...I'm all for killing terrorists, but you have to admit there is a definite degree of hypocritical B$ going on right there....

----

"Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list...” ... The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy... "
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

REALLY GOOD ARTICLE ON THE PROGRAM!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reacting to the news that Britain's own 'Jihad John' might be alive after a drone strike several months ago:

British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the strike on a British citizen as an 'act of self-defense. Jeremy Corbyn, 'Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition', however, declared 'John' should have been arrested instead.

President Obama has argued that Terrorists...no, 'enemy combatants'...no 'UNlawful enemy combatants...NO - "unprivileged belligerents" (As of Jun 21, 2015) should have their 'due process' (day in court) rather than being incarcerated in GITMO .... WHILE simultaneously running his own personal Assassination Program in which he decides who is added to the list and HE decides who is to be killed...very violently denying them of their 'due process' he says they should all have....

Should terrorists have their 'due process', as Obama says...or be killed, as Obama says?
Is killing terrorists through drone strikes ok?
Is killing American citizens via drone strikes OK based solely on Obama's say-so?
Is it 'Self-Defense'?

Drone targets are not based solely on Obama's say so. He approves or disapproves after various agencies have determined the target is an active threat and there are no means of arresting the individual(s).

Sorry, but when the program was 'outed' and came under scrutiny the WH declared that ONLY OBAMA - as President/Commander and chief - approves who is put on the List and is the only one who approves/orders the strikes. He is the SOLE 'OWNER' and 'Executor' of the List.

I am not saying no one else looks at it, but what I said is true - HE is responsible for people being put on the list, and his is the only and last voice that orders the assassinations.

...which is part of my point: The hypocrit8ical little bastard declares 'everyone has the right to due process' while he is trying to let the latest batch of terrorists caught on the battle field trying to kill American soldiers free but then simultaneously decides whose 'rights' he gets to violate by assassinating them.



Don't get me wrong...I'm all for killing terrorists, but you have to admit there is a definite degree of hypocritical B$ going on right there....

----

"Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list...” ... The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy... "
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

REALLY GOOD ARTICLE ON THE PROGRAM!

Obama isn't being hypocritical. He opposed the Iraq War as a misdirection when what we should be doing is going directly after al qaeda,

and that is exactly what he did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The attacks are lawful acts of defense in the confines of the military situation. If bad guys put themselves where our troops can't get to them, and if they are a threat to America's defense, then, yeppers, they are lawful targets.

Can't wait for the far right wing to raise up in revolt in America.

 

[Camp]

Drone targets are not based solely on Obama's say so. He approves or disapproves after various agencies have determined the target is an active threat and there are no means of arresting the individual(s).

Sorry, but when the program was 'outed' and came under scrutiny the WH declared that ONLY OBAMA - as President/Commander and chief - approves who is put on the List and is the only one who approves/orders the strikes. He is the SOLE 'OWNER' and 'Executor' of the List.

I am not saying no one else looks at it, but what I said is true - HE is responsible for people being put on the list, and his is the only and last voice that orders the assassinations.

...which is part of my point: The hypocrit8ical little bastard declares 'everyone has the right to due process' while he is trying to let the latest batch of terrorists caught on the battle field trying to kill American soldiers free but then simultaneously decides whose 'rights' he gets to violate by assassinating them.



Don't get me wrong...I'm all for killing terrorists, but you have to admit there is a definite degree of hypocritical B$ going on right there....

----

"Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list...” ... The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy... "
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

REALLY GOOD ARTICLE ON THE PROGRAM!

I guess I recognize the difference between terrorist in custody, and terrorist not in custody. One you have control of and must use a specific set of rules and laws and the other one has a completely different set.

 

[easyt65]

Obama isn't being hypocritical. He opposed the Iraq War as a misdirection when what we should be doing is going directly after al qaeda, and that is exactly what he did.

I don't give a damn if he opposed the war or not...when you declare ALL people deserve 'due process' - their time in court - then you run a 'secret' assassination program where you assassinate people without ever trying to bring them to justice THAT SURE AS HELL IS HYPOCRITICAL!

 

[easyt65]

i guess I recognize the difference between terrorist in custody, and terrorist not in custody. One you have control of and must use a specific set of rules and laws and the other one has a completely different set.

It's not about whose in custody or who isn't - we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want.

When you say 'ALL' people deserve their day in court you either mean it or not. When you assassinate someone without ever trying to give them that day in court, sorry - you're being a hypocrite.

And How is it Obama can say everyone deservers their day in court...then releases terrorists in custody without ever bringing them to court to stand trial?

And if he can decide someone in custody should be released, how can he be so sure that the guy he is about to assassinate is not one of those who should 'be released'....

And Obama is bringing in, as reported, Syrians who ADMIT to being 'terrorists' ... but only because they were FORCED to be? So how does he know the difference between one of the 'BAD' terrorists and the 'good' terrorists like the ones he wants to bring here...how does he differentiate when he considers assassinating them?

Answering all those questions, making all those decisions....sounds like making Shi'ite up as you go.

 

[Siete]

terrorists killing terrorists ... gee, what a shame.

here's an idea .. lets hire crooks to catch other crooks !

nah, that'll never work out.

es

 

[JakeStarkey]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

 

[Siete]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

what else is new?

 

[easyt65]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

We went in and got UBL, We just went in and rescued Christians about to be killed by ISIS, we went in several years ago and rescued an injured kidnapped female troop. Given time and planning our military can go in and get anyone. That has been proven, oh great opinionated one.

 

[Siete]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

We went in and got UBL, We just went in and rescued Christians about to be killed by ISIS, we went in several years ago and rescued an injured kidnapped female troop. Given time and planning our military can go in and get anyone. That has been proven, oh great opinionated one.

given time and planning huh ?

sorry pal, you just killed the RW's argument for rescuing Stevens in Benghazi.

but you are correct. I damn sure wouldn't want to be on a "go and get him" list.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama isn't being hypocritical. He opposed the Iraq War as a misdirection when what we should be doing is going directly after al qaeda, and that is exactly what he did.

I don't give a damn if he opposed the war or not...when you declare ALL people deserve 'due process' - their time in court - then you run a 'secret' assassination program where you assassinate people without ever trying to bring them to justice THAT SURE AS HELL IS HYPOCRITICAL!

The President has been acting under an authorization for the use of military force against al qaeda. Military force.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

We went in and got UBL, We just went in and rescued Christians about to be killed by ISIS, we went in several years ago and rescued an injured kidnapped female troop. Given time and planning our military can go in and get anyone. That has been proven, oh great opinionated one.

We killed Osama. You're claiming that shooting him was legal, but had we bombed that compound it would have been some sort of illegal assassination?

funny

 

[JakeStarkey]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

We went in and got UBL, We just went in and rescued Christians about to be killed by ISIS, we went in several years ago and rescued an injured kidnapped female troop. Given time and planning our military can go in and get anyone. That has been proven, oh great opinionated one.

You going to talk about the operations that failed, oh little one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The premise of "we have proven we can go in and snatch anyone we want" is false, so the rest of easyt's argument fails.

We went in and got UBL, We just went in and rescued Christians about to be killed by ISIS, we went in several years ago and rescued an injured kidnapped female troop. Given time and planning our military can go in and get anyone. That has been proven, oh great opinionated one.

We killed Osama. You're claiming that shooting him was legal, but had we bombed that compound it would have been some sort of illegal assassination?

funny

No, it's not funny. easyt demonstrates a fucked up mind set that permits cognitive dissonance to bounce around inside his pea brain.