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

[easyt65]

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

To suggest that operations don't fail would be stupid, but to point to a failed operation and claim it was evidence enough that we do not have the ability to carry out such an operation is also wrong.

 

[easyt65]

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?

I didn't say that at all - you did.

All I am saying is that Barak Obama, in order to justify releasing terrorists from GITMO, declared that EVERYONE has the right to due process - a fair trial.....he then by-passed due process / a fair trial and simply RELEASED terrorists altogether...and at the same time, he was 'denying SOME people' their right to due process - which he claimed they had - by assassinating them through his personal drone strike program.....

I'm POINTING OUT that ALL of that CONTRADICTS itself several times...I am POINTING OUT that Barak Obama makes up Shi'ite / rules as he goes along.

I'm all for killing terrorists, have no problem with it.

I have a problem with letting terrorists out of jail simply to keep a F*ed up promise that NO ONE WANTS HIM TO KEEP (recent poll showed the majority of Americans do not want GITMO prisoners transferred to US prisons and do not want GITMO closed)

I have a problem with a 'secret' drone program where a President can kill Americans abroad based on HIS say so alone ..... especially when the man has already lied, 'targeted', and punished Americans at home just to won an election.

 

[easyt65]

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

I love how you can so eloquently hurl insults based off no facts, just the 'monkey pooh' you pulled out of your hind end. Nice Job, Lib!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

To suggest that operations don't fail would be stupid, but to point to a failed operation and claim it was evidence enough that we do not have the ability to carry out such an operation is also wrong.

How many operations failed? Why would you put our warriors at extreme risk? The law of war permits such drone attacks. Get over it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Join the enemy and declare war on the US, become a target. Simple really.

 

[Freewill]

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

Who makes that decision, that is the question. The question is, which Obama supporter can make the most snarky of comments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

I love how you can so eloquently hurl insults based off no facts, just the 'monkey pooh' you pulled out of your hind end. Nice Job, Lib!

In other words, you cannot argue succinctly for the correctness of your ideology. Drone strikes are constitutionally and internationally legally. Tough to be you.

 

[Freewill]

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

To suggest that operations don't fail would be stupid, but to point to a failed operation and claim it was evidence enough that we do not have the ability to carry out such an operation is also wrong.

How many operations failed? Why would you put our warriors at extreme risk? The law of war permits such drone attacks. Get over it.

What laws of war are you talking about Jake? Whom have we been "at war" with since WW2?

What law of war allows for a drone strike in an ally country?

What is the difference between a pressure cooker bomb and a drone strike on a crowed restaurant?

 

[Freewill]

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

I love how you can so eloquently hurl insults based off no facts, just the 'monkey pooh' you pulled out of your hind end. Nice Job, Lib!

In other words, you cannot argue succinctly for the correctness of your ideology. Drone strikes are constitutionally and internationally legally. Tough to be you.

What international law jake?

 

[Freewill]

Join the enemy and declare war on the US, become a target. Simple really.

Who decides?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Who makes that decision, that is the question. The question is, which Obama supporter can make the most snarky of comments.

The point is that the Commander in Chief delegates those options to his subordinate commanders. That delegation is constitutionally and internationally legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Who makes that decision, that is the question. The question is, which Obama supporter can make the most snarky of comments.

The point is that the Commander in Chief delegates those options to his subordinate commanders. That delegation is constitutionally and internationally legal. Those who disagree may offer rebuttal.

It's tough to the dummies from the far right and libertarian wings here.

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="JakeStarkey, post: 12799668, member: 20412How many operations failed? Why would you put our warriors at extreme risk? The law of war permits such drone attacks. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

Dude, PULL UP...you're scraping your nose on the ground, in the weeds.

As I said, my point was and still is Obama's hypocrisy and apparent making up of the rules for different situations how and when it suits him:

To close Gtimo:
Everyone Deserves Their Day In Court..."All I am say...ing, Is give peace a chance..."

Personal Drone Program:
'Kill 'em all and let God sort it out - F* their rights!'




It's all good, Brah. Don't have a stroke in the minutia...

 

[Freewill]

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.

So cops can't blow away those in prison but those on the street they deem guilty they can just blow away, gottja.

 

[Freewill]

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

Who makes that decision, that is the question. The question is, which Obama supporter can make the most snarky of comments.

The point is that the Commander in Chief delegates those options to his subordinate commanders. That delegation is constitutionally and internationally legal. Those who disagree may offer rebuttal.

It's tough to the dummies from the far right and libertarian wings here.

You seem to do it so effortlessly.

 

[easyt65]

[
The point is that the Commander in Chief delegates those options to his subordinate commanders. That delegation is constitutionally and internationally legal.

Since Obama is the 'last word' on who makes the list and the 'last word' on who gets assassinated - according to him and the WH, I'm gonna have to ask you for a link to prove that last highlighted part.... Sorry, but your and Obama's OPINION don't cut it.

 

[Freewill]

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).

Oh yes, our CIA is always spot on an perfect.

the good thing is that they will never run out of targets. The more they kill from out of the blue the more they recruit more targets. Wasn't that the argument during Bush?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Join the enemy and declare war on the US, become a target. Simple really.

Who decides?

Answered. Legality of Targeted Killing Program under International Law

Any argument against the strikes must be in relation to the article above.

 

[easyt65]

So cops can't blow away those in prison but those on the street they deem guilty they can just blow away, gottja.

It's crazy liberal Shi'ite that get people ignored and the rep of being a 'waste of time to talk to'....

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="Freewill, post: 12799735, member: 33456
Oh yes, our CIA is always spot on an perfect.

the good thing is that they will never run out of targets. The more they kill from out of the blue the more they recruit more targets. Wasn't that the argument during Bush?[/QUOTE]

That's the point in the article that talks about Obama's drone program:

"Kill the #1 man in a drone strike, and his limo driver - #21 on the list - suddenly becomes #20."