Low on Targets, Obama Considers Killing Friends of Friends of Al-Qaida

page: 1
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Low on Targets, Obama Considers Killing Friends of Friends of Al-Qaida


Thought the post-9/11 law that gave the president power to wage a global war against terrorists was expansive? Wait till you see the 2.0 upgrade.

“Administration officials acknowledged that they could be forced to seek new legal cover if the president decides that strikes are necessary against nascent groups that don’t have direct al-Qaeda links,” the Post reports. Examples of the targets under consideration include the extreme Islamist faction of the Syrian rebellion; the Ansar al-Sharia organization suspected of involvement in September’s Benghazi assault; and Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the one-eyed terrorist who broke with al-Qaida but is believed to be behind the January seizure of an Algerian oil field.


Just an update on the humanitarian, constitutional law professor and The Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obamas' extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

Everything is okay people! Sooner or later we'll kill everybody and finally be safe and free.
edit on 8-3-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


It doesn't surprise me at all. Obama thinks he owns this all powerful, ever expanding umbrella that covers whatever he chooses to place under it. I think in his mind, all people are like paper dolls he can dress in whatever garb he chooses,

Dress them...possibly even us, as Al-Qaida, good to send a strike force, or drone, to kill, But, that's all acceptable to him...after all, we are all standing under his paranoid umbrella.

Wake up people....he's dressing all of us who believe in our Constitutional Rights, as terrorists...we are getting shoved under that umbrella as I type...


Des


edit on 8-3-2013 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Nobel peace prize lost all legitimacy when they gave it to someone based on what they said they would do.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I agree with the use of drones to kill individuals who are suspected terrorists who present a clear threat to national security.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT

There has to be more strict and transparent rules governing who is targeted and why the are targeted this practice of sending a hellfire missile up the butt of anyone who has ever met a Al-Qa’ida member is just ridiculous and counterproductive, so this could be a good thing if its done right. Drone strikes I think are needed but only in some very rare cases where there is no alternative.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Giving the Peace prize to the President of the most warlike people on the planet made me scratch my head.
We Americans declare war on everything.

George Carlin gives a good explanation on the subject.



However I think that all this retribution against Al-Queda is just payback for them biting the hand that fed them.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Here is an example of the problem with the power to kill without due process of law (ie, American citizens on American soil) and little, if any, liability to "collateral damage": let's say the the administration considers Senator Rand Paul a political "enemy" (albeit a standing US Senator and with no pending indictment for terrorism charges) and to put out a "hit" (drone or otherwise) would have impeachable repercussions BUT if they were allowed to kill "terrorists" with a drone then they could have a drone send a hellfire missile to a coffee shop or even on the street were the real target (ie. Sen Rand) was under the cover that they had a "credible report" that a (wanted terrorist) was there and the real target was killed by accident and thus "collateral damage". Plus Americans are entitled to facing their accusors in a court of law and having judgment met out with the presentation of evidence and not be pre-convicted in some "Spanish Inquisition" or "witch hunt" or government "lynch mob" travesty of justice. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and with varying degrees in between.
edit on 8-3-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
"friends of friends" ??? if any one has ever played six degrees of kevin bacon , every body should be worried . its not that hard to connect any body to somebody thats has been deemed "a threat" ..



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I agree with the use of drones to kill individuals who are suspected terrorists who present a clear threat to national security.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT

There has to be more strict and transparent rules governing who is targeted and why the are targeted this practice of sending a hellfire missile up the butt of anyone who has ever met a Al-Qa’ida member is just ridiculous and counterproductive, so this could be a good thing if its done right. Drone strikes I think are needed but only in some very rare cases where there is no alternative.



Drones are cool. We should have drones do everything for us, like have a drone judge and jury decide who presents a clear threat and what particular drone will go and terminate it.

We lost our minds and are going to self destruct if this continues. Just my opinion.
edit on 8-3-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I don't know about anyone else, but I heard way too many politicians defending the use of drones over the last two days.
WTF happened to my country?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I don't know about anyone else, but I heard way too many politicians defending the use of drones over the last two days.
WTF happened to my country?


Everyone got scared...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


That is kind of what I mean, there should be some kind of legal frame work in place that is independent that can see the evidence that a person is indeed a real threat to national security and then decide if that person should be targeted for a drone killing if all other options are exhausted.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I know it is not a popular stance, however i don't believe anyone has the right to kill based on so called intelligence. Drone strikes are just wrong. They kill innocent people. The targeted people should have some right to defend themselves in court. America supposedly strives to bring democracy to the world. That should include the right to defend themselves in a court of law. Drone strikes may kill one terrorist, it however breeds 100's more by doing so.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The PSYWAR continues............
Get with the program......if you dont know it a quick re read of the book 1984
will get you back on track......
Up is down children,
In order to enjoy peace, we must make perpetual war..............
They are selling this insanity to the public......
Waco,9/11,Oklahoma,JFK, its all escalating, and it all leads to a bad end for us......and its up to US to stop it...........nuff said.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
I know it is not a popular stance, however i don't believe anyone has the right to kill based on so called intelligence. Drone strikes are just wrong. They kill innocent people. The targeted people should have some right to defend themselves in court. America supposedly strives to bring democracy to the world. That should include the right to defend themselves in a court of law. Drone strikes may kill one terrorist, it however breeds 100's more by doing so.


How true. Indiscriminate drone strikes, are nothing more, than fertilizer for breeding terrorists.


Des



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by IsawWHATtheyDID
 


Friends of friends? That includes the UK who are supplying kit to the alciada in Syria? A drone aimed at that twat Hague wouldnt go amiss IMO



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by jimmiec
I know it is not a popular stance, however i don't believe anyone has the right to kill based on so called intelligence. Drone strikes are just wrong. They kill innocent people. The targeted people should have some right to defend themselves in court. America supposedly strives to bring democracy to the world. That should include the right to defend themselves in a court of law. Drone strikes may kill one terrorist, it however breeds 100's more by doing so.


How true. Indiscriminate drone strikes, are nothing more, than fertilizer for breeding terrorists.


Des

Indeed.
If the cops blew up my house and killed every member of my family because my wife robbed a bank, I would be a terrorist the likes of which they haven't seen before.

edit on 8-3-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I agree with the use of drones to kill individuals who are suspected terrorists who present a clear threat to national security.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT

There has to be more strict and transparent rules governing who is targeted and why the are targeted this practice of sending a hellfire missile up the butt of anyone who has ever met a Al-Qa’ida member is just ridiculous and counterproductive, so this could be a good thing if its done right. Drone strikes I think are needed but only in some very rare cases where there is no alternative.




Do me a favor here barry, I mean barrack.....err oops whatever........explain how someone can pose a clear national security risk, if they are suspected of, not proven to be a terrorist.

I mean hell, lets let the police lock people up for mandatory minimums for being suspected criminals, not kike barry needs evidence, or even convincing 12 people of your guikt, your suspected, not proven, which is of course the entire problem duh.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
well the constitution has been re defined. "DUE to budget cuts we will not be able to PROCESS your remains".



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


It is just as Rand Paul said it on the floor of the Senate,
is there an endless amount of al Qaeda targets?

Apparently so, this is just but one more reason to expect that this
"war" will come home to America.

What, are they going to spend billions on drones, and run out of people to kill?

S&F



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I agree with the use of drones to kill individuals who are suspected terrorists who present a clear threat to national security.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT

There has to be more strict and transparent rules governing who is targeted and why the are targeted this practice of sending a hellfire missile up the butt of anyone who has ever met a Al-Qa’ida member is just ridiculous and counterproductive, so this could be a good thing if its done right. Drone strikes I think are needed but only in some very rare cases where there is no alternative.



You know, this assassination and torture business is getting entirely out of hand. There is another story running right now about Bin Laden's Son-in-Law who is mysteriously appearing in U.S. Custody in New York City in what sounds like a recent rendition from overseas. Isn't that also something we aren't supposed to be doing anymore to hear them talk...but obviously are?

I think there is a fair, American and proper way to solve this problem because I DO agree in saying there are extreme examples where targeted assassination may not only be necessary but be the very best option for hundreds or perhaps even thousands of other people in the line of being impacted by something.
___

We need to pass a proper numbered Constitutional Amendment declaring that 1). The United States will engage in these things at times and 2), in order to DO those things *ALL NINE* of the Supreme Court Justices must sit, hear and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE on the course of action and in advance. No split decision. No B.S.. All or it isn't approved to happen and it's *ALL* on the record.

It can be a classified session for the times, when details during a shooting war aren't necessarily for the public (and enemy) to read ...but also with absolute timelines to public release of the transcripts of all hearings/decisions on these things after xx years. By law...in the Constitutional wording..

That, in my view, would be a compromise all would be served enough by to satisfy the needs of just about all sides who could step back from ideology for it's own sake.






top topics



 
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join