It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House reportedly struggling to target US citizen with drone attack

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

neo96
There is nothing to struggle about.

Arrest him.

No need for drones.

Just straight to executions now Obama ?

That decision can't get any more simple.
edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Obviously you missed a big part of the issue. They CANNOT arrest him, because he is not on US soil, but they are arguing he is still a threat to American citizens, even those on US soil. Okay, so let's evaluate this a little bit. It is quite true that, being a US citizen, he is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a FAIR trial. And I believe this should not be a closed-doors trial, or a kangaroo court, or whatever they call it, where they are going to find him guilty regardless of how fragile the evidence is. These military tribunals they use to decide the fate of terrorists are just for show. Or just for "tell" really, since they just tell us about them.

This is a very dangerous thing for our freedoms. When the government can abolish the rights of one citizen, who is to say they won't start doing it to more? And actually this is not the first time something of this nature has occurred. And in my opinion, they have no right to kill anyone, especially without a trial. If they cannot arrest him because he is on foreign soil, then here is what you do. You don't break international law to arrest him, you don't kill him, and in fact, you don't go after him at all. What you do is keep him out of the country, where he cannot attack the US on our soil.

I seem to remember an implementation of various programs to supposedly thwart and catch terrorists who are in the US, and who try to enter the US. I remember a gestapo group called the TSA, and these fancy new body scanners, and basically the dilution of many of our freedoms and rights, all in the name of security. But they are apparently telling us that despite all that, they still can't protect us from "terrorists" without ILLEGALLY killing people and violating internation law?

I think it is time for a regime change, or actually it is time for an overhaul of the political system in general in the US. And if this other country will not allow US soldiers to come and "arrest" (ie kill) this person, then I highly doubt they are going to want the US military using drones to bomb ground targets in their country either. Since when does simply being the US give us the right to violate such laws?

What if one of these other countries flew a drone into the US and started shooting off missiles? Do you think the US would stand for that? This is simply what a bully does. They utilize their force to get what they want, no matter what happens in the process. The US has no right to do such a thing. Decades ago the US used to actually worry about their public image, how the rest of the world perceived them. I don't remember hearing about all these crazy terrorists wanting to kill Americans then. This wasn't going on back in the 40's and even before that, when the US was much more isolationist.

So to me there seems to be a connection with WHY so much of the world hates the US, and the actions of the US. So maybe much of this hate is deserving. And given what rights and freedoms we have already lost, and those that we are on the brink of losing, and those we don't even know we have lost yet, I am starting to really understand how a foreigner can truly despise the US government. And some will call me anti-American, yet I am NOT the one disregarding the US Constitution to get what I want. There is absolutely no excuse for such actions.

I don't care if they could provide you with all the safety in the world, which they can't anyway...You shouldn't give up ANY rights or freedoms for such a thing. And wouldn't you know that this exact same thing was discussed by our Founding Fathers? The government getting the citizenry to give up rights and freedoms in the name of safety and security. That is where the famous quote by Franklin, which still rings true today. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." So those of you who take this stuff lying down, who don't care about your freedoms being stipped in the name of security, you don't deserve liberty or safety.




posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 





They CANNOT arrest him, because he is not on US soil


Since when does that matter ?

Read the links from the Clinton Era.

Being on US soil has never mattered.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

neo96

buster2010
According to the laws passed by Bush when he joined a terrorist group he signed his death warrant. Why is it now they suddenly start to wonder what the law says?


Sorry the law passed under Clinton

en.wikipedia.org...



According to the summary by President Clinton, the bill was intended to establish federal criminal jurisdiction over acts of international terrorism.[5] Civil liberty advocacy groups opposed the bill on the grounds that it would violate fundamental civil liberties, including the right to confront one's accuser. [3] Another source of opposition was the Government's ability to use evidence from secret sources in deportation proceedings for suspected terrorists. [3] During the debate over the Patriot Act of 2001 then Senator Joe Biden compared this bill to its 2001 counterpart stating "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill."


en.wikipedia.org...

Nice revisionist history there btw.


Learning how to read what you are posting wouldn't hurt. That only deals with terrorists in the US not abroad.



Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States"


You do understand what the term "in the United States" means right?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

neo96
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 





They CANNOT arrest him, because he is not on US soil


Since when does that matter ?

Read the links from the Clinton Era.

Being on US soil has never mattered.


American laws only work in America. Like rights granted by the constitution only works in America not other countries. So we would have to kidnap him and bring him to the states before we can arrest him.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

beezzer

SWCCFAN
Once they start they won't stop.

How is some guy in Afghanistan a threat to us here in the US?

He isn't.

Terrorism is a sham.

If you don't agree with the US Gov't you are a terrorist....
if you own guns you are a terrorist.
if you are a vet ... Yep still a terrorist.
if you can chew a pop tart into the shape of a gun ... TERRORIST...


Killing ANYONE with out due process is not right. But since the USA is the new NAZI world power and no one can challenge it yet they can kill whom ever they please.


But it's a war, isn't it?

I'm not arguing with you, nor am I disagreeing. In war we don't read Miranda Rights. We shoot, kill, blow stuff up.

Killing someone who isn't actively trying to kill you is wrong. I get that.

Is there a way to stop the process though?

Neo, my friend, you're right. This is a political process. Unfortunately, our politicians are all insane.


Actually no it isn't a war if anything it would be classified as a police action like Vietnam remember no war was declared then either. For it to be a war congress would have to declare war and they haven't done that since the 40's.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





Learning how to read what you are posting wouldn't hurt. That only deals with terrorists in the US not abroad.


Yeah someone does need to learn how to READ.



Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him.


Hello ?

That is what they call 'international terrorism'.



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join