backtop


Print 94 comment(s) - last by BRB29.. on May 29 at 11:11 AM


  (Source: TheChive)
Admission comes after months of denials, obfuscation, and silence

On Wednesday while President Barack Hussein Obama was preparing for his speech on drone death strikes, his administration acknowledged details on the strikes for the first time publicly.  

I. Administration Admits It Killed Americans With Drone Strikes

In his speech today, President Obama preached a message of optimism, suggesting that the "war on terror" might one day be over via "quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield."

But their were also grim overtones.  Just hours before, on Wednesday, administration took a begrudging step forward, confirming -- for the first time -- that four American citizens had been killed in the Middle East with (warrantless) drone death strikes during President Obama's two terms.  Three of the four dead Americans were "inadvertent" casualties of strikes on other targets -- only one (Anwar al-Awlaki) was intended to be killed.

This marked a reversal of earlier policies that urged White House Press Secretaries to dodge or deflect questions on the killings, which had been the subject of lawsuits and widespread media reports.

The administration in its acknowledgement defended the legality of the killings, arguing the strikes met the standard set forth in Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s letter [PDF] to Congress, in which he wrote that an American terrorist must be classified as "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans", and be in a place where capture is not a feasible possibility.  It says that the President's speech "will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action."

President Obama
President Obama promises to be "transparent" about drone death strikes on American citizens. 
[Image Source: AP]

 
While the President is standing firm on killing Americans who turn to "terrorism", he's also reportedly extending new protections for foreign terrorists.  In classified policy guidance he reportedly signed this week, the President rules that strikes on foreigners must meet the same criteria as those on Americans.  The policy is expected to reduce strikes in regions like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia -- and the civilian casualties that have accompanied such strikes.

President Obama also wants to transfer the drone strikes program to military control.  To date most of the death strikes have been the handiwork of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Predator missile
Some feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the warrantless killings of Americans on U.S. soil. [Image Source: Drone Wars UK]

In his speech, the President somewhat dodged the question of warrantless drone death strikes on Americans on U.S. soil, a particular controversial part of the policy AG Holder defended.  To date no American is known to have been killed in such a strike, but AG Holder argued it would be legal in some extreme circumstances.

In his speech President Obama seems to suggest strikes on U.S. soil are off-limits, stating:

For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.

However, the President's wording does not conclusively state that his policy is to never use drone strikes on U.S. soil -- just that he thinks it's a bad idea.

II. Lawsuits, Criticism Heats Up

Critics say the President's defense of drone killings is unacceptable.  Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International told The New York Times, "The Obama administration continues to claim authority to kill virtually anyone anywhere in the world under the ‘global battlefield’ legal theory and a radical redefinition of the concept of imminence.  President Obama should reject these concepts in his speech tomorrow and commit to upholding human rights, not just in word but in deed."

His agency has an active campaign against the death strikes.

The U.S. does pay "grief payments" of a few thousand dollars to civilian victims of drone strikes, but humanitarian groups say that is not acceptable.  The Pakistani judicial system has a current effort to propose UN war crimes charges against the U.S. for the civilian casualties.

Drone Killing
Critics say "grief payments" for civilian drone strike victims are not acceptable.
[Image Source: Reuters]
 
The President acknowledges civilian deaths, but called them a necessary evil in his speech.  He comments:

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

The decision to acknowledge drone death strikes on U.S. citizens, also allows legal challenges to the policy to move ahead.  The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday dropped an effort to throw out a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, which claimed that the death strikes on the four Americans violated due process.  The DOJ had been arguing that the drone strikes were not confirmed and thus could not be the subject of a lawsuit, but Wednesday's admission scuttled that argument.

III. Closing Guantánamo Bay's Prison

In his speech President Obama is also expected to discuss a final path towards closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  During his 2007 campaign, the President promised to close that prison, a controversial legacy of President George W. Bush's administration.  But once elected, President Obama moved sluggishly.  Today Guantánamo Bay is still in operation and drawing criticism, albeit with less inmates than in 2008.

Guantanamo Bay
Human rights watchers have complained that the Guantánamo Bay proceedings are a sham.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

President Obama is expected to appoint a U.S. Department of State official to spearhead the effort to finish the closure.

IV. President Obama Says He Isn't Targeting Journalists

A final issue addressed in the President's speech was the issue of freedom of the press amidst the recent seizure of Associated Press phone records.  President Obama claimed the efforts weren't meant to target journalists -- only leakers.  He comments:

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

Associate Press
President Obama's Justice Department stands accused of spying on AP offices and staffers.
[Image Source: Getty Images]
 
The President's proposed "Media Shield" law is currently seeing contentious debate in Congress.

Sources: The White House, The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

typical
By Argon18 on 5/23/2013 5:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Denials, obfuscation, and silence are par for the course with this administration. For having run for office on the promise of "transparency", and "accountability" this sure is one dark opaque administration with a lot of dirty laundry. We'll all be a lot better off in 2016, regardless of who wins that one.




RE: typical
By mcnabney on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: typical
By Ammohunt on 5/23/2013 5:58:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Releasing information like this is transparency.


Sure it is; After relentless inquires by media and multiple high level leaks. Your idea of transparency is called Damage control anywhere else.


RE: typical
By michael67 on 5/23/2013 7:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
The 4 Americans killed is the least of the US problem with drones, even do that gets a lot of attention in the US maybe.

Its shame that the US is only now finding out that drone attacks are backfiring, on how the world sees the US.

Was there no one in the hole administration that was standing up, and saying, we have to stop doing this?

After the bombing of the WTC, the US had a hole lot of goodwill in the world, even among moslims, and they treated and used all that good will up, and make the most of the world even hate the US even more.

I had suds high hopes for Obama, that he maybe would reach out with a olive branch, instead he was just as bad as Bush, in feeling what was happening in the world.

I say this not to Troll, but from the outside looking in, the US way to self centered, and not take responsibility for what they done in the past.

As for the moslim guy in the streets that has noting, Guantanamo bay and the indiscriminate drone attacks are symbols that show the US is evil and not even following its own laws, and make it easy to make anti western propaganda.

In that the US is its own worst enemy

And what Obama is doing now is to little to late.


RE: typical
By ninelite on 5/23/2013 8:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that they are testing people's tolerant and keep pushing the boundaries. Not that they just find out these drone attacks are backfiring. They want to kill a few US citizen "terrorists" and release the information to see people's reaction.

If general public is okay with it, then they will start to kill a lot more. If general public is not happy, they will kill a few here and there in secret or in public until people are used to it.

Remember the massive anti war protest during the Vietnam War & Korean War? Has the US stop going to war since then? Are there any massive anti war protest now?


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 7:36:47 AM , Rating: 3
You do realize that the US is the only country take the fights off our borders right?
You also realize that the US is the only country that is not suffering from massive terrorism right?

If you check other countries' news, you will find out how often it happens. This is not some conspiracy anymore. It is real. They have been trying to bring it within our borders for decades.


RE: typical
By othercents on 5/24/2013 8:26:51 AM , Rating: 1
You forget that we don't have borders with any Muslim country and there is no Muslim country on our continent. The US is safer because of the level of difficulty to get here, but not immune.

During a time of war when you are trying to take out the leadership then drone attack is fine. Otherwise, I'm not sure if doing it on terrorists outside of war.


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 9:18:00 AM , Rating: 3
Clearly, you did not realize there are planes now. It's also obvious there's millions of Moslems here also.

You can say the US is safer from conventional warfare because of the oceans the separated us.

quote:
During a time of war when you are trying to take out the leadership then drone attack is fine. Otherwise, I'm not sure if doing it on terrorists outside of war.

What is your definition of war? because it's clear they've already taken it to us for decades. It's unfortunate that news of catching potential terrorists are not pushed by the media as opposed to news about a drone attack.

It's hard for any of us to judge whether each drone strike is right sitting here behind a computer reading a news article from an obvious bias author. I'm telling you from my actual experience from seeing it myself in the past. It takes substantial evidence and intel before any general/director will call a strike. Regardless if it is an order from HQ, leaders are expected to have moral judgement instead of blindly following orders. You also wouldn't believe how much visual information we get during the operation. The drone strike is a small part of the operation. We usually have at least multiple teams on the ground to confirm target, activity, and civilians nearby. It is usually monitored for days to weeks before a drone strike is approved to avoid collateral damage. There's also back up plans to ensure mission success. At any time, the mission can be called off by an operator on the ground that will supercede command authority. It's not like the movies guys.


RE: typical
By othercents on 5/24/2013 10:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly, you did not realize there are planes now.

I said the level of difficulty, I didn't say it was impossible. It is much more difficult to get to the US undetected than Europe. In Europe you can actually sail around the coast and come into the country undetected.

quote:
It's also obvious there's millions of Moslems here also.

Muslim is the correct spelling. Yes, My wife is a Muslim also, so yeah there are Muslims here, but that doesn't make them terrorists or even part of the radical movement.

quote:
because it's clear they've already taken it to us for decades.

Who would be considered "they"? Is that all Muslims? Decades? Do you mean since the Gulf War in 1990 which was mandated by the UN or the attack on the World Trade Center on 2001?

The reality is that every current conflict is based on previous American intervention. Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims. Why are we hell bent on being the peace keepers of the world especially in disputes that are centuries old?


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said the level of difficulty, I didn't say it was impossible. It is much more difficult to get to the US undetected than Europe. In Europe you can actually sail around the coast and come into the country undetected.


When millions have made it here, the significance of that extra difficulty is insignificant.

quote:
Muslim is the correct spelling. Yes, My wife is a Muslim also, so yeah there are Muslims here, but that doesn't make them terrorists or even part of the radical movement.

Yes, and so is moslem. So your wife is moslem and you don't even know the word moslem is correct? lol that's just ignorance.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moslem
I never said all moslems are part of the radical movement. But certainly, most global terrorist activities are by them.

quote:
Who would be considered "they"? Is that all Muslims? Decades? Do you mean since the Gulf War in 1990 which was mandated by the UN or the attack on the World Trade Center on 2001?

Actually it started before that. The WTC in 2001 is a successful terrorist attack. There has actually been several other attempts to blow it up before that. I'll let you research that info since you are ignorant to actual events.

quote:
The reality is that every current conflict is based on previous American intervention. Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims. Why are we hell bent on being the peace keepers of the world especially in disputes that are centuries old?

Not true. The middle east has been hot since well...too long. Did you somehow forgot the crusades and all other conflict besides post WW2?
WW1 was not caused by the US. WW2 is caused by the allies(mostly uk and france) demanding too much reparation.
If we want to trace back, everything was caused by events before the US even existed. The US has only been globally active post WW2.


RE: typical
By othercents on 5/24/2013 11:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

By Arabic definition the difference is determined by your level of respect for that religion. Hence the reason why Muslim is the preferred use and the correct spelling.


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 11:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
According to the english dictionary, they are both the same. Since I speak english, i will go with the dictionary. I'm not trying to be ignorant. I just don't care what a word mean to other people as it means different things to different people. Apparently, some Muslims/moslems/mozlems think killing people was way to sit next to Allah and enjoy 75 virgins.
My roommate is moslem/muslim he can 2 shiz less because he doesn't expect me to be overly sensitive about every little detail over his religion.


RE: typical
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2013 7:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims.


Okay I keep hearing how terrorism is all Americas fault. Even though it was employed thousands of years ago, but I digress.

So when a suicide bomber blows up 40+ people in Yemen or Pakistan and kills his own people: Not Americans, not soldiers, but just random local citizens....what, they still get to claim that's because of some U.S involvement somewhere?

And what about the families of those killed and the survivors missing limbs and being scarred for life, do they just go "Oh well, it was the Great Satan's fault somehow"?

I mean seriously, the logic that we've caused global Islamic terrorism or that it's all just a response to "Imperialist" policies of the West needs to be seriously questioned. When I see someone blow up their own people in some cafe or school crossing, I can't logically see how that's directed at America. Or that it's a reasonable response to ANYTHING!

There have been thousands of successful terrorist attacks since 9-11, and the majority of them haven't even been directed at American people or assets. They're murdering their own people mostly! Can someone make sense to me that this is the result of us "producing radical Muslims"? People who randomly kill others, even in countries that have NOTHING to do with the War on Terror, is the result of us making terrorists?


RE: typical
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2013 7:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pak...


Oh was this also the result of America "producing" terrorists? Shooting a little girl in the head because she dared be a female and speak her mind?


RE: typical
By Flunk on 5/24/2013 9:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
Neither of these things are true, a lot of other nations fight wars overseas. The UK, France, Canada, Australia and many other countries are involved in overseas conflicts. Also, the incidence of terrorism is lower or similar in many other countries on earth.

Canada for example only shares a border with the US so they only need to worry about illegal US immigrants (which is not a big problem) and our excellent trading relationship with the US. Domestic terrorism is hardly an issue, in fact most of Canada's anti-terrorism budget is spent foiling plots to terrorize the US.


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 9:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're not comparing fairly

Canada has barely a military, hardly a global presence, and got more problems with bear attacks than international conflicts. They honestly depend on the US for military protection.

The US is the wealthiest country in the world by far. It is involved in nearly every conflict, fund most of the UN, has directly targeted Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. We're pretty much the target for terrorism. We are everything these terrorists are against especially when we created the whole Israel conflict after WW2.

If you compare us to the UK, we're doing vastly better.

We were stupid to think we could right wrongs in the past. But the effects of those decisions are here now and we have to deal with it.


RE: typical
By TSS on 5/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: typical
By DougF on 5/25/2013 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 3
Selective memory at work here...I lived in Europe in the 80's and remember quite well the terrorism in England, Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. I helped launch the retaliatory raid on Libya in 1986 in response to terrorism.
As for why others do not have terrorist incidents, the US, as the world leader (whether you like it or not) takes the brunt of the attacks. It's part of our role in securing the world's air and sea lanes so all nations may prosper. We understand the nature of being a leader, it's to take on the responsibility and to ensure the world doesn't descend into world war once again. We saw that modernized warfare evolving from WWI and WWII is entirely too destructive and we will NOT allow it to happen again, even if it means sacrificing our own on a regular basis. I say we will NOT, because we CAN, we have the most powerful military and economy on the planet, so we get to make the rules to ensure the planet's tranquility. You want to be in charge? You want a voice in the rules? Take responsibility. Go out there and ensure the air and sea lanes are open to commerce. Get off your duff and go out there into the world and put yourself at risk. I did for 21 years, 9 months and 17 days.
Now, your list is incomplete and inaccurate. Denmark and other European nations have suffered terroristic incidents, France had several killings of Jews, Denmark had cartoonists in hiding from terroristic threats, etc, etc.
Next, mass killings DO happen in other parts of the world, including Europe. Wake up, start applying the same definitions you use on the US to the rest of the world.
Last, America does NOT live in constant fear. You have been watching too much television news. We go about our business every day, terror threat or not. We visit, travel, go out to dinner, see movies, ball games, etc and do NOT cower from any threat of terror.
YOU may cower in your home, draw the blinds, and pray the evil doesn't come across your threshold, we believe in going out and killing it first, wherever it may be incubating. If that means using UAVs to take out terror leaders, even Americans who would plot against their own nation, then so be it. I'm not a fan of President Obama, but I watched his speech in it's entirety and I like much of what he had to say. We will not stand idly by and let anyone, ANYONE, plot our destruction without reaping the consequences. We WILL reach out and touch those who plot our demise with every tool at our disposal, as WE think it is right. It is our RIGHT, and we will execute (pun intended) that right at every opportunity.
Yeah, my post may sound jingoistic, but until some other nation gets off their lazy asses and puts their lives and national treasure on the line, we get to make the decisions. That's why Britain is one of our staunchest allies, as a former world-spanning empire, they understand what's at stake. They know there is a cost associated with world-keeping, but the cost is worth it, if we can keep the specters of world war at bay, even if it means regional conflicts to take out the threats to the rest of the world. That's the reality of today's international politics, you don't like it? Get YOUR national spending on defense up to match the US's and start taking over that responsibility. Put your youth and national treasure at risk, THEN, come talk to me about what YOU want the world to look like. Put up or shut up.


RE: typical
By superflex on 5/28/2013 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mass shootings like newtown and bombings like boston DO NOT HAPPEN in the largest parts of europe. If we look over the past 2 decades:

In your eyes, the Norwegian nut job who killed all the kids on the island never happened.
Try removing your head from your ass mate.


RE: typical
By maugrimtr on 5/24/2013 8:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Admitting to four American deaths by drones (where only one was an actual target!) is the ultimate test of public will. If the pending cases fail, or Congress fails to enact limits on POTUS authority, then the precedent will be decided: Drone strikes on US citizens are legal.


RE: typical
By warezme on 5/23/2013 8:38:58 PM , Rating: 5
More's typical that every country outside the US thinks their $hit don't stink and they have no issues.

The US has the guts to defend itself with no apologies as best it sees fit. If you're an American and decide to haul yourself off and fight along with terrorist then you need to be prepared to meet your maker from wherever, drone or otherwise. You gave up your rights and no one should be debating this.


RE: typical
By michael67 on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: typical
By nafhan on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 3
This is not true.

These drones fire missiles that are accurate within 3 feet. The kill radius is actually very small. Usually the kill radius is within the size of a small house.

I have to ask, if a known terrorist leader is there then what are you doing there so close to him. Chances are you are with that organization.

Yes there are also terrorists here in our country. They like to hide in a secluded spot that's covered up so they can make weapons. We usually monitor them for months and trace their activities to make sure they are doing what we think they are doing. Once everything is confirmed, the military is called for support and/or action.

If you think the president can hide his actions, you're wrong. There's a lot of people involved to make sure nobody is committing crimes. It's also interagency and involves multiple branches of the military. It has to go through a long approval chain with everyone's signature on it. I'm sure I won't sign anything that even remotely gave me a chance of being tried for war crimes.

Here's a fact: The military in general dislike politicians regardless of republicans or democrats. Almost everyone vote republicans because of pay and funding support.

Here's an example. I used to work closely with a unit with its main function being UAV(drones). They receive their missions from various agencies and branches. The CO can actually decline the mission if he sees conflicting information. Why? because he has to take responsibility for every action so he won't sign off on it unless he is without a doubt confident in this action. It's not as if what the President wants, he gets.

I just think everyone has this huge conspiracy about everything. Granted, some(very few) conspiracies are actually true. But we don't need to be making stuff up because we don't know everything. If you want to know more, then get a clearance, work for the DoD/military and you can be briefed on many things. Once you see the truth and compare it to what the media present then you will see how people have so many conspiracies.

FYI, I stopped watching the news from 2005-2011 because the news did not report what was actually happening most of the time. I was there, I had lost many friends. To think people believe that crap was infuriating.


RE: typical
By nafhan on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 2:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, we don't blow up schools, churches/mosques or hospitals except if that facility is an immediate threat to us. I can personally verify this because I spent years in Iraq. It's one of the biggest frustration when they know our Geneva convention and rules of engagement. They purposely used it against us. Weapons caches are often found in schools, mosques and hospitals. They also hide in there and won't shoot at us so we can't mow it down with a 50 cal. They want us wait around so we can get ambushed.

They called them american citizens because they are. But they didn't get blown up by mistakes. These are muslims that got american citizenship working with al qaeda. Tourists don't just have meetings with terrorist leaders lol.

When innocent Americans are hurt by accident, you will see a public apology and very large compensation. You can count on that. If the government doesn't step up then the families will cry to the media anyways.

What part of foot on ground, eyes on target confirmation don't you understand? You obvious have never been in the military, DoD, CIA, FBI etc... We don't kill people on a hunch, even if it's obvious they did it. American citizens or not, we always need substantial evidence that they are an imminent danger to take them out. Hell, in Iraq, we practically had to wait until we are shot at before are allowed to take them out.

You also have not seen the actual video of Pres. Obama. This article is vastly biased, misleading and so are you.


RE: typical
By nafhan on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 3:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
What do you suggest we should do about any american citizens that are terrorists?

Currently, an act of terrorism can be considered an act of war. Didn't you see that they could've tried the Boston marathon bombers through military or civil court? But let it go through civil court mainly because of the people wanting it. It was to let people know that the government still recognize everyone's rights.

My experience is very relevant in Iraq or at home. We are constantly catching these extremists trying to bomb our camps and bases. I'm talking about world wide, not just Iraq or Afghan. I was at Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. We've caught them there too. You guys think these things only happen if you see it in the news. It's only in the news when it's too late. So think of all the attempts that are unsuccessful and be glad there's people watching your back while you keep your rights to rant about an overreaching government.


RE: typical
By nafhan on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
I understand your POV. What I am saying is these terrorists have no homeland, they have no nation and no country. They reside in Afghan or Pakistan right now. We don't just come in and bomb them. The Afghan and Pakistani government allowed us to. The UN would be in an outrage if we did not receive permission to bomb the people of another country.

We are taking the fight to them because our families are at home. Some of us will not hesitate to fight and risk death so our friends and families don't have to suffer. We are without a doubt the most hated country and probably targeted by more terrorists than any other. It's not the ocean that stops them, it's our proactive suppression of terrorism and hitting them where it hurts. We're hitting their network and infrastructure(training camps, weapons cache, cash storage, etc...) to disrupt their operations.


RE: typical
By Ammohunt on 5/23/2013 9:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to America? Because no offense but your opinions and views of America represent the typical ignorance of my country and its people that is propagated by state run media in Europe and elsewhere. Islam and its culture cannot coexist with western culture and values without westerners becoming slaves to Allah. There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society. The war against terror is a war of containment and suppression that will go on until either Islam has a reformation or the west loses its will to fight.


RE: typical
By TeXWiller on 5/24/2013 2:13:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
the typical ignorance of my country and its people that is propagated by state run media in Europe and elsewhere
The state run media, whatever little from it is left is non-partisan by law, or echoing the commercial news distributers, which are generally seeing terrorists around the corners as much as the US media does.
quote:
Islam and its culture cannot coexist with western culture and values without westerners becoming slaves to Allah.
That sentence is usually used by those who want to destroy all competing ideologies and religions. The others just keep on living with other peoples as they always have been.
quote:
There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society.
Islamic, Christian and Jewish societies can be secularist as many countries have demonstrated. It's just the exremist minorities who have never accepted this. Formulation of human rights have had many religious influences in the past. It's no wonder that people who seek new sense of identities in the globalizing, post-colonialist world want deny such foreign influences.
quote:
the west loses its will to fight.
For an exremist, we being ourselves is fighting against them. We don't lose our will to be ourselves as long as we don't lose our self-respect. The strikes lessen our sense of self-respect.


RE: typical
By Ammohunt on 5/24/2013 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That sentence is usually used by those who want to destroy all competing ideologies and religions. The others just keep on living with other peoples as they always have been.


You are actually going to try to lay that on an American living in the original melting pot of people and ideas? Very hard to understand the American way when you live in a European Mono-culture.

quote:
Islamic, Christian and Jewish societies can be secularist as many countries have demonstrated. It's just the extremist minorities who have never accepted this. Formulation of human rights have had many religious influences in the past. It's no wonder that people who seek new sense of identities in the globalizing, post-colonialist world want deny such foreign influences.


Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews have a myriad examples of successful secular governments. Islam has one shining example in a sea of Islamic republics that being Turkey which i feel if pushed would go full bore theocracy in a second.

They can deny such foreign influences they want; one requirement don't fly planes into our buildings ok? because you might not like the outcome.


RE: typical
By michael67 on 5/26/2013 10:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society.

Let me ask you then how Iranians will see use from there point of view.

We the west (Mainly the US and UK) have done everything we could to make them mistrust and hate us, and now we are complaining that they are untrustworthy towards us.

- First in 53 we robed them of there democratic elected president Mossadeq, by using terrorist tactics, the thing we accuse Iran of now.
- Then supported for years the dictatorship of the Shah, ware under his ruling many people disappeared.
- Then we (mainly the US) supported Saddam Hoessein (a man that used chemical weapons and invaded Iran) in the war between Iraq en Iran.
- And then after they had noting to do with the 9/11 attacks, called them the "the axis of evil", yeah bin called the "the axis of evil" would make me wane be friendly with you.

Yeah its all there fault!


RE: typical
By room200 on 5/24/2013 12:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
If there'd been Americans killed on American soil by these guys, YOU would be the first person to post on this board about how BO is "weak" on terror and you know it.


RE: typical
By Cerin218 on 5/23/2013 6:38:37 PM , Rating: 1
It's not like anyone said nothing illegal happened and then plead the 5th.

Or like Holder investigating himself and clearing himself of any wrong doing.

Not like anyone has sealed the records from their past.

What you people let this guy get away with AMAZES me. We should start calling him the Teflon Pres.


RE: typical
By ipay on 5/23/2013 5:43:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Denials, obfuscation, and silence are par for the course with ANY administration

Fixed that for you.


RE: typical
By KCjoker on 5/23/2013 6:59:16 PM , Rating: 5
Yea but this was supposed to be the "hope and change" administration. Remember bush was pure evil for pulling this kind of crap yet BO gets a pass.


RE: typical
By ppardee on 5/23/2013 7:12:22 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct that it's par for the course for any administration, but THIS administration campaigned on transparency and has just recently started following thru with that promise. It's like lifting up a rock. All the slimy things are exposed.

This is the GWB equivalent of waterboarding... you know... except waterboarding never killed anyone... BUT Bush talked to his lawyers and determined that it was legal and that it was worth the information obtained. Obama decided to kill Americans without trial after consulting with his lawyers and determined it was legal.

The big difference is we KNOW Eric Holder is a bad guy, or at least has HORRIBLE judgement. He refused to investigate voter fraud and intimidate charges. He sent guns to the drug cartels. He knew that the DOJ was going to be getting the AP phone records and said "Woah, man, I want nothing to do with this!" instead of "Woah, man, you can't do that!"

When a country starts assassinating it's own citizens, bad things happen... This is the domain (though not the scale) of Stalin, Moa and Pol Pot, and it's a slippery slope.

So, where's the outrage on the left? Wouldn't you expect that murder is worse than torture (especially when doesn't cause any physical damage)? I'd expect the same uproar, but each side only boos the other dog in the fight. Hypocrites, the lot.


RE: typical
By The0ne on 5/23/2013 7:31:04 PM , Rating: 3
You guys are totally correct. I liked this admin because of what they campaigned on and now it's freaking horrible. There are a lot more to this than just the 4 killed. There's a new book out that covers this topic. I can't remember the title for the life of me now. This drone stuff is just wrong because it's being improperly used. Sigh.


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 1:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, so you believed a book instead? A book is meant to sell and make money just like a biased sensational article.

If someone really want to bring the truth about this, they wouldn't write a book about it. They would bring substantial evidence to the public so it would be known. Anyone who wants to profit from it is obviously biased.


RE: typical
By Invane on 5/28/2013 1:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument that books are untrue because the publisher hopes to make money from them is suspect at best. The vast majority of information that we pass down to the next generation is done so via books. And I'm not sure why a book is incapable of offering this 'substantial evidence' that you say should be given. When you have a large amount of substantial evidence, the only way you can present it is in a large form factor. This is usually a book, but can be a scientific journal for scientific endeavors or a pdf if you wish to offer it online. Trying to present it in any other way only offers you small cherry picked portions of what you know and little backing for those bits of knowledge.

You immediately attack his source with the accusation that it's not trustworthy despite having any evidence other than it was a book (granted, he never offered the book's name). After reading through the comments here I've come to the conclusion you may have a very biased point of view yourself. You might step back and examine your beliefs with a more critical eye and a bit more of an open mind.


RE: typical
By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 11:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
If a book that was actually written with real classified material, then that person would be in prison and never gone on sale. That book is more of an opinion than anything real facts. It is a persuasive book. I think you need to think on a broader scale.


RE: typical
By Ish718 on 5/23/2013 9:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter who is president. The people who really run the show are laughing their butts off at people like you...


RE: typical
By Dorkyman on 5/23/2013 9:18:31 PM , Rating: 5
Au contraire, it makes a huge difference.

A Romney presidency would have been very different, in my view very different in a more honest, business-like, common-sense way.

Messiah's a creep. Can't stand to hear him speak any more, since what comes out of his mouth has little correlation with the truth.


RE: typical
By cyberguyz on 5/24/2013 7:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
"Denials, obfuscation, and silence are par for the course with ANY administration. For having run for office on the promise of "transparency", and "accountability" this sure is one dark opaque administration with a lot of dirty laundry. We'll all be NO better off in 2016, regardless of who wins that one."

It doesn't matter who wins top seat in the American government - Conservatives, Liberals, Communists, socialists, flying spaghetti monsters. There are no depths to which those that have power will stoop to achieve their agenda as long as they can get away with it. And the agenda for any group of people that has gained power is? ... Wait for it ....

To consolidate and gain even more power.

This always has been and always will be a hallmark of human nature. Call it Government, religion, organized crime, corporate executives, police forces, militias, whatever. They all have the same motivation and agenda. And every single one of them will do whatever they can get away with to achieve, maintain and gain even more power.


What? We thought this was Dailytech?
By Belard on 5/23/2013 8:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just rename the site NeoconTech and call it a day. Change the site colors to GOP-RED already.

There is no TECH in this article, its about policy (which has been in effect since Bush signed the Patriot Act).

When the govt. is talking about regulating the internet, then such an article belongs on a TECH website. Going off subject from the site visitors is okay, it happens. If this site is a free for all... then.

Lets have serious discussions about erectile dysfunction and the number of middle wage white men who can't get it up who are mad at the world. Solutions and more. We have pills... and shots, which I think its scary to think about... putting a needle into your penis! For those with severe problems, a bionic mechanic or pump can be installed to allow the man to perform. Batteries are not included.




RE: What? We thought this was Dailytech?
By Dorkyman on 5/23/2013 9:26:06 PM , Rating: 1
I guess it makes sense that libs (oops, "progressives," sorry) might have a need to talk about erectile issues.


By Cloudie on 5/24/2013 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 3
Are conservatives allowed to talk about erections (let alone have them)? Isn't it some kind of sin? ;)


RE: What? We thought this was Dailytech?
By Belard on 5/24/2013 1:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have some sort of brain-damaged idea thinking that being a Progressive / Liberal is a bad thing? That is what made America great... being the FIRST and being PROGRESSIVE with civil rights, religious freedom and not be a warm-mongering country.

My penis works just fine.


RE: What? We thought this was Dailytech?
By rountad on 5/24/2013 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
I personally think that ideological thinking like this is on a continuum and must be taken in context.

Context:
- our vast spending, especially on so many extra-Constitutional things
- our myriad nanny-state-type laws, like helmet and seatbelt laws, speed limits, drugs like marijuana being illegal, etc... that greatly limit our self-determination
- our ideas about funding government, like progressive income taxes, rather than a more use-tax orientation
etc...

And, when taken in this context, being "progressive" and wanting more laws, more intrusive government, more spending, etc...
then, yes, it's one of the worst things.

I don't want to work for someone else's idea of the common good that completely contradicts my own ideas. I just want to be left alone.


By Belard on 5/24/2013 3:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
By all means... if you wish to be left alone, move to Somalia. There, you have your utopia non-existent government.

Before I reply, mind you - a completely liberal or conservative govt is NOT good. A balance is needed for proper functionality of a country. This country DOES NOT BELONG to the republicans.

"- our vast spending, especially on so many extra-Constitutional things"

True... we spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. We have far more super-aircraft carriers than we need. The smaller carriers are far cheaper. The Army says we have more than enough tanks, but congress(R) keeps buying more. But under Obama, in the past 3 years, spending has been vastly reduced compared to Bush. (note: Spending and debt are two different things. Obama had also put the wars on our books properly - Remember when we were sold the Iraq scam to cost us $50~80billion? And maybe a few dozen deaths)

- our myriad nanny-state-type laws, like helmet and seatbelt
laws, speed limits, drugs like marijuana being illegal,
No and Yes.
The war on drugs is stupid. Its a victim-less "crime". It costs us tax payers about $30,000 a year per person to have them behind bars. By all means, lock up the drug dealers. Marijuana should be sold in stores and the tax revenue would be helpful. Meth and Heroin should remain illegal to sell.
Note: in the OLD DAYS, Marijuana grows everywhere and hemp was used to make clothes and "paper". The wood paper industry paid to have laws changed to make hemp illegal.

Speed Limits and helmets are safety systems. It costs MONEY to clean up the mess from dead people. My bicycle helmet *DID* save my life when I crashed at 25mph. I broke some bones and destroyed my helmet. A $35 helmet saved about $20~30,000 in ER costs and bills. Speed Limits... again, idiots who speed causes crash. Everyone doing 65mph is safer than some doing 30 and others doing 50 and 90mphs on the same road. A few years ago, I'm doing 65mph. Some idiot barely avoided hitting me at 100MPH. Instead he slid infront of me and ping-ponged into the concrete crash barriers on both sides of the highway... I continued my merry way.

That idiot costs tax payers money to pickup his broken car and body. Again, move to countries with no laws for driving... they don't have much good roads since they don't collect taxes to build them.

- our ideas about funding government, like progressive income taxes, rather than a more use-tax orientation
Somethings from the govt are cheaper than for-profit. To think that "liberals like to spend money" is stupid. Look at actual spending and under Clinton and Obama, spending has been LESS than under either Bush and of course Reagan. Our tax dollars pays for police, firefighters, roads, libraries, schools, military and more. Waste spending is stupid... that is caused by corruption.

Want to stop that? It needs to be done. Limited terms (no for-life congressmen, etc). No private meetings with lobbyist. No direct campaign donations (ie: nobody can donate to a specific candidate) - that becomes I scratch your back, you scratch mine issue... especially with judges.

I see posts on the NET about how wasteful NASA is... (which does provide tons of high-skilled jobs)... yet the budget for running air conditioning for the illegal Iraq War for our troops is HIGHER than NASA (by year). Not saying that they don't need A/C... but the $3Trillion dollar lie has costs us lots of MONEY and DEATH.


Leaving out specific facts
By Shadowself on 5/23/2013 5:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, four individuals who were U.S. citizens were killed. However, it should have been noted in the article that only one of those individuals was actually targeted and marked for death by they U.S. Government. The other three were collateral kills when others were killed.

While many will say, "It does not matter. One, four or four thousand is the same. Killing *any* American Citizen is unacceptable without due process.", the distinction should still be noted.

However, I do agree with the U.S. President when it comes to the concept that the U.S. can kill anyone by any reasonable means if 1) there is an imminent danger to the U.S. population (not just infrastructure, but to the people), 2) the person cannot be captured, and 3) the plot cannot be foiled.

However, the U.S. President and I are radical disagreement over the concept of both "imminent" and "cannot" with regard to capture or foiling the plot. If those terms were more narrowly and more specifically defined, I'd support this concept in full.




RE: Leaving out specific facts
By Cerin218 on 5/23/2013 6:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
Who determines the imminent danger? I mean the action in this article alone are without warrant. Remember, it's the terrorists today, could be you because you disagree with the administration tomorrow. You'll say it can never happen just like all the other countries it has happened in over the course of time.


RE: Leaving out specific facts
By M'n'M on 5/23/2013 7:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who determines the imminent danger? I mean the action in this article alone are without warrant. Remember, it's the terrorists today, could be you because you disagree with the administration tomorrow.

All good points. But let's remember that Congress authorized a war on terrorists (AQ and "associates"). So GWB and Obama are using their authority as commander in chief to prosecute that war. If this were WWII surely you wouldn't object to missions to assassinate Hitler or even a US citizen who decided to be his chief of training recruits. That's the basic viewpoint espoused by the present and prior administrations.

The problem I have is a "war" on terrorism isn't exactly a normal war. There may be no way to know if it's ever "won", if indeed it can ever be won. And so long as Congress keeps reauthorizing the AUMF, presidents will continue to use ... and eventually misuse ... their war powers. We the People need to push for a better definition of, and set limits on, what powers can be used to fight terrorism. And to make sure we don't end up in a defacto endless state of war, because that will end up with limitation on all the freedoms we used to hold dear.


RE: Leaving out specific facts
By ppardee on 5/23/2013 7:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head.

"Even the war itself isn't real. The Party wants you to believe we are at war so as to channel your aggression away from the rightful target: the Party"


RE: Leaving out specific facts
By AlphaVirus on 5/24/2013 10:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
At first I was contempt with just reading everyone's comments but I had to login and let you know your second paragraph sums it all up perfectly.

All these people arguing about what GWB and Obama did right or wrong doesn't matter much, what matters is this US vs Terror (blanket term) that will cause an "endless state of war".

Thanks for reminding me that there are others that finally see things for what they are.


RE: Leaving out specific facts
By ipay on 5/24/2013 3:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While many will say, "It does not matter. One, four or four thousand is the same. Killing *any* American Citizen is unacceptable without due process.", the distinction should still be noted.


Oh and there I thought the problem was that the drones operate on forein territority and blow up lots of innocent civilists.

But of course you are right. The problem is that AMERICAN people were killed without due process...

------
Let's see how long you need to continue bombing until the people of Pakista finally elect an radical just to spite the US.

Stuff like below doesn't exactly improve the way the world perceives the US.

quote:
Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court said the strikes must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people. The case was filed last year by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, a legal charity based in Islamabad, on behalf of the families of victims killed in a 17 March 2011 strike on a tribal jirga. The jirga, a traditional community dispute resolution mechanism, had been called to settle a chromite mining dispute in Datta Khel, North Waziristan. This strike killed more than 50 tribal elders, including a number of government officials. There was strong condemnation of this attack by all quarters in Pakistan including the federal government and Pakistan military.
...
Clive Stafford Smith of the London-based group Reprieve, which has supported the case, said: “Today's momentous decision by the Peshawar High Court shines the first rays of accountability onto the CIA's secret drone war.”

He added: “For the innocent people killed by U.S. drone strikes, it marks the first time they have been officially acknowledged for who they truly are - civilian victims of American war crimes.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Seriously since the 50s the US government is doing its best to set the world on fire. Go on, but don't complain about the radicals you create.


By pugster on 5/23/2013 11:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
In the midst of the Boston Marathon bombing, Farea al-Muslimi testified in the Senate committee about Drone Strikes. He said that before the Drone strike in his Village in Yemen, Al Qaeda try desperately to recruit people in his village to be terrorists but the people in the village would not join. However, a drone strike killed many people and many people are signing up to be the next terrorists.




By M'n'M on 5/23/2013 11:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
And what's the other half of the story ?

How many actual, truly bad terrorists aren't around to kill other innocent people, here or in various villages, as a result of a drone (or other) strike ? Or aren't around to coerce the villager to do something he would otherwise not do. That's a question that can't have a definitive number but we all know it's not zero either.

Let's say I'm a bit leery of anyone who claims a definitive answer, one way or the other.


By ipay on 5/24/2013 4:25:01 AM , Rating: 1
And the other side: How many innocents have been blown up? How many relatives of them will become terrorists now? Don't forget that having your family blown up makes it much easier for a terrorist to convince you that killing Americans is a pretty good idea.

It's basically impossible to know. Especially since the statistics coming from the CIA are total BS (e.g. claims of 0 civilian deaths in 1 year).

(Personally I believe the civilian death count is somewhere in a 20-50% range)


By bug77 on 5/24/2013 5:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the other side: How many innocents have been blown up?


By whom?


By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 7:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Personally I believe the civilian death count is somewhere in a 20-50% range)


how did you come to that conclusion.


By bug77 on 5/24/2013 8:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's a belief, it's not something rational.


As a foregeiner
By Strunf on 5/24/2013 7:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
As a foreigner I find Americans kind of funny(in a bad way), you kill Innocent Americans with drones and you get a public outcry, you kill any other innocent and pay $6k as a compensation and it's ok... and then you wonder why so many people hate you, maybe it has to do with the fact that for you anyone else besides Americans are worth $6k. Hell some even think that $6k is actually a good deal for the family of the killed person.




RE: As a foregeiner
By drevas2528 on 5/24/2013 9:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
As a foreigner, I find you funny, and not in a good way. The U.S has done more good than any single nation in the last 100 years. Anytime there is a disaster somewhere, the U.S. leads the way, giving unselfishly of ourselves. Are we perfect? Uh, no. Yet, we are hardly evil and deserving of the worlds hate. A lot of people like you say that the world would be better off if we went away. I would love to see us give most of you that wish. I'm sure the 1+ million Muslims we helped save from genocide in the Balkans wouldn't feel that way, but heh, I would love to see Rand Paul get elected President just for that reason. To the extent that he could, he would grant you people your wish.

BTW, in a country like Afghanistan 6k is a TON of money.


RE: As a foregeiner
By Xartes on 5/24/2013 11:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S has done more good than any single nation in the last 100 years.


I really hope you're joking.


RE: As a foregeiner
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
to be fair, that is very subjective. Good/evil can vary from one person to another. There are probably millions or more who thinks the US has done more good than any single nation in the past century.


RE: As a foregeiner
By Strunf on 5/25/2013 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
I could easily point you out many wars the US started or puppets the US installed in power just to push its agenda.

And for the 6k being a ton of money in Afghanistan, I would never find it acceptable even if I receive a ton of money for the death of one of my family members, actually there's no amount of money that would make it acceptable... the amount you pay should at least be high enough to make it unacceptable, at 6k the killed innocent it's cheaper for the military to kill innocents with no regards than abort a mission.


Missing the boat entirely - Mick at his best
By BSMonitor on 5/24/2013 10:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
As a typical uneducated, ignorant 21st century "journalist", Mick completely leaves out the fact that the message from the President was in fact a step-by-step breakdown of when/what circumstances drones are used.

FYI for those who didn't actually watch the President and are looking for agenda-less coverage of this topic please do, watch it instead of reading this CRAP. The President made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that drones are used in regions that are VERY unaccessible to ANY form of local state government assistance in capturing terrorists. He specifically refers to areas of the interior of Yemen where the Yemenese government has virtually NO influence. Remote desert regions, mountain regions in the interior of "countries" where no government exists.

Also, he goes on to mention that EVERY drone strike is brought before the appropriate committees in CONGRESS before being carried out.

I'll repeat that, YOUR ELECETED CONGRESSIAL REPRESENTATION is informed of EVERY drone attack prior to its effect.

The President also mentions drones as a tool akin to tomahawk missile strikes, full blown boots on the ground invasions, etc... Drone strikes quite sincerely are MUCH LESS likely to kill civilians than either of those other methods.. And in the same breathe risk NO AMERICAN LIVES in their execution.

Truly the President made quite clear the policy, despite the tone of Jason Mick's horrible journalistic skills.




By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 10:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's obvious Jason Mick is biased. His articles only tell one side of the story. Isn't that how most news are reported these days? They want to provoke emotions out of people to get more interests/views.


By Belard on 5/24/2013 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 1
Here is the thing... when YOU go to another country and plan and perform attacks to KILL Americans... all bets are off. American or not, they are terrorist. Those guys made the choice.

When the terrorist pussies bombed Boston, did anyone say "excuse me... please come out, we won't be shooting back at you why you are shooting police officers in the face". They signed their death with their own actions.

The typical thing is that the neo-cons will find anything and everything to bitch about that has to do with the blackman in the white house. Its been like that since day one. The GOP has publicly stated "Our #1 priority is to make Obama a one term president"... okay, that means they are NOT working for the American people... they are fascists traitors to the USA. If there wasn't drone attacks, they'd attack him on that... the GOP has called DEMS weak when it comes to military actions... nope, fail there. The best/worse thing they've done is lied to the American people, started a war on lies which resulted in $3Trillion in debt and 4400+ dead AMERICANS!

Here are examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FirI3_G_0JM or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU

The GOP has screwed every working American for political gain. The bill that punishes companies who send jobs overseas - killed by Republicans. They talk about the bailouts... yet the first bailout was under bush and the second was soon after Obama became president. Much of that bailout money has been returned. Companies were saved, jobs were saved. The STIMULUS helps to create jobs... our ROADS and bridges are in heavy need of repair or replacements... Either they have been blocked by the GOP or later slammed by the GOP.

Even in Texas (where I'm at) - Our stupid gov. Rick Perry bitched about spending and the stimulus. Yet, he and other Red-States SPENT that money... took pictures of themselves with big checks which were still part of the very same stimulus they are cursing.

In downtown Dallas, they just finished building a new park over a highway... Yes, Stimulus helped pushed for that project to start earlier and faster... creating JOBS.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/30/53538...

http://www.wfaa.com/news/Officials-hail-stimulus-m...

There is a difference from FACTS and the bullshit that comes out of FOX"news" which isn't even an American owned company... its forigner owned which is supposed to be ILLEGAL! Its #1 owner is a Saudi Arabian who blamed the 9/11 attacks on the actions of Americans... Alwaleed bin Talal
You have Newcorp (FOX) which has been caught hacking phones and computers. Only complete idiots actually believe the line "fair and balanced" - because they say it, doesn't make it true.

The GOP is active against womens rights (Work, violence and health) as well as against homosexuals. Of course its funny that many in the GOP who are against gay rights... end up being closet homosexuals anyway.

Then you have idiots who think Women can "shut down" their vagina to prevent pregnancy... they have NO BUSINESS being in any public office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc

The GOP has become the party of morons and nutjobs. The lies of FOX are easy to prove. The stupidity is obvious. The hatred is sad and sickening.

The United States should be better than this... and we are NOT #1.


Drones in American Air Space
By Jim Vanus on 5/24/2013 11:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
Let's keep talking about drone strikes overseas while surveillance drones begin deployment all over the U.S. These drones will be used by DEA, ICE, Homeland Security, FBI, large metro police departments, security contractors and some sheriff departments. It's only a matter of time before smaller drones are capable of providing low altitude surveillance of streets and homes.

How far will we go down this road - Giving up freedom for supposed security?




RE: Drones in American Air Space
By Jim Vanus on 5/27/2013 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
An example:
http://www.gizmag.com/aeryon-labs-skyranger-uav/27...

From article:
"Aeryon designed its new small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) as a portable surveillance tool built especially to handle rough weather conditions."

And ...
"The new UAV is now available to order, though you'll have to contact Aeryon Labs to receive a quote, and the company has stated it is giving priority to military and government customers." (italics added for emphasis)


!!!!!!
By MariaStepp28 on 5/23/2013 9:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Paul`s story is nice, , last pay cheque my aunties neighbour basically got paid $6054 just sitting there a thirteen hour week an their house and there buddy's sister-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for 8-months and got paid more than $6054 in their spare time on their labtop. use the steps available here, Bow6.comCHECK IT OUT




China name plate co. ltd.
By cindywu on 5/24/2013 6:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry the voters elected him to another term. I'm glad that congress is doing their job by blocking his bad decisions as much as possible. Hopefully the damage he can do will be minimized as much as possible during this term.

Laptop logo : http://goo.gl/OItwV




Sorry, but...
By gwem557 on 5/24/2013 7:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
If you join a terrorist organization and enter into combat against your own country, I don't give two sh*ts if you're American or not. Eat some drone love. You made your choice.




WRONG TITLE !
By Dr of crap on 5/24/2013 12:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
IF Mick had looked into the real info you have seen, yes these were Americans, but they were siding with terror and you have to see their pictures. These are not your average Americans that go to work and live in the suburbs. These guys looked like Bin Ladne and dressed like him. So we went after them and took them out.

How is this bad? Just because they were Amreicans?? There are a number of sentenced to death Americans that should also be taken out. Is that something you also be against??

You go against our country, you get the sword, sound good to me.




big differnce
By carigis on 5/24/2013 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
" his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team."

yea.. but there is a difference between a sniper in an active shooter situation.. and someone who is droned driving down the street in thier car in a whole other country.

who is believed to be a terrorist but not tied to any specific plot or engaged in open active combat with our troops.

the leaked documents if I remember correctly stated that citizens need not be suspected of planning a specific plot or engaging troops.

that is two entirely different scenarios.

the fact is, A US citizen deserves due process and a trial unless he is engaged in open conflict with US troops or an imminent threat (enroute) of known planned specific attack.




By AcornArmy on 5/25/2013 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
The tone of this article is slanted-- probably deliberately, imho-- to gloss over the fact that the Americans who were killed were part of the terrorist groups.

If you check other articles by Jason Mick which refer to the Obama administration, the same tone is used in all of them. The information is always presented in such a way that the administration appears to have done something terrible, when, in reality, the facts of the subjects imply something very different.

Jason Mick seems much more concerned with attacking President Obama than with writing articles which convey the truth.




!!!
By KarenYoung47 on 5/25/2013 2:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
until I looked at the bank draft ov $9780, I didnt believe that my father in law was trully earning money parttime at there labtop.. there neighbor has been doing this for under six months and resantly paid for the morgage on there villa and bought a brand new Alfa Romeo. go to Exit35.comTAKE A LOOK




!!
By SusanBoyd47 on 5/26/2013 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
If you think Nancy`s story is good..., three weeks-ago my auntie's boy friend also earnt $9115 working fourty hours a month at home and there best friend's mother-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for seven months and got more than $9115 in there spare time from a labtop. follow the guide from this web-site. Exit35.comTAKE A LOOK




drone strikes
By stevansky on 5/27/2013 11:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares?? If a so called "American" is on foreign soil helping terrorists or enemy combatants then his or her ass is fair game in my book. Using the IRS to attack political opponents however is NOT.




!!!
By SherryMorris41 on 5/28/2013 11:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Cole. even though Marjorie`s blog is great, I just received a great new Citro?n DS since getting a cheque for $8762 this-past/4 weeks and also ten-grand lass month. without a question it is the most-comfortable job Ive had. I actually started six months/ago and almost straight away startad earning at least $79 per/hr. I went to this site, Exit35.comCHECK IT OUT




And this it Tech how?
By mcnabney on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: And this it Tech how?
By drycrust3 on 5/23/2013 6:26:23 PM , Rating: 1
The world needs people like Jason to bring these issues up while people still have a chance to argue about them.
After WW2, the people of Germany were appalled by the things their government had done, and the key to Hitler doing those things was his taking away the freedoms Germans had. To say America or any other country couldn't follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany is wrong, it (or they) could easily do so.
While it may seem irrelevant for a technical website to post articles that people can argue over regarding some political decisions, the fact is once freedoms are lost it take a huge effort (and possibly loss of life) to get them back.


RE: And this it Tech how?
By Skywalker123 on 5/23/2013 10:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After WW2, the people of Germany were appalled by the things their government had done


Yet Stalin killed millions before and during the war and held Eastern Europe in bondage, including Poland (which the British supposedly went to war over) and he was our ally.


RE: And this it Tech how?
By BSMonitor on 5/24/2013 10:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick intentially F'ed up the representation of what was actually said. The President made it quite clear that the use of these weapons has ALWAYS been layed before the appropriate committee's in CONGRESS.

NO ONE IS SNEAKING AROUND ATTACKING WHOMEVER THEY WANT WITH DRONES!


RE: And this it Tech how?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2013 6:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After WW2, the people of Germany were appalled by the things their government had done, and the key to Hitler doing those things was his taking away the freedoms Germans had. To say America or any other country couldn't follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany is wrong, it (or they) could easily do so.


Hitler didn't take power, he was given it.

By whom? The German people.

Like it or not, thems the facts. The German people can feign all the shock they want for the consequences of their choices.


RE: And this it Tech how?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: And this it Tech how?
By bug77 on 5/24/2013 6:43:27 AM , Rating: 1
Well... it's about drones.


RE: And this it Tech how?
By Belard on 5/24/2013 1:13:47 PM , Rating: 1
Talking about drone technology fits in the scope of a tech site. Not policy or politics.

When you go buy an airplane Magazine, you don't buy or read it for the PC-Gaming or home-crafts.

There are general and political websites for Jason to bitch and moan about. Up until recently, I have agreed with most of his TECHNICAL articles he has posted and shared my support for his opinions and such. I will continue to point out his un-professional articles as long as he continues to do so until I am banned or until he decides to be PROFESSIONAL. Nothing keeps him from creating a site called "neocontech" and posts whatever garbage that is repeated from FOX news.

I am not a PROFESSIONAL here. I am a visitor, I make HIM and Dailytech money from the ADS and what I learn and share here as it effects my business and knowledge of the industry.

I have my own blog/forum website that has nothing to due with technology. I have rules on it: No politics, no religion because I don't want it to turn into a pissing match. On another TECH site for which I am an active member for over 10 years - some neocon put a political tag in his signature... I opened up on him publicly and explained WHY I did it. Why? because it meant every one of his posts are politics, not whatever else he posted. My own signature is my stats and recommended tools as people keep asking a lot of the same questions. Some have jokes, or quotes.. no big deal.

If he wants to do Donkey vs Elephant, I'm up for it.


RE: And this it Tech how?
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 1:34:13 PM , Rating: 3
The article is clearly about politics.

If you change drones to guns, knives, drugs, etc... you will realize that the article is essentially the same. why? because it's about politics.


Important
By amelia321 on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki