backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by Schadenfroh.. on Feb 27 at 9:32 PM

Top White House official comes clean about covert drone strikes

In recent weeks, controversy has been boiling over the targeted killings of American citizens with drones.  While most would agree that Americans who join hostile overseas terrorist groups like al Qaeda may be difficult to capture and may necessitate strikes with deadly force, most also take issue with the way the administration handled the information.

At a time when drones are deployed over U.S. airspace to "monitor the homeland" and discussions of arming such drones are ongoing, the issue is a sensitive one for Americans who fear what could happen under a system with such a lack of transparency.

I. Down the Rabbit Hole

Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary who recently joined MSNBC -- a network owned by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and General Electric Comp. (GE) -- gave an exclusive interview with his new employer on the politics talk segment "Up".

In the interview clips are played in which he and the new press secretary -- Jay Carney -- are shown dodging questions about targeted drone killings.  In the interview, he confirms, "When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'"


When reporters started asking questions about drones, Mr. Gibbs recalls, "I realized I'm not supposed to talk about it."

The case is drawing fictional comparisons, such as "The Wizard of Oz" (in which a normal man hides behind an animated curtain to hide his lack of magic powers) or "Alice in Wonderland" (due to questions of how many layers of obfuscation are wrapping the reality of the covert actions -- i.e. how far down the rabbit hole, we must go to find the truth).

Reaper drones
Reaper drones are currently being used over U.S. airspace. [Image Source: The Real Revo]

Mr. Gibbs used The Wizard of Oz analogy in his own interview.  The former official, who says he never talked to President Obama about the issue, complains that "when [drone strikes on Americans are] obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes."

II. Drone Medal Awarded, Brennan Nomination Jeopardized

The White House has finally agreed to release some documents to the Senate and House, but much about the reportedly highly codified death strikes program is unknown.  Reportedly the only people with fully details are the Obama administration and high ranking military and intelligence officials.

President Obama
President Obama says sometimes U.S. citizens must be killed, although it may be too sensitive to say when that time is. [Image Source: AFP/Getty Images]

U.S. use of drones overseas has exploded in recent years.  The autonomous surveillance-cum-killing machines offer a way to project U.S. hegemony without risking the lives of servicemen.  Reportedly one in three U.S. warplanes is today a drone.

The Pentagon recently announced a new medal of honor -- the Distinguished Warfare Medal -- for drone operators and cyberwarfare experts.  The medal ranks above the prestigious Purple Heart (which is awarded to servicemen wounded or killed in battle), raising criticism.  Critics dub the award "the Geek's Cross".

The controversy over drone killings of American citizens and the secrecy surrounding the administrations' rules on the topic has impacted the nomination of John Brennan to become director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

John Brennan
John Brennan helped mastermind the drone killings. [Image Source: Reuters]

John Brennan has also been criticized for supporting "enhanced interrogation" (torture), warrantless wiretaps, and the Iraq invasion/war.  Much of these policies were his work during his time with the previous Bush Administration.  Salon has a nice piece on these issues.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Tenn.) says the strikes raise serious Constitutional issues, due to the administration's secrecy and ambiguous language.  He says unless he gets answers he plans to do "whatever it takes" to block Mr. Brennan's nomination.  


That in turn, could create chaos in U.S. intelligence ranks and compromise America's ability to monitor enemies and defend itself overseas.

Source: MSNBC News



Comments     Threshold


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

Gibbs always pissed me off.
By MrBlastman on 2/25/2013 2:09:01 PM , Rating: 5
That little head bob and eye pop he'd do... man it was annoying. I couldn't stand the guy.

With that said, I'm glad he admits in a way to the usage of drones and how much it has grown. Americans: This is sobering. Our own government is using our tax dollars to watch us now in the streets and outside of our homes, away from our electronic devices. Wake up. Stop thinking "voting doesn't matter" or "I don't have time to pay attention to politics."

The truth of it all is--your pathetic attitude towards being a part of our democracy is the reason things like this will continue to grow out of our control... and be used against us. Our freedoms are at stake here.




RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2013 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
The question is, are we too far gone now? No matter which party takes office in four years, will there even be an effort to "right the ship" with regards to these policies?

I have the fear that the excuse from hear from now on out will be "We need it, War on Terror!"


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By wyrmslair on 2/25/2013 2:37:45 PM , Rating: 4
Do remember the outside reality here.

1. We are in "war" with these groups even though we are doing a good job of keeping them from bringing it home. Systems like drone strikes are much more effective if the enemy is not aware of them thereby not guarding against them. Strategically, that was an important chit to keep secret.

2. IMHO, once you declare yourself an "enemy combatant", your constitutional rights are null & void by definition regardless of your origin.

So the question is, is this wrong? There is a huge difference between this kind of action at home versus against an enemy at war with us. Don't fall for the knee-jerk emotional response without looking at the whole picture.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By ppardee on 2/25/2013 2:53:42 PM , Rating: 5
While I respect your opinion, the Constitution, last I read, doesn't hold the same view.

Is this wrong? Yes. It is very wrong. It's not an emotional reaction. It is extremely logical, rational and forward thinking. If we give the President the power to kill citizens without trial or oversight and in secret, we have given the President the power to kill any opposition to his party. I don't believe Obama will do this, but you could see a religious zealot using this power to attack abortion clinics because they are killing Americans or a socialist extremist to kill people he sees as a threat to stability (i.e. people who aren't willing to give everything to the government).

It is wrong and it is dangerous. If anyone in power tells you differently, they are fools or liars.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By wyrmslair on 2/25/2013 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
I see your point but you seem to miss one of mine. Joining an anti-American terrorist group is, in my understanding, a renunciation of their status as an American citizen. At that point, they are no different than any other "high value" target in the opposition. Calling them "American Citizens" facilitates your argument but, by my understanding of the intent of our doctrine, it is a falsehood.

Drone attacks on our home soil against our own citizenry (those who are not actively seeking to destroy our government and our people) would be a different matter entirely. Declaring yourself an enemy of the state leaves you a fair target for being treated as one.

That said, I do agree with your concern if your example was more apropos.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/25/2013 4:10:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see your point but you seem to miss one of mine. Joining an anti-American terrorist group is, in my understanding, a renunciation of their status as an American citizen. At that point, they are no different than any other "high value" target in the opposition. Calling them "American Citizens" facilitates your argument but, by my understanding of the intent of our doctrine, it is a falsehood.

Drone attacks on our home soil against our own citizenry (those who are not actively seeking to destroy our government and our people) would be a different matter entirely. Declaring yourself an enemy of the state leaves you a fair target for being treated as one.

That said, I do agree with your concern if your example was more apropos.
Then formally codify that and make it public.

The biggest problem here is the administration hiding behind smoke and mirrors and saying "what drone strike documents?" when we all know what is happening. In this case the lack of transparency is what really gives an impression of dishonesty.

Put the facts out and let them speak for themselves.

Otherwise it's pointless to speculate on the policy, as we don't know when and where the President considers it legal to killing U.S. citizens, just that in some cases he is killing U.S. citizens.

Even if those killings follow some pattern you're comfortable with, the fact that killings are occurring with no formal acknowledgement of the policy should frighten you and any other American.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2013 9:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Put the facts out and let them speak for themselves.


When has this Administration ever done that on ANYTHING?


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By TSS on 2/26/2013 3:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the administration is doing something far more insidious, using the communication error that just occured between you 2 to further their plans.

I'd think most Americans would agree that, once a american declares himself an enemy combatant which can simply be done by joining up with a group at war with the US, they lose their right to protection. Why on earth would you let somebody intent on causing harm back into the country?

The problem is how the administration words it, by using "american citizenship". As others pointed out you have to go through a prodcedure to renounce your citizenship, one which terrorists obviously won't go through as US citizenship would be very convenient for their plans.

At this point, it's simply dicatorship. How hard would it be for the government to produce documents "from the CIA" showing whoever they want to be part of whoever they want. There are terrorists in the real world as we've seen with multiple bombings in the past, and they are quite obsecure before they actually strike.

It makes it hard to find the real targets, but at the same time, it makes it real hard for people who are false targets to prove that they aren't. Dead men don't prove their innocence. Incase they don't die right away, with torture, you can make people say anything.

The fact that obama has, against his own campaign promises, not only not-closed but made it more difficult to close guantanamo bay, should tell you enough at this point.

If you want to talk facts, there are 2 very simple ones: 1. The US is broke beyond all repair. 2. The people will riot and overthrow the government as soon as it becomes public knowledge AKA no sane person can deny it anymore.

This would break the power of the foreign banks in control via the federal reserve, who don't want that. Thus a framework for supression needs to be in place before that moment comes. The past 2 years has seen the actual building of that framework, from FEMA camps, to new NSA datacenters, to drones, guantanamo, the high prison population, federal economic policies designed to destroy rather then create etc etc ad infinitum, all designed to either stop a public revolt or to condition the behaviour of the population into thinking it's normal, rather then suspect.

If any of you plan on revolting, you've got less then 2 years. Hyperinflation will start hitting somewhere in 2014, after which the currency controls come, the public riots because people can't get their money and then the plan of supression will be put into effect. Otherwise, get out of the US.

The 5 largest US banks have a derivatives exposure of +$212 trillion . You don't want to be anywhere near when that goes off.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By vortmax2 on 2/26/2013 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
As much as this sounds like a crazy conspiricy theory, it's probably much closer to reality than we'd want to believe. Scary.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By vortmax2 on 2/26/2013 12:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
*conspiracy*


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By ppardee on 2/25/2013 4:11:52 PM , Rating: 5
OK, so if we know these people are enemy combatants and we believe them to be a threat to national security (which is not required according to the DoJ), why can't we get a judge involved and actually have some oversight? It is a unilateral decision. The Executive Branch makes the decision with absolutely no checks and balances.

While I believe state-sanctioned killing is murder, I understand that is not the current law and is not the popular view of the country. I'm not going to say we shouldn't execute people. But this would be akin to the governor of a state sending the police out to shoot someone who is a member of a gang but has not been connected to any crime himself. The person has admitted to being an enemy of the state (no gang in the history of the world has ever been all about charity) so the governor has the right to kill him.

Clearly, this is wrong. The view that members of terrorist organizations are different is the problem. Until you can prove that this person has the intent to commit a crime or has committed a crime (and have proven it in court, or at least had some judicial oversight of ANY kind), it is unconstitutional to execute them.

The conversation now is "They could have been a threat to national security. I took them out."

It should be
"They are an eminent threat to national security."
"Prove it."
"Here's my evidence."
"Yeah, I agree. Take them out."

Until that judicial oversight happens, any killing of an American citizen by the military is murder.

And as far as renunciation of citizenship:
"A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, or in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and sign an oath of renunciation"

You can't do it verbally or even by mail. It has to be done in court and voluntarily. Simply joining an international gang doesn't do it.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Scrogneugneu on 2/25/2013 10:31:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Until that judicial oversight happens, any killing of an American citizen by the military is murder.


Because killing anybody that is NOT an American citizen is absolutely NOT murder.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By espaghetti on 2/26/2013 8:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
It bares the name "war", sometimes.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By ppardee on 2/26/2013 3:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
I know it seems like a double standard. I would like to say that the government shouldn't kill anyone at any time, but that's not really realistic. When there is an eminent threat of danger, lethal force is necessary.

If someone points a gun at you, you shoot them before they can shoot you. I believe that each person has the right to defend themselves. I believe that the country has a right to defend itself, but in either case, you have to prove that the person killed was an immediate threat. Obama can't do that with the drone strikes (on Americans or otherwise).


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By MrBlastman on 2/25/2013 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Joining an anti-American terrorist group is, in my understanding, a renunciation of their status as an American citizen. At that point, they are no different than any other "high value" target in the opposition. Calling them "American Citizens" facilitates your argument but, by my understanding of the intent of our doctrine, it is a falsehood.


Well just throw out the entire rule of law then if you want to think like that. Doctrine and the Constitution are two different things.

They did not have all their facts straight prior to the drone strike. They also did not as I understand it imminent need to strike the citizen and his relatives to prevent mass casualties of American citizens. Only weeks or months afterwards did they have legitimate evidence to indict the individual.

That is scary. That is very scary. That is also NOT how the rule of law works. You have to first gather sufficient evidence for a Judge to not only issue a warrant for an individual's arrest but also enough for a Judge / Grand Jury to issue a formal indictment of an individual.

Due process was /not/ followed here. This is the problem. It is a horrifying problem when you start to imagine just how far our Government can go with it.

quote:
Declaring yourself an enemy of the state leaves you a fair target for being treated as one.


The problem is, as the administration in Washington sees it, is that you don't even have to declare yourself an enemy of the state formally. The state (sorry, Federal Thugs) only have to consider you an enemy of the state to take action.

This, this is a huge issue! Assassination is illegal but in their eyes, they've found a way to circumvent it against our own citizens?

Oh, you might argue... don't do anything and you have nothing to worry about. Well, the problem with that is just what is "something" that you have to do wrong to cross the line. The line is blurred. In fact, it dissolves when you throw out the rule of law. When that line is not finite and is only what "the powers that be" deem as crossing it, then you have a serious violation of our Constitution and the jeopardy of all of our well beings at stake.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 10:07:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Joining an anti-American terrorist group is, in my understanding, a renunciation of their status as an American citizen.


And since the Government is who gets to decide what is and isn't a "terrorist group", surely you can see the problem with this.

I'm sure Obama and members of his radical Administration would just love to say the Tea Party, for example, is a "right wing terrorist" organization.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By vortmax2 on 2/26/2013 12:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
Good point.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By flatrock on 2/26/2013 10:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Joining an anti-American terrorist group is, in my understanding, a renunciation of their status as an American citizen. At that point, they are no different than any other "high value" target in the opposition. Calling them "American Citizens" facilitates your argument but, by my understanding of the intent of our doctrine, it is a falsehood.


Who determines that they have joined an anti-American terrorist group? Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you have the executive branch determining which Americans are enemies, what constitutes a threat to America, and carrying out the targeted attack there is no accountability and not even lip service to the protections guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By kfonda on 2/27/2013 1:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
and what happens when a president decides to declare "the Tea Party" or the "Occupy Movement" an anti-American terrorist group?


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By FaaR on 2/25/2013 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
2. IMHO, once you declare yourself an "enemy combatant", your constitutional rights are null & void by definition regardless of your origin.

Problem with that is of course, if your government isn't trustworthy and decide that they don't like you, they could decide for you that you've declared yourself an "enemy combatant", and thus be justified in blowing you the hell away by means of remotely controlled drones or whatever.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By integr8d on 2/25/2013 7:38:50 PM , Rating: 1
"Systems like drone strikes are much more effective if the enemy is not aware of them thereby not guarding against them. Strategically, that was an important chit to keep secret."

What does that even mean? Do you think the guys getting hit care if the thing flying 50,000' above the ground has a pilot or not?

"IMHO, once you declare yourself an "enemy combatant", your constitutional rights are null & void by definition regardless of your origin."

You don't declare yourself anything. The term 'enemy combatant' was conjured up by people like Brennen and Cheney, in order to skirt war rules. They did that so they could legally torture people and whatever else they wanted. And the term is applied almost arbitrarily. If a drone hits a home of suspected Al Qaeda and the pizza boy happened to be dropping off a pizza, that kid is automatically counted as an 'enemy combatant' because he was male and of fighting age. They do this partially to make the numbers look better than they are. But that's how they do it. Signature strikes.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By MrBlastman on 2/25/2013 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem. Bush started this catastrophe with the Patriot Act which built complacency. Then Obama continued it with sly secrecy while handing out money to buy votes and support while feeding off of ignorance. Both mainline parties are perpetuating this.

No, the ship won't be righted until the people speak up and take action. That won't happen until they actually start to care. How many liberties have to be taken away before people pay attention?


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Ammohunt on 2/25/2013 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 5
I fall on the cynical side of that equation i feel it is not completely salvageable the longer it goes on the more generation grow up not knowing any better as far as what rights their parents enjoyed vs what they have now. As it stands the repercussions of this administration will echo for decades. I am preparing for the worst hoping for the best.


RE: Gibbs always pissed me off.
By Solandri on 2/25/2013 5:28:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Bush started this catastrophe with the Patriot Act which built complacency. Then Obama continued it with sly secrecy while handing out money to buy votes and support while feeding off of ignorance.


This comic always gave me a good laugh.

http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/02/one-ring-to...


I can see clearly now...
By ppardee on 2/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: I can see clearly now...
By tng on 2/25/2013 3:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, so Obama ordered the assassination of a few Americans. At least he wasn't responsible for the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib.. that was appalling!
The fact that Obama ordered some drone strikes overseas on Americans, it is when it happens or will happen on AMERICAN SOIL!

As to Abu Ghraib, I am pretty sure that Bush did not personally order that the guards to do what they did there, however for a drone strike on an US citizen Obama has to give his approval, at least as far as I know.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By ppardee on 2/25/2013 6:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
Did I miss my /sarcasm tag at the end there? My bad.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By tng on 2/25/2013 8:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did I miss my /sarcasm tag at the end there? My bad.
I probably jumped the gun on that anyway... I had people bugging me and I screwed up my own post anyhow. Now that I read yours again, yeah... I see it.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By FaaR on 2/25/2013 5:51:49 PM , Rating: 1
Exept of course, Hitler wasn't ever a socialist (in reality, he and the Nazi party collaborated with all major private businesses and their owners to run the German war machine.)

If you ACTUALLY were a socialist in Nazi Germany - IE, a REAL socialist a la Marx etc - you would have ended up in jail or in a concentration camp, or possibly even dead, in rather short order.

Nazism is a right-wing political ideology. It's got nothing to do with socialism, or well, at least not any more than scientology has to do with science.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By ppardee on 2/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: I can see clearly now...
By Nfarce on 2/25/2013 7:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that Hitler and his ilk mandated that neighbors and families rat each other out for speaking out against the Nazi party (similar to that website the Obama regime set up a couple years ago to tell on people speaking out against Obamacare). Further, they did everything to squash dissenting opinion and thought (very similar to what the liberal proggies do today, except they just label dissent as "hate speech" and being "Racist" against the president).


RE: I can see clearly now...
By room200 on 2/25/2013 10:08:20 PM , Rating: 1
ODS strikes again.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By JPForums on 2/26/2013 11:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exept of course, Hitler wasn't ever a socialist
True. He was a Fascist.
quote:
Nazism is a right-wing political ideology. It's got nothing to do with socialism, or well, at least not any more than scientology has to do with science.
Not, quite. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists, who combined elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions, in opposition to socialism, communism, liberal democracy and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism . Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

As a side note, this probably explains why hard-core right wing (American) conservatives are so against incorporating left wing (American) Liberal values. The results haven't historically worked out well.
quote:
he and the Nazi party collaborated with all major private businesses and their owners to run the German war machine.
Of course they did. They ended a depression the likes of which America has never seen and business owners were glad to help however they could. Besides, where else were they going to get the funding. But let's be clear, they were extreme nationalists (a trait of fascists). Collaboration was less about cooperation and more about compliance. Interestingly, as I see it, America's left wing party is far more likely to tax the money out of businesses (for any national purpose) than their right wing.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By Schadenfroh on 2/25/2013 9:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you are a US citizen and enlist in a foreign army (e.g. Al Qaeda) that is at de facto war against The West, you forfeit certain societal protections.

I do not recall the Americans that enlisted in the German army getting a trial before getting shot at / bombed during WW2.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By ppardee on 2/26/2013 7:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are a US citizen and enlist in a foreign army (e.g. Al Qaeda) that is at de facto war against The West, you forfeit certain societal protections.


Where did you find that in the Constitution? The term 'enemy combatant' is bandied about quite a bit, but if you're sitting around a campfire eating couscous (the ultimate campfire food), how can you be considered an enemy combatant? If you're setting up an IED, or pointing a gun at our troops or citizens, sure, enemy combatant...

And, again, if we had proof they were actually planning acts against the country, why can't we get oversight? It's not like we all of a sudden decided these people were threats and decided to kill them on the spot. We decided a long time in advance. Why can't we present the evidence to the courts to get a yea or nay for a future strike when the opportunity presents itself? Only reason I can see is nefarious.


RE: I can see clearly now...
By SoCalBoomer on 2/27/2013 3:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, ppardee, but there has to have been something that we did in WWII when US Citizens did, in fact, act against the US. Not just domestically, but fighting for the Axis in Europe or the Pacific.

This can't be the first time this question has come up. How did we answer it before?


RE: I can see clearly now...
By Schadenfroh on 2/27/2013 9:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How did we answer it before?

Current US law regarding enlisting in foreign armies hostile to the US:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenshi...
quote:
voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship

The question is, can a terrorist organization (e.g. Al Qaeda) be construed as a foreign state if they seek to back hostile governments (e.g. Taliban) or establish hostile governments (e.g. AQAP).


Sad to see
By Dorkyman on 2/25/2013 3:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the USA truly has become the land of Bread and Circuses for the Masses. Romney was right; roughly half the population wants free stuff and will vote for the person who will give it to them.

Messiah is a pathetic creature, married to a shrew of a wife. His vision of a socialist utopia is slowly becoming reality, aided by a compliant press. I am not at all surprised that the drone activities were successfully shielded from the public view.

What's perhaps even more depressing is the thought that even if the public knew, they would shrug their collective shoulders and say, "Well, he must know what's best for us."




RE: Sad to see
By FaaR on 2/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sad to see
By KCjoker on 2/25/2013 6:58:25 PM , Rating: 4
The difference is when those things happend under Bush most of the media went absolutely crazy. Yet obama pulls all the crap he has and they say damn near nothing about it. Also there isn't any waterbording going on under Obama because he just kills them.


RE: Sad to see
By Nfarce on 2/25/2013 7:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If Bush were president and tapping into Gmail accounts without warrants, or flying drones over back yards of Americans, or any other thing Obama is doing currently that we don't hear a PEEP from the liberal left about, including the liberal DNC water-carrying main stream media, all HELL would be breaking loose and they'd all be frothing at the mouth! But now that Obama is doing it, NARY A PEEP... from ANY left winger.


RE: Sad to see
By room200 on 2/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sad to see
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 8:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
Wow three examples, one from a comedy show, NOT news. There you have it, the "Liberal media bias" is just made up. The proof is right there folks!

Room, like most Liberals, you wouldn't know Liberal bias if it smacked you in the head. Because you think that's the normal viewpoint on everything.

quote:
liberals don't agree with Obama about everything, and we do what we can to hold his feet to the fire.


AHAHAHAHA!!! HHAHAHAHA!!!!

The scary thing about you Liberals is, the only time you don't agree with Obama is when you think he hasn't gone far ENOUGH!


RE: Sad to see
By room200 on 2/26/2013 10:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


RE: Sad to see
By room200 on 2/26/2013 10:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, so you criticize the examples I give and you give none (yet you trumpet the bullshit claim of "liberal media" in damn near every post with no evidence and everyone should just accept it at face value). LOL just like a republiCON.


RE: Sad to see
By room200 on 2/26/2013 10:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Most of the media went so crazy asking about weapons of mass destruction and all the evidence/intelligence before going into a war that killed 5000 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqi's........oh wait. No they didn't.


Gibbs is Obviously a Racist
By Arsynic on 2/25/2013 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Just like anyone else who dare speak against Dear Ruler.




RE: Gibbs is Obviously a Racist
By Omega215D on 2/25/2013 3:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly that seems to be the usual response when you criticize this administration. Other responses are deflection of the issue or just plain bi-partisan bickering.

So far Obama seems have gotten away with quite a few things.


RE: Gibbs is Obviously a Racist
By room200 on 2/25/2013 10:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nahhh, it's just that some of you guys do a bad job of hiding it. There have been polls taken that asked people's opinions about different political issues/policies. When Obama's name was attached to the same unchanged policy, support for it dropped automatically. many of the things republicans supported/created in the past, they are against it simply because President Obama's name is attached to it. THEIR OWN IDEAS. What else would there be if it isn't race?

Republicans supported and promoted the idea of cap and trade. When President Obama began talking about it? "It's tyranny!" said the republicans.


RE: Gibbs is Obviously a Racist
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2013 10:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So far Obama seems have gotten away with quite a few things.


The most amazing being the economy. I don't think I've ever seen a President, in my lifetime, who somehow completely escaped blame for any of his economic policies. It's almost as if someone else has been running things for the past 5 years, not passing budgets and spending money we don't have.


RE: Gibbs is Obviously a Racist
By ven1ger on 2/27/2013 4:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, let's see we had 8 years of a President that never took responsibility for his administrations failures that led up to the 9/11 attack. Invaded a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, and lied to everyone about Iraq having weapons of WMD and the inevitable mushroom cloud if Iraq was not stopped. Not putting the costs of two wars on the budget, guess that was spending money we didn't have. Went from a budget surplus to a severe recession/depression in 8 years, etc, etc.

As far as budgets, the administration puts out a budget then the House Republicans keep rejecting it, don't know what you expect from Republicans who would rather see the US economy take a nosedive before they will agree with a BLACK President.


What you do will come home
By mike66 on 2/25/2013 6:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait until the US government declares that it has a terrorist group operating within it's boarders, that will allow them to use drones. It will happen.




RE: What you do will come home
By Expunge on 2/25/2013 7:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, probably with the libs declaring the NRA as a terrorist organization.

I hope we can turn this around before it is too late.

- Ex
"Stand for something, or fall for anything."


RE: What you do will come home
By M'n'M on 2/26/2013 4:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine it's the 1960's all over again and George Wallace (pre-born again) is the President. Would MLK have been legally assassinated by the Govt on the basis he had been deemed a "terrorist" by G. Wallace ? Is everyone onboard with this thought being proper ?

Even during WWI and WWII we caught people and tried them and convicted them of treason. The legal terms for "war" and "battlefield" have become so watered down I doubt this would happen anymore.


no one seems to care about the Constitution any more
By kenyee on 2/25/2013 3:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like everyone thinks they have the "right" to drive or to a cell phone or to drink, but no one know what actual rights are on the Bill of Individual Rights any more :-P

Bombing a spot in another country would be an act of war if any country did it to us in the US. Yet, we do it w/ impugnity because no one can strike back. Using it against Americans outside the US obviously just makes it more wrong :-p




By Solandri on 2/25/2013 5:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Seems like everyone thinks they have the "right" to drive or to a cell phone or to drink, but no one know what actual rights are on the Bill of Individual Rights any more :-P

They don't have to know. The Bill of Rights (specifically the 10th Amendment) says that any right not explicitly addressed in the Constitution is retained by the people (or their respective state).

This is probably the most common mistake people make when talking about the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We are assumed to have all rights under the sun (after all, they are "granted to us by our creator" and are "inalienable"). The Bill of Rights was just added as emphasis.

The Constitution just lists what rights and powers the Federal government has. The way it's supposed to work is if it's not in the Constitution, assume the government can't do it. But those arguing for more government power have successfully tricked people into believing it's the other way around - that if it's not in the Constitution, we don't have the right. It's completely the other way around.


You Got It Wrong
By ~wolverine~ on 2/25/2013 3:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky not Tennessee.




Nuff said.
By GotThumbs on 2/25/2013 5:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Obama says sometimes U.S. citizens must be killed,




Creating Our Own Demise
By RufusM on 2/25/2013 5:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
We, as humans, are creating our own demise. Right now, they're clever and interesting, but sometimes I fear we're creating the dystopian future of science fiction past.

If people think a few millions guns in the hands of civilians is concerning today, just wait until 30 years from now. The US government could easily probably have cameras recording all of our activity, tracking every man/woman/child on an individual basis every second of the day, drones monitoring the streets and killing so-called "subversive" or "terrorist" citizens. The public will bleat and purr about how much safer we call are.

The last shred of the United States Constitution will be burned in the name of "security".




Whack everyone of those SOBs
By Beenthere on 2/25/2013 11:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm perfectly fine with whacking every documented terrorists regardless of nationality. If they are plotting or acting against the U.S., take them out and do the world a big favor.

BTW, transparency of government doesn't mean that every policy should be public knowledge. History has shown that divulging too much information is not in our best interest as a country. Due to the clueless who live in a fantasy world where everyone is honest, law abiding, reasonable, terrorist willing to negotiate and everyone is working towards the betterment of mankind, all countries need to maintain considerable governmental secrecy for our own protecting. If you think that fantasy world is the real world, you're in for one Helleva disappointment.




By omgwtf8888 on 2/26/2013 2:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Some interesting thoughts on how problemattic this can become. HSBC bank is accused of laundering money for Al Qaeda, does this mean that we can target their overseas operation with a drone? I personally would approve that! Next up, a Palestinian/Afghan/Iraqi American returns home to visit family. Unbeknownst, one of the family members belongs to a terrorist organization.... KABLAMO!!! death from above. The question remains how do you determine an enemy combatant. There are no official documents completed by these people of their joining a "Terrorist organization". Besides the list of these organizations is pretty expansive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department...

For all you know you may be working with one of these organization through a legitimate contract or related party contract. But one day you have to go to the client on business and you too could meet a firey death.

Seems to me that before you can be ajudged an enemy combatant and targeted some sort of court should hear the government's case and even extend to the citizen a chance have representation. If the allegations are correct and the preponderance of the evidence shows that you are allied to valid terror organization.. then yes fire away. But i think we need to trim down the list of executable terror organization... And honestly, can we stop calling these people terrorist and terror organizations. It just encourages them... how about if we call them "Demonstrators involving Chaos and Killings" (D.I.C.Ks)




Tyrant's with drones?
By Fastyle on 2/26/2013 4:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
If Obama is so worried about US citizens (in the US) being terrorist, why is it, that his position is, everyone in the world who wants to become a US citizens should have the right to become one? Immigration Reform Speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrVBZ0nt37U. 8 years or so from now (unless they are a relative of someone who has become a US citizen) America’s "citizen terrorist" could be one that was not born in the US and may not have been here long at all.

Don't get me wrong I am not a racist, but I do believe this country has problems, population being one of them. The current national unemployment rate (7.8% ) was (10%) is the highest it has been since 1983, Google “current national unemployment rate “, the link was just too long.

Back to the point, Ammohunt stated that
quote:
the more generation grow up not knowing any better as far as what rights their parents enjoyed vs what they have now.

I agree, that plus the migration to America (see quote bellow) from countries with little or no rights and a few generations from now, you have an American society who doesn't feel "Red, White and Blue" about their liberties.

quote:
Census Bureau data collected in 2010 show that the decade just completed may have been the highest for immigration in our nation’s history, with more than 13 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) arriving
-Steven Camarota, Director of Research at CIS

source:
http://www.cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreig... "Current Numbers Topics Page" link

If America or (a well regulated militia) decides to take action against a government it believes is acting in tyranny, they will now be labeled as an "enemy combatant, domestic terrorist" etc. and will be taken out by drones in secrecy, without due process.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki