The hits just don't stop:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteAfter the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . . The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy." Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald comments (http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/tPOEB-yY38E/index.html):
QuoteJust think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?
Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.
As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.
Enough said, I think.
Meet the Smiler, same as the Beast...only worse, in a way.
Remind me why I vote, again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
That's okay. It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.
Quote
he UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
The judges at the UK's highest court said the government had exceeded its powers by controlling the finances of five suspects.
They also lifted a ban on identifying the men who brought the challenge.
The court said the government should have sought Parliament's approval for the asset freezing regime, rather than creating it automatically.
The five men at the centre of the case have only been usually allowed £10 a week in cash and need special permission for other expenses.
Q&A: Freezing terror assets
The court has suspended its judgement for a month , which will give the government time to change the law so it can go ahead and lawfully freeze alleged terrorist assets. In the meantime, suspects will continue to have their assets frozen.
UN orders
In the ruling, the Supreme Court justices said that if the government wanted to take "far-reaching measures" to combat terrorism then it needed the approval of Parliament.
Lord Hope said: "Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law.
This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament
Lord Hope
"We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty."
The two orders to freeze assets were brought in by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The original Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taliban (UN Measures) Order were made under section 1 of the 1946 UN Act in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Both orders became part of British law without a Parliamentary debate, which the men said was unfair because the government had created offences without putting it to a vote.
The Treasury issued the men with licences for specific purposes, such as claiming benefits. The men were allowed about £10 a week in cash and had to provide officials with receipts for everything they spent.
The men had argued that the asset-freezing regime severely affected their ability to use property and cash from any source and, in turn, left their families open to criminal prosecution if they offered help.
In one situation, a minister had to be consulted on whether a suspect could use a car to get the family groceries from a supermarket because the vehicle was classed as a financial resource.
The men also argued that the British system went beyond what the UN had set out to do by targeting those accused of links to terrorism, rather than just those convicted at trial.
Supremacy of Parliament
Lord Hope said the Treasury had exceeded its powers in how it had devised and implemented the Terrorism Order.
"This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament," he said.
Turning to the second type of restriction, the al-Qaeda Order, Lord Hope said that one of the five men, Mohammed al-Ghabra, had been denied a basic right to challenge his restrictions.
Explaining the judgement, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Parliament.
"On the contrary, it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country."
A spokesman for the Treasury said it would abide by the ruling and legislate as quickly as possible.
"It's important to be clear that this ruling does not challenge the UK's obligations under the UN Charter to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, which we will continue to meet.
"We will introduce fast-track legislation to ensure there is no disruption to our terrorist asset-freezing powers."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
That's okay. It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.
We shoot brazilians on sight.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
That's okay. It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.
We shoot brazilians on sight.
You can't be too careful.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:53:24 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
That's okay. It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.
We shoot brazilians on sight.
You can't be too careful.
I know, I mean can you imagine a world where you respected rights and liberties, whilst at the same time noted the effects of offending your allies.
Seriously, people are starting to favour the EU over the US... IN BRITAIN!
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:53:24 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.
That's okay. It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.
We shoot brazilians on sight.
You can't be too careful.
I know, I mean can you imagine a world where you respected rights and liberties, whilst at the same time noted the effects of offending your allies.
Seriously, people are starting to favour the EU over the US... IN BRITAIN!
So we kidnap the terrorist bastards.
Easy.
You intend to kidnap the whole EU?
Is that illinois prison ready yet?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 05:01:07 PM
You intend to kidnap the whole EU?
Is that illinois prison ready yet?
No, the Britains who don't like us. They are suspiciously un-American, and are thus traitors.
And they have all the wrong values.
We'll keep them in Wyoming. All we need is a big fence.
All 60 million?
Big fence.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 05:10:16 PM
All 60 million?
Big fence.
It's the only thing we make anymore.
And Wyoming has plenty of room.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 05:10:16 PM
All 60 million?
Big fence.
It's the only thing we make anymore.
And Wyoming has plenty of room.
Then it would be spelled Wyouming, i presume?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 27, 2010, 05:59:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 05:10:16 PM
All 60 million?
Big fence.
It's the only thing we make anymore.
And Wyoming has plenty of room.
Then it would be spelled Wyouming, i presume?
That extra U shit is the first thing we beat out of them.
What the fuck!!! Fuck!!! FUCK!!!
Fucking-
FUCK
Quote from: Felix on January 27, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
What the fuck!!! Fuck!!! FUCK!!!
Fucking-
FUCK
CHANGE!
I'd like to see this.
Most britons just revert to their natural languages if you remove the queens English.
Like, "Ar't a'rait yoth, hast th'e bin t' miarket un oss ust tandum".
(Hello, how are you? Did you go to the shops in the car or on your bike)
TGRR-intends to become queen?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 27, 2010, 06:39:08 PM
I'd like to see this.
Most britons just revert to their natural languages if you remove the queens English.
Like, "Ar't a'rait yoth, hast th'e bin t' miarket un oss ust tandum".
(Hello, how are you? Did you go to the shops in the car or on your bike)
TGRR-intends to become queen?
Leave me out of this, Asshat. Seriously. You decide to start insulting me in the middle of a joke, then you want to joke again?
What?
Fuck off.
But, do the assassinated people get a sammich before they get assassinated? :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 27, 2010, 07:47:14 PM
But, do the assassinated people get a sammich before they get assassinated? :wink:
No, they have bad values.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 07:51:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 27, 2010, 07:47:14 PM
But, do the assassinated people get a sammich before they get assassinated? :wink:
No, they have bad values.
They should shop at Wal-Mart then. It would be good values ... I bet that there's a list which shows your "Risk" as a Terrorist and your "value" as a Consumer. After all, we don't want to kill the Goose that lays the golden happy face.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 27, 2010, 08:13:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2010, 07:51:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 27, 2010, 07:47:14 PM
But, do the assassinated people get a sammich before they get assassinated? :wink:
No, they have bad values.
They should shop at Wal-Mart then. It would be good values ... I bet that there's a list which shows your "Risk" as a Terrorist and your "value" as a Consumer. After all, we don't want to kill the Goose that lays the golden happy face.
I think you're onto something, there. A loyalty test applied to your credit card statement.
EITHER:
US Forces should have the right to shoot terrorists in the fucking face if they get close enough.
OR:
How the fuck do we know if they are really terrorists if we don't try them in a court of law.
:?
At this rate I'll die of laughter before they ever get to my name on the list. :horrormirth:
Uh... This seems to say that our military and intelligence people are allowed to strike al-Qaeda operatives even if they're American citizens...
What the fuck are your panties all bunched up for?
There are 3 people on this list and there's pretty clear evidence that they're taking part in military operations against the United States.
I'm all for due process and I believe calling criminals "enemy combatants" is fucked up, but people who are going after troops and assisting suicide bombers should be considered combatants. If they can't be captured, killing them seems perfectly acceptable to me. This particular issue wasn't a big deal to me when Bush was in office (there were much bigger fish to fry) and, frankly, there are bigger fish fry with Obama as well.
You guys are acting like the CIA or the army is going to break down your door and execute you or something.
Sure is a good thing American intelligence agencies such have a stellar track record of telling terrorists from civilians!
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2010, 02:37:52 PM
Sure is a good thing American intelligence agencies such have a stellar track record of telling terrorists from civilians!
I dunno, a successful suicide bombing in a public facility or transport kind of tends to make
everybody hard to tell apart.
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on February 02, 2010, 03:09:58 AM
Uh... This seems to say that our military and intelligence people are allowed to strike al-Qaeda operatives even if they're American citizens...
What the fuck are your panties all bunched up for?
There are 3 people on this list and there's pretty clear evidence that they're taking part in military operations against the United States.
I'm all for due process and I believe calling criminals "enemy combatants" is fucked up, but people who are going after troops and assisting suicide bombers should be considered combatants. If they can't be captured, killing them seems perfectly acceptable to me. This particular issue wasn't a big deal to me when Bush was in office (there were much bigger fish to fry) and, frankly, there are bigger fish fry with Obama as well.
You guys are acting like the CIA or the army is going to break down your door and execute you or something.
Let's act this one out ok??
i'll be the 'merican govt.
"ZOMG Slanket is terrist!"
either Slanket was shot in the ass while cuddling a puppy
or Slanket was bombed in his house teaching his baby son to talk.
now you can reply.
Quote from: Regret on February 03, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on February 02, 2010, 03:09:58 AM
Uh... This seems to say that our military and intelligence people are allowed to strike al-Qaeda operatives even if they're American citizens...
What the fuck are your panties all bunched up for?
There are 3 people on this list and there's pretty clear evidence that they're taking part in military operations against the United States.
I'm all for due process and I believe calling criminals "enemy combatants" is fucked up, but people who are going after troops and assisting suicide bombers should be considered combatants. If they can't be captured, killing them seems perfectly acceptable to me. This particular issue wasn't a big deal to me when Bush was in office (there were much bigger fish to fry) and, frankly, there are bigger fish fry with Obama as well.
You guys are acting like the CIA or the army is going to break down your door and execute you or something.
Let's act this one out ok??
i'll be the 'merican govt.
"ZOMG Slanket is terrist!"
either Slanket was shot in the ass while cuddling a puppy
or Slanket was bombed in his house teaching his baby son to talk.
now you can reply.
I can reply but I can't take your post seriously.
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on February 03, 2010, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 03, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on February 02, 2010, 03:09:58 AM
Uh... This seems to say that our military and intelligence people are allowed to strike al-Qaeda operatives even if they're American citizens...
What the fuck are your panties all bunched up for?
There are 3 people on this list and there's pretty clear evidence that they're taking part in military operations against the United States.
I'm all for due process and I believe calling criminals "enemy combatants" is fucked up, but people who are going after troops and assisting suicide bombers should be considered combatants. If they can't be captured, killing them seems perfectly acceptable to me. This particular issue wasn't a big deal to me when Bush was in office (there were much bigger fish to fry) and, frankly, there are bigger fish fry with Obama as well.
You guys are acting like the CIA or the army is going to break down your door and execute you or something.
Let's act this one out ok??
i'll be the 'merican govt.
"ZOMG Slanket is terrist!"
either Slanket was shot in the ass while cuddling a puppy
or Slanket was bombed in his house teaching his baby son to talk.
now you can reply.
I can reply but I can't take your post seriously.
Assassination is a secret act. Secret things aren't explained publicly often. If you don't have to answer to anyone, you'll do it how you damn well please. Assassinations will be done how someone damn well pleases.
I don't want someone else having the privilege of arbitrarily deciding life and death when I don't.
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 03, 2010, 09:23:58 PM
I don't want someone else having the privilege of arbitrarily deciding life and death when I don't.
So if Obama gave everyone the right to hire assassins, you'd be okay with it?
The thing is, it's NOT arbitrary.
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The fact is that it is simply more power than the war warrants. It has no right to spy on US citizens, no right to draft US citizens, no right to station soldiers in the country, and no right to have suspects assasinated.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2010, 10:30:10 PM
The fact is that it is simply more power than the war warrants. It has no right to spy on US citizens, no right to draft US citizens, no right to station soldiers in the country, and no right to have suspects assasinated.
that sounds like terrist talk, boy.
you better watchyer back!
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2010, 07:14:24 PM
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The drone air strikes are definitely something that I very strongly disagree with, but not going after enemies because they happen to be from America is a good way to get hit with more attacks.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 04:29:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2010, 07:14:24 PM
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The drone air strikes are definitely something that I very strongly disagree with, but not going after enemies because they happen to be from America is a good way to get hit with more attacks.
Isn't it specious to imply that you can fight terrorism at home the same way you fight it abroad, though?
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 04:29:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2010, 07:14:24 PM
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The drone air strikes are definitely something that I very strongly disagree with, but not going after enemies because they happen to be from America is a good way to get hit with more attacks.
Again, there is no gunplay in one's boudoir. There's no reason to not act in a manner more in line with policing.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 04:29:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2010, 07:14:24 PM
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The drone air strikes are definitely something that I very strongly disagree with, but not going after enemies because they happen to be from America is a good way to get hit with more attacks.
Now you're conflating "not assassinating suspected terrorists" with "not going after" terrorists. And did you know you can do this thing to terrorists where you can catch and interrogate and imprison them (after a fair trial) which also "deals" with them?
Quote from: Cain on February 05, 2010, 07:46:51 AM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 04:29:31 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2010, 07:14:24 PM
No, its just calculated by the same analysts who managed to imprison three times as many innocent people as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
And is done with a weapon which kills 20 civilians for each "suspected" terrorist it gets.
The drone air strikes are definitely something that I very strongly disagree with, but not going after enemies because they happen to be from America is a good way to get hit with more attacks.
Now you're conflating "not assassinating suspected terrorists" with "not going after" terrorists. And did you know you can do this thing to terrorists where you can catch and interrogate and imprison them (after a fair trial) which also "deals" with them?
AKA how do you know they are enemies?
Because some analyst in an office, with a program he didn't code, with input from field agents he doesn't know, from sources whose reliability he isn't aware of, told the President he was a threat to national security!
Can any of you actually give any reason to doubt that these 3 men are not al-Qaeda operatives?
Yes, there were some very serious intelligence fuck ups but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that these guys are innocent civilians.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 09:55:53 PM
Can any of you actually give any reason to doubt that these 3 men are not al-Qaeda operatives?
Yes, there were some very serious intelligence fuck ups but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that these guys are innocent civilians.
Burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 05, 2010, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 09:55:53 PM
Can any of you actually give any reason to doubt that these 3 men are not al-Qaeda operatives?
Yes, there were some very serious intelligence fuck ups but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that these guys are innocent civilians.
Burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
The whole point of limited government is that before your government axes your head off, they need to convince a jury that you're guilty. If they have sufficient evidence, there shouldn't be a problem convincing a jury. If they don't have sufficient evidence, they shouldn't be killing people over it.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 05, 2010, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 09:55:53 PM
Can any of you actually give any reason to doubt that these 3 men are not al-Qaeda operatives?
Yes, there were some very serious intelligence fuck ups but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that these guys are innocent civilians.
Burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
There is no prosecutor.
That would be part of the problem.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 05, 2010, 09:55:53 PM
Can any of you actually give any reason to doubt that these 3 men are not al-Qaeda operatives?
Yes, there were some very serious intelligence fuck ups but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that these guys are innocent civilians.
if they are, give them a fair trial.
if they aren't, give them a fair trial.
is complicated?
i dont think so.
they come running at you shooting? shoot them first. but that is not what we are bitching aboot.
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done. The military is not a law-enforcement agency and it shouldn't function as one.
Are there things the military does that it shouldn't do? Yes.
Could it do certain things in a more effective way? Yes.
Should it take more steps to protect innocent people? Fuck yes.
Is this one of those things? No. Not even close.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:40:02 PM
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done.
I'm okay with that, AtD. It's just that these things creep, you know?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:40:02 PM
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done.
I'm okay with that, AtD. It's just that these things creep, you know?
Yeah, I know what you mean and it's supposed to be our job (Americans anyways) to make sure they don't creep. Sadly we seem to be doing a piss-poor at making sure there's a good balance of power between the branches of our government and that they accurately represent the people. I guess we all find television more important than ensuring our government functions properly.
Boooooooriiiiing.
\
:joshua:
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:46:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:40:02 PM
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done.
I'm okay with that, AtD. It's just that these things creep, you know?
Yeah, I know what you mean and it's supposed to be our job (Americans anyways) to make sure they don't creep. Sadly we seem to be doing a piss-poor at making sure there's a good balance of power between the branches of our government and that they accurately represent the people. I guess we all find television more important than ensuring our government functions properly.
Boooooooriiiiing.
\
:joshua:
That's a polite way of saying "51%+ of Americans think we have an emperor".
:lulz:
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:46:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:40:02 PM
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done.
I'm okay with that, AtD. It's just that these things creep, you know?
Yeah, I know what you mean and it's supposed to be our job (Americans anyways) to make sure they don't creep. Sadly we seem to be doing a piss-poor at making sure there's a good balance of power between the branches of our government and that they accurately represent the people. I guess we all find television more important than ensuring our government functions properly.
Boooooooriiiiing.
\
:joshua:
:mittens:
Also, why is the DURRR Neanderthal guy called "joshua"?
Quote from: Jenne on February 09, 2010, 06:54:30 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:46:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 09, 2010, 05:40:02 PM
Ok, I think you guys are missing the point.
This doesn't apply to people who have been arrested or apprehended. This applies to a situation where an American citizen is abroad and happens to be taking part in military operations against their own country. It's a fail-safe for a situation where, if there wasn't an American citizen, they would just strike. Instead, they go and confirm that they have permission to strike because a U.S. citizen is involved. If this wasn't in place, they'd just go ahead without consulting anyone.
This is not a fucking clandestine assassination, it's a military strike. When al-Qaeda operatives are taken out, the government announces it and tells people what was done and why it was done.
I'm okay with that, AtD. It's just that these things creep, you know?
Yeah, I know what you mean and it's supposed to be our job (Americans anyways) to make sure they don't creep. Sadly we seem to be doing a piss-poor at making sure there's a good balance of power between the branches of our government and that they accurately represent the people. I guess we all find television more important than ensuring our government functions properly.
Boooooooriiiiing.
\
:joshua:
:mittens:
Also, why is the DURRR Neanderthal guy called "joshua"?
That's the character's name. It's from a children's show. No shit.
NEVER knew that. Another nugget of PeeDee history revealed.
Joshua migrated here from Fucked Company.
i it was from an art exhibit rather than a children's show...
Charlie White was photographer
http://jasminerayna.blogspot.com/2009/10/charlie-white-understanding-joshua.html
Have you seen any of Charlie White's other work? He's kind of brilliant. And very disturbing. If you want to be thoroughly horrified, look up his "girl studies".
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 02:31:04 AM
Have you seen any of Charlie White's other work? He's kind of brilliant. And very disturbing. If you want to be thoroughly horrified, look up his "girl studies".
WHAT?
That was like, basically how WE spent our day. Especially the "shopping is SO much!". Girl, that is YOU! - Except you had a giant sippy of Marzen Amber, clutching your gallon jar of German sweet pickles.
YOU
YOU, are on Obama's shit list. Just keep posting. They've(We -the TRUE AMERICANS) got fucking 'smart' bombs, you know. It blows up your house and everything within three blocks, but ONLY HARMS YOU(because you're a terrorist, DUH), not your neighbors or chickens. Just like in Iraq. Think about it.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 09, 2010, 10:43:45 PM
i it was from an art exhibit rather than a children's show...
Charlie White was photographer
http://jasminerayna.blogspot.com/2009/10/charlie-white-understanding-joshua.html
Weren't there some really fucked up IRL pics of a joshua type of person being humiliated in a shower by a bunch of naked women?
Or was that an awesome dream I had?
Quote from: LMNO on February 10, 2010, 02:14:43 PM
Weren't there some really fucked up IRL pics of a joshua type of person being humiliated in a shower by a bunch of naked women?
Or was that an awesome dream I had?
I remember this, too.
Both.
(http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/CW_folio_01_L.jpg)
There are others as well.
(http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/PWL_charlie_white_1.jpg)
Oh fuck, that's goddamn creepy.
:fap:
Gyah! Get it out of here, set it loose on the village or something, I don't care.
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 10, 2010, 08:40:30 AM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 02:31:04 AM
Have you seen any of Charlie White's other work? He's kind of brilliant. And very disturbing. If you want to be thoroughly horrified, look up his "girl studies".
WHAT?
That was like, basically how WE spent our day. Especially the "shopping is SO much!". Girl, that is YOU! - Except you had a giant sippy of Marzen Amber, clutching your gallon jar of German sweet pickles.
Hey now, you were the one who expressed terror at the idea of spending any more time in the company of egg-shaped stained glass ladies. :lulz:
Also, those pickles are fucking awesome.