Droning On

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:14 pm

What kind of war is this? It's not war. It's not attacks on convicted criminals. It's not sanctioned military action. It's remote control killing.

Drones are scarier than Guantanamo Bay. Obama has a kill list. No one on that list has been tried for a crime. Assassination is illegal.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:52 am

For those intrigued by "legaleze" there is a summary of the current FOIA lawsuit going on right now.

Lawfare › Yesterday’s Oral Argument in ACLU v. CIA

The question is whether or not the government can take credit for drone killings and still claim that the drone program is classified info.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:34 am

koan;1405071 wrote: Assassination is illegal.

So call a cop.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:19 pm

I don't need to call a cop. If you'd noticed, the CIA is already in court and the ACLU is taking action to address the situation.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:22 pm

koan;1405301 wrote: I don't need to call a cop. If you'd noticed, the CIA is already in court and the ACLU is taking action to address the situation.

I saw that. The ACLU is suing under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) for specific information. Not going to stop drones from killing more terrorists.

It's all good, a waste of time and the ACLU gets press attention as if they were doing something important.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:53 pm

Presumably, one would first collect information before pressing charges of a crime.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:03 pm

koan;1405322 wrote: Presumably, one would first collect information before pressing charges of a crime.

Far as I know private citizens, even the almighty ACLU cannot press criminal charges. I suspect President Obama's own inJustice Dept. would bite the presidents hand.

Then I wonder just how much would be redacted.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:55 pm

You're probably right. We still haven't gotten much info about all of the underhanded stuff Bush did. It will be a long time 'til we find out about what Obama has done. And, of course, it will continue no matter who is in office.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:33 pm

tude dog;1405331 wrote: President Obama's own inJustice Dept.To which injustices specifically do you refer?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:49 pm

Chris Hedges has temporarily won in a ruling against Homeland Security.

Chris Hedges: We Won—for Now - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

This paves the way for more challenges.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:26 am

Ahso!;1405342 wrote: To which injustices specifically do you refer?

Primarily, that was just a slap at Obama's department.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:40 am

koan;1405343 wrote: Chris Hedges has temporarily won in a ruling against Homeland Security.

Chris Hedges: We Won—for Now - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

This paves the way for more challenges.

Or for an immediate appeal, if Obama is up to it.

No surprise a judge Kahtherine Forrest appointed by Obama would see things his way. The act was passed by congress at the last moment, and the President's hand was pretty much forced. He did bellyache about that provision saying he would not enforce it.

I am not familiar with this Chris Hedges guy, but am well aware of his fellow travelers, Ellsworth and Chomsky.

No doubt Forrest, Hedges, Ellsworth and Chomsky all make great bed fellows.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:45 am

tude dog;1405362 wrote: Primarily, that was just a slap at Obama's department.Ah! So just a little unsupported accusations and name-calling then?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:48 am

tude dog;1405365 wrote: No surprise a judge Kahtherine Forrest appointed by Obama would see things his way. The act was passed by congress at the last moment, and the President's hand was pretty much forced. He did bellyache about that provision saying he would not enforce it.So you're claiming that Obama and the judges he has appointed are in lockstep with one another?

Got any credible, unbiased sources that confirm anything in what I've quoted?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:42 pm

Ahso!;1405368 wrote: So you're claiming that Obama and the judges he has appointed are in lockstep with one another?

Got any credible, unbiased sources that confirm anything in what I've quoted?

f'me

First of all, I never, not ever claimed Obama and that judge were in lock step.

Everybody who has a clue knows that one of the most important duties of a president is, appointing judges. Since judges/Justices often reside long after a presidents term, they pick those who they believe most likely to be in sync of his philosophies.

Nothing scandalous or new. Every president does that.

With all that said, I never even came close to or even hinting anything improper between Obama and his judge.

Now I said, Obama had reservation about signing H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." .

I thought that was a gift to a liberal audience, absolving him of the perceived "evil" of that approbations act.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:59 pm

tude dog;1405394 wrote: f'me

First of all, I never, not ever claimed Obama and that judge were in lock step.

Everybody who has a clue knows that one of the most important duties of a president is, appointing judges. Since judges/Justices often reside long after a presidents term, they pick those who they believe most likely to be in sync of his philosophies.

Nothing scandalous or new. Every president does that.

With all that said, I never even came close to or even hinting anything improper between Obama and his judge.

Now I said, Obama had reservation about signing H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." .

I thought that was a gift to a liberal audience, absolving him of the perceived "evil" of tHe did bellyache about that provision saying he would not enforce it.

hat approbations act.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terroristsThat's a bit different than what you said earlier - which is, and I quote: "He did bellyache about that provision saying he would not enforce it."

Got a link to that statement?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:40 pm

Ahso!;1405410 wrote: That's a bit different than what you said earlier - which is, and I quote: "He did bellyache about that provision saying he would not enforce it."

Got a link to that statement?

I don't know why I should, but I did go through the effort to learn ya of something ya should know.

That is if it was all that important to ya.

According to the Los Angeles Times,

[urtl=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31 ... e-20120101]In a signing statement released by the White House, Obama indicated that he might not strictly follow certain requirements spelled out in the new law, saying that "my administration will interpret and implement the provisions … in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."[/url]

Pretty much says it all, he is above the law.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:55 pm

tude dog;1405442 wrote: I don't know why I should, but I did go through the effort to learn ya of something ya should know.

That is if it was all that important to ya.

According to the Los Angeles Times,

[urtl=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31 ... e-20120101]In a signing statement released by the White House, Obama indicated that he might not strictly follow certain requirements spelled out in the new law, saying that "my administration will interpret and implement the provisions in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."[/url]

Pretty much says it all, he is above the law.So it's illegal to "interpret" law? Interpreting a law and enforcing that law accordingly is not not enforcing a law. Every police officer, military person and so on interpret laws and assignments and enforce accordingly. The fact that Obama said so openly is all you seem to be basing your argument on. It's very weak. You appear to be doing nothing other than whining.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:53 pm

Ahso!;1405444 wrote: So it's illegal to "interpret" law?

Illegal?

That's silly.

Ahso!;1405444 wrote: Interpreting a law and enforcing that law accordingly is not not enforcing a law.

Do you proof read? I do and still I find posted statement I regret.

Ahso!;1405444 wrote: Every police officer, military person and so on interpret laws and assignments and enforce accordingly.

I don't know what that means.

Ahso!;1405444 wrote: The fact that Obama said so openly is all you seem to be basing your argument on. It's very weak.

No argument here. You asked me for a link and I gave it to you. Seems to me he made his position clear.

Ahso!;1405444 wrote: You appear to be doing nothing other than whining.

Me, whine???

Not at all.

Actually, this whole H.R. 1540 is a big nothing to me.

I just like yanking chains, and yours fell short.

Nothing to me if when you walk away if ya pick it and take it away with ya.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:14 pm

New research shows that the impact of drones on the civilian population are increasing the risks of terrorism.

New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama's drones | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a US report says.

BBC News - Drones in Pakistan traumatise civilians, US report says