Fillibuster

[buckman]

I really don't see where the need for shooting down a jet will ever come up again. I mean it's not like we will ever allow knifes on planes again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Always, that's probably why my posts look so foreign to you.

you do seem to be a wacky confused foreigner living in America with many of your comments


Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan. Why would it here at home?

were these guys an imminent threat?
October 01, 2011

U.S. drone strike in Yemen kills U.S.-born Al Qaeda figure Awlaki

The lethal strike that killed Anwar Awlaki marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan.
A two-year hunt for an American-born Muslim cleric accused of inspiring and plotting terrorist attacks on Americans, including the deadly shooting at an army base in Texas( hey, sooo inspired by a terrorist but not terrorism, just workplace violence(broader concept)...thats wacky and we smoked him while essentially sitting in a field reading a book.....go figure), ended when he was killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by the CIA. over northern Yemen.

The lethal strike that killed Anwar Awlaki was backed by U.S. special operations forces and Yemeni authorities, and marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan, who had produced virulent, English-language online propaganda for Al Qaeda.

I know that they were bad and all....but this is exactly what you describe is it not? I think Obama has a long list of named terrorist that he has ordered dusted while sitting wherever they happened to be and posing no iminent threat....is he ignoring ROE?

WIKI_ On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones, based out of a secret CIA Base in Saudi Arabia,[233] fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Aulaqi and three other suspected al-Qaeda members.[234][235][236] A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle.

I didn't know that we whacked his kid too....was he an imminent threat?


Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[39][40][41] Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders



-spence -Nobody has ever said that, you're either making it up, are grossly misinformed or perhaps just a bit wacky.

Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...


Well, perhaps Rand would. Rand didn't ask about this scenario...you injected it to be wacky I guess


Ahhh, and out comes Mr. Hyde. I thought you were getting a bit wacky in that last paragraph.

-spence

........................................



wacky would describe many of your statements which it appear to be leaving many here and most experts are quite shocked

'imminent threat'- Obama Administration Style

US Launched Deadly Drone Strike From Saudi Arabia: Reports - ABC News
However, the document says that by "imminent threat," the DOJ does not mean the U.S. government actually has to have "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," but rather a "broader concept of imminence" must take into consideration terrorists who are we know that napolitano has a very "broad concept" of who terrorists are and are likely to be...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued April 7 the nine-page document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."


"continually planning" attacks and the typically limited window during which a lethal operation may be conducted.




love that...."broader concept of imminence"...yada yada yada

Definition of IMMINENT
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over
'
im·mi·nence (m-nns)
n.
1. The quality or condition of being about to occur.
2. Something about to occur



broader definition...that's great....these guys have a broader definition/concept for everything that they deem appropriate

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...

-spence

hindsight...noone knew that the first two were intended for the towers, you could say that the third should have been shot down as we then knew that the intention was to kill all on board and cause massive damage as a result of the fate of the first two but if the first one or two had been shot down not knowing where they were actually headed and given the history of hijackings....I think there would have been quite an uproar

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Always, that's probably why my posts look so foreign to you.



Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan. Why would it here at home?


Not speculation, it's simple reason.


The two scenarios are not analogous.


Nobody has ever said that, you're either making it up, are grossly misinformed or perhaps just a bit wacky.

Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...

Well, perhaps Rand would.


Ahhh, and out comes Mr. Hyde. I thought you were getting a bit wacky in that last paragraph.

-spence

"Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan":

See, once again, you are making things up as you go along. According to the Geneva Convention, it is absolutely acceptable to kill enemy soldiers, even if they are asleep and thus not an imminent threat. Drone strikes aren't launched to kill terrorists who are literally in the act of trying to kill anybody, they aren't that precise (that's what snipers are for).

Spence, do you think that soldiers can only kill other soldiers in self defense? Those are the ROE's for police departments, not the standards in time of war.

Where do you get your "information"? Have you no shame? None at all? Spence, if you're going to make up jibberish, try not to invent jibberishthat is so demonstrably false. Try to at least fabricate something that might fool a 6 year-old.

[scottw]

apparently, if a "suspected" killer, terrorist, plotter or maybe just a former military single issue opposed to immigration authority rejecting antigovernment radical who is deemed an imminent threat using the "broader concept " of imminence and American citizen happens to escape our borders and take up residence in a foreign land, it would be OK? for the government to send a drone in and shoot a hellfire missile into where ever he's pulled off to the side of the road and having lunch?


I'm not defending these guys and not saying they don't deserve it but we do have laws and they are "suspects" and considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law aren't they? this sets a very bad precedent...especially with an administration that tortures and broadens definitions so frequently..........I count three American Citizens suspected of crimes executed without trials...just sayin'....kinda opens the door for all sorts of misbehaviour......
...

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.
Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki's Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs 'Far More Responsible Father'

Gibbs' comments were released the same day The Washington Post published an expose on the White House's growing database of people it believes it has the authority to kill without trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union warned Wednesday in a response that the policy of "bureaucratized paramilitary killing" is illegal and will backfire.

"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, in a statement. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death.



no need to worry...it's not like they ever overreach or exceed their authority......

[scottw]

Codify the Drone War - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online