Senator Asks CIA Nominee When Drones Can Kill Americans

Is killing Americans worse than killing anyone else?

Because a person happens to live outside the imaginary line on the map should they not be treated with the same respect as someone inside the line?

Your rights do not come from being an American. Rights are not given to you by someone else.

This mentality of 'us' and 'them' is the problem and thinking that Americans deserve more consideration when it comes to the issue of whether you should or should not lose your life is pretty sick.

There are some people who are so insane that they may need to be removed from this world but you better be damned sure and the persons nationality better not have any influence over your decision.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So what you think that all of the terrorists should be allowed to regroup inside Pakistan so they can rebuild their training camps and then in a few years launch the next 9/11.

Al-Qaeda are already regrouping in Pakistan and Syria.

They can get the money donated by Wahhabis.

You have been lied about Al-qaeda and terrorism in middle east. Their main supporter is Saudi Arabia. Even Bin Laden is an Arab name , not an Afghan name. There are many proofs that explain his connection with Saudi king. The US puppet in the region. Al-qaeda was never a threat in Afghanistan , but it's origin is in Pakistan and it is gaining power in the whole middle east. Guess who is supporting it.

And if you are afraid that AQ shouldn't get strong again , think again because it has been already turned into a big power in Syria.

BTW , it reminds me of Saddam. A crazy US puppet who US backed his invasion on Iran. Then Saddam bit US hands and US was making some reason to punish him. The weapons once US has given to him.

WMD's donated by US

As long as you think that your govt is acting reasonably and is protecting your rights over sea , you will see 9/11s and you will support other wars ,too.

And I wonder when you are going to take your head out the dirt.

This reminds me of an art exhibit, an independent film, I saw at the Dallas Museum of Art last year. If I remember, there is a man in a hotel room in a cycle of interview scenes, and there are scenes with narration. One of the scenes shows a family in a car, traveling on a trip. They are uptight because they are living in a dystopia where security has been outsourced, to China if memory serves. So they are driving out of town, possibly secretly fleeing, and they come across some white men with shovels who are burying an explosive in the dirt road. Cautiously, quietly, the father, the driver of the car proceeds to drive past the men setting up a weapon, and they let him creep by. Then out of the sky comes a bomb and the family in the car has been ruined, the weapon site destroyed.

So there shows a nation patrolled by armed drones, and the narrator is a man who works for the military, operating a drone. And he talks like it's no big deal, but I thought it was disgusting that he has the power to hurt people and he does it without warning. The endless loop of a movie showed aerial scenes of people in a neighborhood under a security camera in the sky.

I'm watching that movie thinking, yep, that's what could happen. Maybe our generation hasn't seen it yet, that we think the pain only comes between people of different languages or skin colors or national habitats. It's a totalitarian police state to live under a threat like that from one's own nation. Great for animals you eventually have to eat, not so great on one's own species.

Looks like the CIA has finally achieved that eye in the sky that they are known for in their logos. Maybe it's an evil eye, and it will make sick everything it sees.

reply to post by mideast


Do me a favour, take a look at my posting history and my threads then start over with that post again.

I know all about Al-Qa’ida in particular Al-Qa’ida in Syria.

I am not going to bother starting to go through everything that was wrong with that post because frankly I can’t be bothered. But please don’t patronise me with your revisionist history of” Al-Qaeda”

reply to post by silo13


"American blood" ??? What an insane concept.

If only you could look on all humans the same as you seem to look on this one small group.

Originally posted by emeris
Is killing Americans worse than killing anyone else?

Because a person happens to live outside the imaginary line on the map should they not be treated with the same respect as someone inside the line?

Your rights do not come from being an American. Rights are not given to you by someone else.

This mentality of 'us' and 'them' is the problem and thinking that Americans deserve more consideration when it comes to the issue of whether you should or should not lose your life is pretty sick.

There are some people who are so insane that they may need to be removed from this world but you better be damned sure and the persons nationality better not have any influence over your decision.

actually, our rights do come from being american. ask any afgan woman.

reply to post by stormson


I guess what im saying is that the whole concept of rights comes from some people forcing their will on other people and out of that the concept of rights emerged. "Here is what your allowed to do. here is what your entitled to because i say so".

If thats the kind of rights your referring to then yes your correct. Other people give you your rights.

reply to post by silo13


That's it. Arrest this administration. Game over. This is real news.

Why wouldn't someone show up at Obama's door with Handcuff's now? Or
at least the entire Washington Police Force?

I should stay out of this as I know better but........I am Canadian but I have to say this.
I don't believe for one second that Obama nor Bush nor anyone else calls the shots in the USA.
As the thread title says (CIA) I think there is a Fox in the hen house and has been for years.

This post is my conjecture and thoughts only....
Interesting thread and a bit unnerving to say the least.

Regards, Iwinder

But the Constitution allows this!!!!
Jeez, maybe you guys should actually read it, instead of holding it up on a pedestal.

In the event of a rebellion, the government is allowed to do whatever it wants to stop said rebellion.

The organized terrorist networks who's goal is to take down America, is a type of rebellion.
Therefore, the Government can do whatever they want to stop them, including killing americans.

Again, maybe you should stop worshiping a piece of paper and read what's actually on it. It's not some holy do-good document. The vast majority of the constitution isn't about protecting your rights and freedoms, it's all about how we can go to war.

I'm not justifying these things. I'm just stating the fact that it is indeed legal and constitutional.

Jeez, maybe you guys should actually read it, instead of holding it up on a pedestal. In the event of a rebellion, the government is allowed to do whatever it wants to stop said rebellion.

reply to post by Ghost375

Jeez.
So if the govt trumps up a charge of rebellion on someone,
They don't need to both with arrest, trial and conviction of that person in a court?
They can just blow up their house with their family in it?

Not paying your taxes could certainly be viewed as rebellion.

reply to post by Ghost375


Now they're over-extending terms.

This is law. We have the right to challenge existing legislation.

Define the terms:

"Rebellion"
and "Government"

Government is defined as any governing entity within a society

Rebellion can be defined as any action that would express any desire or dislike against
an institution or individual for any reason and to cause harm in any sense of the term to the individual
that is only ascribed to the actions of a 'rebel' or 'opposition' government, retains and exercises
the privilege to cause harm and not the right.

And because it is a privilege, does not mean that murder isn't illegal now, or was deemed illegal
at some point in our history.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Jeez, maybe you guys should actually read it, instead of holding it up on a pedestal. In the event of a rebellion, the government is allowed to do whatever it wants to stop said rebellion.

reply to post by Ghost375

 

Jeez.
So if the govt trumps up a charge of rebellion on someone,
They don't need to both with arrest, trial and conviction of that person in a court?
They can just blow up their house with their family in it?

Not paying your taxes could certainly be viewed as rebellion.

I said I don't agree with it....BUT it IS in the constitution.
I feel like you're trying to attack me....It's not my fault it's in the constitution. Don't shoot the messenger.

And no, not paying your taxes can't be viewed as rebellion. That's asinine.

There is no way to rationalize,spin or justify this, it is blatantly unconstitutional it takes away a citizens right to due process and completely cuts the judicial branch out of the process.It effectively neuters the checks and balances and creates a dictatorship.

since it is considered constitutional and the federal government now has this power it is only a matter of time before the states will want and will get this power also.

reply to post by streetfightingman


Are you trying to argue semantics over something you don't even bother to look up yourself, and find the specific words they use?

"Suppress Insurrections" is the exact terminology that is used.

suppress: Forcibly put an end to.
insurrections: A violent uprising against an authority or government

reply to post by Ghost375


Yes. Because I can attribute the Sales of Good Act to a number of areas in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And if I were to spend the time researching state criminal codes, and federal criminal codes,
In relation to the individual responsibility laws, federal and state; I'm sure I could argue a solid case.

As I am currently with the Alberta Government and the Canadian Government because they
won't release their Crown-Corporation financial statements or their new "claims" on their balance sheets.

reply to post by stormson

needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

collateral damage is never good, but having served in combat, i can assure you that we, and i can honestly only talk about the units i served in, looked for every means to reduce collateral damage.

Your words are a sad sign of the times. Cloaking what you are actually saying in military speak....words calculated to disguise the horror of the death of innocents. 'Collateral damage', 'the theatre of war', 'friendly fire', 'blue on blue'...and the list goes on.

Edwin Brock wrote a poem to draw attention to the fact that killing is so much easier when the killer doesn't have to look into their target's eyes. Result? Escalation of warfare and death. His poem, 'Five Ways to Kill a Man' was written during the cold war.

There are many cumbersome ways to kill a man.
You can make him carry a plank of wood
to the top of a hill and nail him to it.
To do this properly you require a crowd of people
wearing sandals, a cock that crows, a cloak
to dissect, a sponge, some vinegar and one
man to hammer the nails home.

Or you can take a length of steel,
shaped and chased in a traditional way,
and attempt to pierce the metal cage he wears.
But for this you need white horses,
English trees, men with bows and arrows,
at least two flags, a prince, and a
castle to hold your banquet in.

Dispensing with nobility, you may, if the wind
allows, blow gas at him. But then you need
a mile of mud sliced through with ditches,
not to mention black boots, bomb craters,
more mud, a plague of rats, a dozen songs
and some round hats made of steel.

In an age of aeroplanes, you may fly
miles above your victim and dispose of him by
pressing one small switch. All you then
require is an ocean to separate you, two
systems of government, a nation's scientists,
several factories, a psychopath and
land that no-one needs for several years.

These are, as I began, cumbersome ways to kill a man.
Simpler, direct, and much more neat is to see
that he is living somewhere in the middle
of the twentieth century, and leave him there.

During WWI it was discovered that normal human beings do not want to kill those their governments have deemed to be the enemy. People are people, they relate to one another, no matter where they come from. Anyway it was found that only 2% of soldiers were shooting to kill....most of them simply aimed high. Of those that did kill - half did so to protect themselves and their friends and the other half (1% of the total) killed because they were psychopaths. They enjoyed it.

Following WWI military training was altered to ensure a higher kill rate. This was done by automating responses, penetrating the subconscious and ensuring that the soldier did NOT think. Comments like yours are a testament to the success of that dehumanizing process.

reply to post by streetfightingman


It was a rhetorical question.

The fact is the government has every right to kill Americans without trial if they are violently(This is a lofty claim, I'll admit, but I've showed you the exact words used in the original constitution) opposing the government.

Again, I don't agree with the practice being done, But it IS constitutional.

reply to post by Ghost375


It isn't. If they want to act like layers, then the individual retains every right to challenge his or her government. This is basic physics and genetics. I can understand
how someone might grow tired of arguing fundamental and natural law in rational terms in order to protect basic human rights or to ensure basic transparency at every sector of government

reply to post by Ghost375

And no, not paying your taxes can't be viewed as rebellion. That's asinine.

Washington sent troops to western PA to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. Why? They didn't pay the federal tax on whiskey.

The Freemen stopped paying their taxes. It was a form of rebellion. Most of them went to jail.

Maybe you were thinking of armed rebellion. If so, there have been drone strikes against people that haven't fired a shot against the American government.