Jon Stewart compares Obama drones to Bush's torture

Like the budget we give to the NSA to spy on the whole world, the real number is unknown.

All we know is, it's at least three Americans, and thousands of people altogether, and that we know since they lie, the figure is probably much higher.

Good work for you. You did not fall into their trap. Like when the CIA insisted they only ever water tortured like three guys, all evil terrorists.. Right.. Only three. We're supposed to believe them? We soon found out it was much more, and they tortured people to death, with far more brutal methods. Water torture is still bad though.

Anyone complaining about Bush torture, as I was, should complain about Obama. Like his NSA "reform", he announced insignificant changes that didn't actually stop a thing, allowing the programs to continue as they are. He prosecuted nobody. Anyone found out to be torturing were given the tacit approval to keep their hands in the cookie-jar, so it obviously continues in however many secret CIA dungeons there are around their world, plus Gitmo, Obama's personal pet prison for hostages he uses for leverage for both votes, and likely cooperation in Yemen. That's probably what the drone strikes are for too. Either contract-hits, or bullying and intimidating using terrorism.

The one thing they are NOT used for, is targeting known terrorists. Otherwise, why wouldn't Obama attack AQ who have their biggest presence in the world, and a new stronghold, in Syria, where they are carrying out genocide as we speak? You'll demolish random anonymous targets in Somalia, Yemen etc. but no so much as even wag a finger at AQ in Syria.

That is PROOF as far as I'm concerned that these drone strikes, like most other nefarious agendas, have nothing to do with terrorism or security.

 

Their choice, their risk, and their life. The question is where are they when they took action. If on foreign soil, I have no qualms if they were killed in a firefight or in a drone attack. If on U.S. soil, I have no qualms if they were killed in a firefight or in a drone attack.

Once you take up arms against the government of the United States, it is either kill or be killed. There is nothing in between and only a fool would believe that.

 

First of all, that's not the only one anyway, and second of all, that story is pure hearsay. Just because Obama claims somebody was plotting attack, doesn't mean they were. So far ZERO evidence was put forth to support that claim. That's why he won't involve due process, because that needs evidence, and his right hand in the air.

- - - Updated - - -

These targets are usually always unarmed, and nowhere near any combat. Why believe them since they lied about it? Their "choice" could be the same choice you made to sit in your seat right where you are right now.

I mean he bombs weddings and funerals FFS.

 

Only if said country was against it. However, when it comes to enemy combatants, one does not need a declaration of war for any attack to be justified. And yes, War is Hell. Welcome to the Jungle.

 

The goal is to try to minimize innocent by standards, but you cannot do that all the time. Furthermore, when terrorists use human shields to conduct their operations, that is a risk we have to take abd we have to weigh a tough choice between allowing said group to conduct their operations behind human shields or to stop said operation at any and all costs. .

 

Violating a countries air space is an act of war. Dropping bombs is an act of war. There is no trial for these people. There is no evidence. Just the word of our Government. The same Government that has lied to us time and time again. Do you really think they are telling the truth in this case? Please prove all these people "took up arms against the Government of the US"

Its telling that you use that phrase btw. Its not taking up arms against the United States oh no its the Government. The Government is not the United States. You can have an issue with our current or past Governments without declaring war on the United States itself.

You are opening Pandoras box on this one. With your words you are for the United States Government to have the ability hell the right to kill ANYONE ANYWHERE at anytime with no evidence! Curious do all other countries have this ability and right? Lets say a country ( name one any one) feels that you are a threat to them. Should we sit by as they launch a drone killing you and the people around you ( who cares about "human shields right??) just on their word?

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting so if another country feels that an "enemy combatant" is hiding in this country you have no issue with them launching a drone killing people in this country and the people surrounding them at the time with zero evidence?

 

Obama lied and claimed the boy was an adult, and involved in terrorism. Eventually, he had to reluctantly admit he wasn't. He was innocent. And STILL he said no sorry, no sympathy, nothing for this American kid. Just derision and a contemptuous lack of concern and caring. Yet Trayvon Martin, THAT boy's death was a "national tragedy".

 

With said American taking up arms against the government of the United States. This is not some political free speech we are talking about here. These are enemy combatants, defined under the Geneva Convention who want to forcibly through arms take action. That is against everything the Constitution stands for.

 

That's based on the premise that there is a need to kill these targets in the first place. Since you don't even know who the targets are, you don't know that any violence is necessary, let alone the need to exclude human pilots, minimize collateral damage, etc.

I would remind you, Obama attacks schools, funerals, weddings etc. "Human shields" is a concept used on the battlefield. It doesn't apply when there's no combat.

These strikes are as combat-related as 9-11.

 

if using a hellfire missile to assassinate the 16 y/o son of a mouthpiece isn't murder, what is? it wasn't John Dillenger's lawyer's son gunned down outside the Biograph. you people have been warping words so long you forget they still have meaning. a combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict, not someone you just suspect of it.

 

The presumption you are making here is if said country was against said operation. It is not an act of war if the U.S. and said government had an agreement on said use. And with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and so forth, there have been agreements between our governments on said use. This idea that you are claiming is false, misleading, and ignorant of all facts.

Oh brother, the anti Obama rant again with a dash of conspiracy theory.

Yes, it is against the government of the United States, not the people of the United States. When the South succeeded, their reason was against the government of the United States, not a singular man, Abraham Lincoln, or a group like the abolitionists, but the government. So were the pirates of the 16th and 17th centuries and so are today's terrorists.

As long as our government agrees to said operation, yes.

 

You thinking this is only about Obama shows how partisan you are i said Presidents plural. Obama will not be the only President from here on out and drones are not going away. He could step down today and i will still be saying the same things. Also you can not just write things off as a "Conspiracy Theory". Also please show that the Government and people of Yemen., Pakistan and Afghanistan are fine with us drone killing anyone we please.

 

Just how would people want us to get these Americans that have turned traitor and not only fight for Al-Qaeda, but call on other Americans to join them? How are we suppose to go deep into infested enemy territory and get them?

 

It is combat. It is just as much as combat as when Francis Marion took up arms against the British and used his unique tactics. to attack the British. The British believed that was not combat because their idea of combat was lining up in formation and firing. It is the same during the Indian Wars. We would kill men, women and children against hostile Indians. The Indians would do the same. In both cases, it is combat.

Or the Japanese believe that debate is a form of combat. We do use guns, knives, swords, or drones, but wit, humor, words, arguments, etc. Debate is a form of combat.

And for the individuals, yes, we do know or have a pretty good idea of who they are. What we don't know is where they are at or who their known associates are. We do get info on them from sources near and far. And one thing you have to remember, even in AQ, there are factions within factions for power control. And that how we gent our info.

 

I don't think you were criticizing Bush when the first drone strike was used in Yemen to kill an American. But now that Obama is the President, you see the light that this was bad from the getgo

 

I have been against Drone strikes from the get go. Try again.

 

They are irregular forces and yes, they are still defined as enemy combatants. Whether one calls themselves the Viet Cong, AQ, or

If you want legal analysis, read this.

 

Say again? Now can we drop the partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

How did Bush constantly knock off high officials in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? How did he have several Al-Qaeda bomb makers killed? No one complained when he did that. How do we get these people? Please explain how you would do it.

 

It is easy to make that statement today, but what I was looking for was when the deed was actually done or shortly thereafter.

 

So since i cant link you a post ( i wasnt posting on political forums back then this is my first one) you will think i was partisan?

Damn funny. Since day one on this forum i have been consistent on my feelings for the George Bush years. now would you like to discuss the topic or go back to yah but Bush bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I'd like those against these drone attacks to tell me how you would get these people that have been targeted?

 

Panama ring any bells? if AQ is really there, it's justified.

 

the judgement of a court (even a military tribunal) is proof, Obama's gut feelings aren't. care to point out where in your 30 page document where an 0-4's opinion out weighs 200+ years of American law?

 

So, do you think terrorists are just upset because Macy's, Dillards, and Saks Fifth Avenue overcharged them on their credit cards and they are protesting by advocating their second amendment rights? Or do you think it is just a made up organization by a government to control the minds of the American public and that 9-11 was simply an inside job?

- - - Updated - - -

Proof is coming from the the men and women whose job is to defend this country and follow the chain of command. And that proof will generally not be available to the public for security reasons.