Jon Stewart compares Obama drones to Bush's torture

That's only occasional strikes here and there, perhaps give credence to the program. Plus, government accusations are heresy. There's hundreds of undisclosed targets. Have you found names for all them?

How about in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Hangu district on November 21, 2013, when US drones demolished a school, killing eight, five children and three teachers.

Who was the bomb-maker, American traitor, or high-ranking official there?

And how come they do double-tap strikes, where they strike the same spot some time later, and wind up killing medics and first-responders?

 

We have these high ranking terrorist attacking our troops and Afghan citizens and then crossing the border into Pakistan and using it as a safe haven. They live in such a dangerous place that even Pakistan police won't go and the army is reluctant to go into. The only way to get them without a big lose of American lives is a drone attack, or a guided bomb from a plane.

 

He and his administration has lied about the innocent people they have killed. Hell they reported only one innocent in how many drones strikes. Yet there are over 200 children died by drones. How is that possible?
And what about double tapping? Killing innocent people that try to help the ones taken down by drones?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iPCzxRgAVY

 

Can you quote the part of the Constitution that says that?

And who was the unlawful combatant targeted when that school was demolished in Pakistan on 11-21-13?

 

Even nazis get a trial

 

I've never once had an answer to that question. The only thing I can think of is to scare people from responding to the scene (terrorism). Any kind of "make sure they're dead" type of strike could occur instantly after. But for some reason, the drones circle around for a while before they shoot a missile there again. Along with attacks against weddings and funerals, it proves terrorist intent.

I'll bet you none of the war-crimes advocates here will have an explanation.

 

If they can be caught. If not, you blow them up. Maybe now we won't need to keepusng drones to get these people in Pakistan, now that the govrnment is now going after these terrorist living in their country. They wouldn't before.


Updated at 2014-02-23 19:36:14








Share

Email





16 Comment(s)

Print




PESHAWAR: Pakistani fighter jets carried out air strikes early Sunday on suspected insurgent hideouts killing 35 suspected militants and injured more than 15 others in Tirah valley area of Pakistan’s restive Khyber tribal region, DawnNews reported.

According to security officials, during the air raid fighter jets targeted various hideouts in the Tirah valley of the Khyber Agency reportedly destroying an improvised explosives device (IEDs) making factory and a huge cache of arms, ammunition and explosive materials.

The raids came a days after at least nine suspected militants were killed when gunship helicopters pounded insurgent hideouts in Thall village in Hangu district,

On Feb 20, after consultations with the top military leadership of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif gave a go ahead for the airstrikes in North Waziristan and Khyber agencies.

Khyber is part of Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt on the Afghan border. The Taliban and other al Qaeda-linked groups, who stage attacks in both countries, are known to have strongholds in the zone.

 

Obviously that attack had to be a mistake. We don't go out and deliberatly attack schools. I notice that this is in the same district that Pakistan plans attacked as being a terrorist strong hold yesterday. Could be that mistake finally convinced the governmet to get off their ass and clear those terrorist out of there?

 

How could you possibly prove that?

How could there be a mistake? I thought their intel was solid, hence the legitimacy of the strikes.

Are you saying they don't always get it right? How often do they get it right? This proves they don't check. And there are LOADS of examples, I just picked one.

Maybe.. How come the USA won't get off their asses clear the terrorists out of Syria? AQ has their biggest stronghold in the world there, and largest presence, as the Obama admin. admit. They have taken over an entire portion of the North region as their new safe haven. We'll call it, Alqaedastan. They fly the AQ flag there. Military hardware coming from the United States wound up in their hands, yet nevertheless the USA continue flooding the region with weapons. Meanwhile, AQ are carrying out genocide against Christians, Kurds etc.

So why not a drone strike for them? It's a far worse case of sitting on one's arse than was for Pakistan.

 

From the 14th amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof: means that subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The Constitution only appies to the laws of the land, Article III of the Constitution, and thus are only relevant when feet are dry. ,

 

I don't remember Hannity doing that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hannity, and a group of right-wing talking heads have grown increasingly irritating to me. Perhaps most of all is Glenn Beck.

Beck gets on with his low voice tones (close-mic technique) and tries to mesmerize listeners with his subjective, "homey" advice about a variety of things -- including the economy. Five years ago Beck was issuing heart-felt warnings (everything is "heart-felt" with Beck) that the stock market would be at 5,000. Today it is more than three times that! In Beck's wisdom, he completely forgot about the 8-ton "gorilla in the room" -- the Federal Reserve Combine, which has been more than happy to pull trillions out of thin air to prop up this weird, new-reality "recovery", the banking empires, and, (of course) the stock market!

Stewart is worse. He and viciously hyperliberal, self-serving idiots like Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Martin Bashir, et al, are ALL worse.

But the overall point I'd make is that many of we Conservatives are sick to death of being sick to death! And our own partisan "talking heads" in combination with our wonderous elected representatives have DONE NOTHING to alter or circumvent the biggest bloodless coup in modern times -- the socialist takeover of the United State of America and the removal of the Constitution as the bedrock charter and foundation of this nation. The wealthy power-brokers in BOTH political parties, the "Rich Republicans" and the "Limousine Liberals" keep on rolling out this penny-whistle "theater" we call "Congress" for the cattle, while winking at each other across the aisle, keeping close attention on their stock portfolios. We who work, and pay taxes, and try to continue to believe in the United States are nothing but pitifully manipulated "useful idiots" to ALL of these people -- on the Left and the Right.

 

You know damn well our intelligence isn't always right. How many of our high officials been blown up by people we trusted? Yes, we makes mistakes, but I know our government doesn't go out and deliberately attack schools. If you think they do, I don't know what kind of an American you are. If you are an American. Do you think any innocent civilians were killed in those two strikes by Pakistani fighters and helicopters? Bet they won't say.

 

The first quote was merely the subject for the fourteenth amendment, and that is those people who were born in, and reside in the USA, for the purposes of equal protection.

The due process amendment is for deprivation of life liberty and property. It's a completely different amendment.

The reason is because, they clearly didn't want anybody to be punished without fair justice, so they said "no person" in that amendment. Yet when they talk in other times, they talk about being born in the USA. In other words, they make distinctions throughout. Some things they wanted to apply to everybody, others just to citizens, and only born citizens in respect to presidential eligibility.

So in other words, when you take the subject line in one clause and apply it another part of the document, it's apples and oranges.

Due process applies to foreigners alike and wherever, and the SCOTUS has upheld that on multiple occasions.

Besides, if that clause were implied to extrapolate, why would they need it there in the first place?

 

These guys are entertainers, not reporters, not concerned citizens, not anything noble except trying to make a buck. Do not take them seriously at anything or anyone they talk about, no matter how tempting. Until poeeple like Hannity or Beck run for office, any office, they are simply entertaining the sheeple out there.

 

Syria was a big Obama mistake he isn't going to win. Got to fix breakfast.

 

Force the hands of these nations to do something. Don't you think when a mother sees their 10 child blower away by an American drone because he was playing outside when a possible terrorist because he is the same age passed by May become a black widow bomber?
What about the brother of this 10 year old boy? How likely will he listen to the teachings of Al AlQaeda and become the next Boston Bomber?

 

LOTS of mistakes. Best case scenario here is the USA being too reckless and indiscriminate. They can only disclose a handful of names of terrorists they managed to kill, despite killing hundreds to thousands of women and children.

How exactly do you "know". If you only assume that on the virtue that they are your leaders and therefore aren't capable of doing evil, then you're making a big mistake. Leaders from all over the world, all through history, even our own, have committed horrific atrocities on purpose. I mean, you have to b bit sinister to support torturing people for no good reason.

And it's not just one mistake.. They've bombed schools repeatedly, as well as weapons and funerals? What their intelligence isn't smart enough to know the identity of a building or that it's a funeral?

I have to think something that's a viable explanation, because the US story doesn't wash. If this were all about killing terrorists they'd attack AQ in Syria. Think what you like about me. Why are they always lying about it?

Of course not.. But a bit besides the point.

Now why do they do those double-tap drone strikes? Have a think about that.

 

Captured Nazis get a trial, the other 5 million dead Nazis got no trial.

 

If we are the sheep than Obama is the wolf guarding us.

 

The 14th amendment, which includes due process, is much more than the birthright of a person. It is the amendment that ties the Constitution and the first 13 amendments to all other amendments passed after the 14th was passed.

Again, due process is only here within the jurisdiction thereof. That is why any U.S. person in the territories of the United States are subject to said due process. But due process does not apply with it comes to enemy combatants. The Supreme Court ruled on that a few years ago. And U.S. person is a person who is a citizen or alien, legal or illegal.

That is why there is no due process if a U.S. person commits a crime abroad. YOu cannot, generally, expect your rights as a U.S. citizen to not be abridged in a foreign n land. There is no jurisdiction there where the Constitution is concerned. That is why I linked Article III to the jurisdiction thereof.

 

So we can drone strike this genocidal dhs agent. Awesome let's do it. Screw him no trial needed. We just have to find a way to get him to leave the country. Free trip to Mexico maybe. Than drop a drone missile on him. You agree right

 

Then how can you prove you are right? How do you know you are not making a mistake?

- - - Updated - - -

If said person takes ups arms in an organization known to be at war with the U.S., then absolutely.

 

I and most of the liberals I know have opposed drones for murder for 12 years.

I have been to protests opposing that use. These events were populated 100% by liberals. The petitions and campaigns are 100% done by liberals.

What is ironic about your statement is that the Righties I know ONLY scream about "Obama using drones", they loved it under Bush and, in my opinion, will go back to loving their use as murder tools under a Republican president, assuming a Republican ever wins the presidency again.

 

Thanks for proving my point! Now get back to listening to Rush Limbaugh.

 

Due process is mentioned in the fifth and fourteenth, and both are to be interpreted the same according to the SCOTUS. Since the fifth grants the right to "persons" the fourteenth amendment's subject does not retroactively change what the fifth refers to. When you read the fifth, you CLEARLY see they say one thing for citizens, and another for persons. Citizens get a bit more rights. That doesn't mean the most fundamental human rights of anyone weren't meant to be respected by the federal government.

You're not understanding what the Constition is about. It's not a document that "applies" to people at all, or has any jurisdiction for or over people, foreign or not. The Constitution is actually, the rule-book for the federal government. About how they operate and what they can and cannot do. It acknowledges the existence of several rights, some more for citizens than others, only insofar as to instruct the federal government not to do violate them.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld didn't say there was no due-process for foreigners. Did you read that in the opinions or something? All it said was that the Military Commissions act was in violation of a treaty and therefore the Constitution. Look at the case Murphy v. Ramsay is one example.