The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama

Jello Biafra

A true friend stabs you in the front
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
46,184
Reputation
4,923
Daps
120,884
Reppin
Behind You
But it is not a war in the conventional sense...it is a war in the same way that the "War on Drugs" is a war an that is basically as hyperbole used by politicians to make a point.
There is no declaration of war stating that we are in conflict with anyone who is nebulosly identified as a terrorist and as such we can blow them to hell regardless of where they are located.
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,568
Reputation
3,794
Daps
109,526
Reppin
Tha Land

Jello Biafra

A true friend stabs you in the front
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
46,184
Reputation
4,923
Daps
120,884
Reppin
Behind You

THat is not an official declaration of war...that is just a document that creates a law that:
will give intelligence and law enforcement officials important new tools to fight a present danger.

Nothing in that bill says anything about blowing up living, breathing human beings all willy nilly on the order of The President based on secretive information without benefit of oversight of any kind.
 

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,150
Daps
22,319
Reppin
Bronx, NYC


"Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming." :obama::obama:

:snoop::snoop:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,568
Reputation
3,794
Daps
109,526
Reppin
Tha Land

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,707
Reputation
555
Daps
22,613
Reppin
Arrakis
But it is not a war in the conventional sense...it is a war in the same way that the "War on Drugs" is a war an that is basically as hyperbole used by politicians to make a point.
There is no declaration of war stating that we are in conflict with anyone who is nebulosly identified as a terrorist and as such we can blow them to hell regardless of where they are located.

so what if it isnt a war in a conventional sense? i think everybody can agree that its not conventional, but if you agree that its a war then there is justification both legal and moral for what he is doing

this war is more akin to the Cold War, where the US was doing similar things

i think people will have to agree to disagree on the morality of it becuase both sides have valid points, my point is just to clarify that there is a valid and strong argument for what obama is doing, its not just some ish he pulled out of his ass
 

Jello Biafra

A true friend stabs you in the front
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
46,184
Reputation
4,923
Daps
120,884
Reppin
Behind You
All you posted was evidence of the ridiculous amount of unchecked authority that the presidency has been allowed to have.
I also bet you don't even see the moral equivocation that you are trafficking in when it comes to Obama doing horrendous bullshyt. I assume you are not a Bush fan based on your doged defense of Obama so it makes me wonder how you could have ever been against GW when you love so many of his most crappy policies so much.

so what if it isnt a war in a conventional sense? i think everybody can agree that its not conventional, but if you agree that its a war then there is justification both legal and moral for what he is doing

this war is more akin to the Cold War, where the US was doing similar things

i think people will have to agree to disagree on the morality of it becuase both sides have valid points, my point is just to clarify that there is a valid and strong argument for what obama is doing, its not just some ish he pulled out of his ass

I don't agree that it is a war in any sense which is why I frown upon warlike tactics (such as bombing people) but I do agree that this is one of those things where opinions re set in stone and won't change.
At least not until the same actions are taken by the "other side".
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,568
Reputation
3,794
Daps
109,526
Reppin
Tha Land
I bet you don't even see the moral equivocation that you are trafficking in when it comes to Obama doing horrendous bullshyt. Makes me wonder how you guys could have ever been against George Bush when you love his policies so much.

Not sure what you mean by the boldded, but you are making an assumption about who/what I support.

I was against the polocies when bush put them into place and I am still against them now. Im just saying Obama didn't make the polocies and he hasn't stepped over any legal boundaries in using them. The notion that Obama's presidency is bloodier than any other presidency is just false.

The debate over the morality of fighting a war on terrorism is a whole different story. But if we are passed that and have already given our government the greenlight on fighting the war, than all we can do is trust the intelligence and policies of the people we put in office.
 

Jello Biafra

A true friend stabs you in the front
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
46,184
Reputation
4,923
Daps
120,884
Reppin
Behind You
Not sure what you mean by the boldded, but you are making an assumption about who/what I support.

I was against the polocies when bush put them into place and I am still against them now. Im just saying Obama didn't make the polocies and he hasn't stepped over any legal boundaries in using them. The notion that Obama's presidency is bloodier than any other presidency is just false.

The debate over the morality of fighting a war on terrorism is a whole different story. But if we are passed that and have already given our government the greenlight on fighting the war, than all we can do is trust the intelligence and policies of the people we put in office.

If you are against the policies then you shouldn't be working so hard to defend Obama's use of them. It doesn't matter who started it.
And there is still a question over whether the president has the right to do what he is doing as it pertains to the use of drones to target individuals based on secret evidence.
 

alybaba

Pro
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
803
Reputation
130
Daps
1,227
Reppin
NULL
An argument could be made that drone attacks are effective (I agree here), but whether they're legal or ethical is definitely questionable.

If the Pakistani military establishment wasn't so untrustworthy, they would have probably just outsourced this and kept their hands clean.
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,568
Reputation
3,794
Daps
109,526
Reppin
Tha Land
If you are against the policies then you shouldn't be working so hard to defend Obama's use of them. It doesn't matter who started it.
And there is still a question over whether the president has the right to do what he is doing as it pertains to the use of drones to target individuals based on secret evidence.

Because I voted him into office, and he said he would use his power to stop terrorism and keep America safe. All of the intelligence says he is doing the right thing, and the alternative to drone strikes is all out war. Plus the legality of him using the drones has and will continue hold up in court.
 

CACtain Planet

The Power is YOURS!
Bushed
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,182
Reputation
-10,760
Daps
13,279
Reppin
CACness Aberdeen
ACLU files lawsuit against U.S. for Killing Americans

Two civil rights groups sued the CIA director, the defense secretary and two military commanders over two covert U.S. strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen last year.

The operations killed radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, editor of a Jihadist online publication.

The two groups - the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed the lawsuit on behalf of the parents of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

It claims the strikes that killed the three men violated their constitutional rights because the targeted attacks "rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process and evidence never presented to the courts," according to the complaint filed in D.C. federal court this morning.

"It's about accountability," said Jameel Jaffers, the ACLU deputy director. "If the government is claiming the power, as it seems to be, to kill any American who is deemed to be a national security threat without judicial review of any kind, then we believe the government has an obligation to explain its actions."

But in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was a major figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Justice Department said it is justified.

He was linked to the plot of the so-called "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab and alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, and the Justice Department says there is a legal framework in place that makes going to the courts unnecessary.

"It does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a March speech. “Even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen."

The legal argument is slightly different for Khan and al-Awlaki's son, both presumed to be collateral damage in the drone strikes.

Khan was killed in September alongside Anwar al-Awlaki, whose son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, died in a separate drone strike a few weeks later, also in Yemen.

It is unclear whom the U.S. was targeting in the attack and why al-Awlaki's son was near that location.

Jaffers hopes those questions will be answered in court.

Relatives say the terror suspect’s son was not affiliated with terrorism.

"I never thought that one day this boy, this nice boy, will be killed by his own government for no wrong he did certainly," his grandfather, Nasseral-Awlaki, said in a video statement provided to CNN by the ACLU.

Holder said the U.S. takes the death of innocent bystanders into account.

"Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage," Holder said in March.

The lawsuit against CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and two military officials seeks damages against the four government officials. It does not name a specific dollar amount, only saying "an amount to be determined at trial," according to the complaint.

"It's not about money," Jaffers said. "The main purpose of bringing the lawsuit is to obtain a kind of accountability that can only be obtained in a federal court."

This is the second lawsuit the ACLU has filed on behalf of Nasser al-Awlaki.

In 2010, it filed a suit in federal court trying to prevent the targeting killing of Anwar al-Awlaki after it was made public that he was on a U.S. government "kill list."

Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,707
Reputation
555
Daps
22,613
Reppin
Arrakis
I don't agree that it is a war in any sense which is why I frown upon warlike tactics (such as bombing people) but I do agree that this is one of those things where opinions re set in stone and won't change.
At least not until the same actions are taken by the "other side".

Yeah but you are the only one saying its not a war, when the terrorists start saying its not a war then I will also say its not a war, and when they start claiming that they are american or holding up American ideals then I will defend them as if they were americans

The problem with this article and what you are saying is that it's conveniently leaving out the words and actions of th alwaki, as long as you leave those out, what Obama did is definitely immoral

but once you pick up arms against the us there isn't any explicit protection in the constitution that protects you and that is why the most you can say factually is that Obama is skirting the edge of the constitution
 

CACtain Planet

The Power is YOURS!
Bushed
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,182
Reputation
-10,760
Daps
13,279
Reppin
CACness Aberdeen
Yeah but you are the only one saying its not a war, when the terrorists start saying its not a war then I will also say its not a war, and when they start claiming that they are american or holding up American ideals then I will defend them as if they were americans

The problem with this article and what you are saying is that it's conveniently leaving out the words and actions of th alwaki, as long as you leave those out, what Obama did is definitely immoral

Once you pick up arms against the us there isn't any explicit protection in the constitution that protects you and that is why the most you can say factually is that Obama is skirting the edge of the constitution

What Arms did Al-Walaki's son pickup?
 
Top