Someone leaked Obamas rules for killing Americans. This is YOUR guy waterwings.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There are no geographical limitations contained in the guidelines, Timmy. Why do you try to defend what you obviously don't understand?

What does it say COG? You posted it. Did you not read it before you posted it and started making shit up about what it actually says?

[CuteOldGuy]

Although the requirement that capture be "infeasible" could be read as ruling out targeted killings within the United States or in friendly countries willing and able to assist in the apprehension of suspected terrorists, the paper identifies no geographic limit on lethal strikes against people deemed to be imminent threats.

What part of "no geographical limits" do you not understand, Timmy?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Although the requirement that capture be "infeasible" could be read as ruling out targeted killings within the United States or in friendly countries willing and able to assist in the apprehension of suspected terrorists, the paper identifies no geographic limit on lethal strikes against people deemed to be imminent threats.

What part of "no geographical limits" do you not understand, Timmy?

Oh. So its the opinion part of the post that you are relying on rather than the wording of the document itself. And you choose to ignore the part of the post where it says

The main conclusion of the paper, which was obtained by NBC News, is that "it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa' ida without violating the Constitution or...federal statutes...under the following conditions: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force"—i.e., "necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity."



What part of "outside the United States" do you not understand?

[CuteOldGuy]

You don't get it, do you? It can be read to allow strikes within the United States against US citizens if the President, without consent from anyone, so chooses. Would you have wanted President Bush to have that power? I didn't think so. Neither would I, nor would I want it for any President.

You are willing to kill a thousand innocent people, in hopes that you will get at least one who might, at sometime in the future, be guilty of something. I can think of no system of morality that condones that type of thinking outside of Soviet or Chinese communism, or Nazi fascism, and their progeny.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't get it, do you? It can be read to allow strikes within the United States against US citizens if the President, without consent from anyone, so chooses. Would you have wanted President Bush to have that power? I didn't think so. Neither would I, nor would I want it for any President.

You are willing to kill a thousand innocent people, in hopes that you will get at least one who might, at sometime in the future, be guilty of something. I can think of no system of morality that condones that type of thinking outside of Soviet or Chinese communism, or Nazi fascism, and their progeny.

Just answer my question. It's your post. What does it say COG? Does it say "outside the United States." Does it say the people who will be targeted will be senior operational level members of al Qaeda? Or does it say a "thousand innocent people."

It's your post. Stop meandering off topic from your post and explain why you are lying about what it said, and continue to lie in an attempt to save face and not look like an idiot. I'm not a soviet or a nazi or a communist or even a nationalist. Stop with the stupid characterizations and explain your post. You say you hate liars. Why are you lying?

[CuteOldGuy]

America is a battlefield, Timmy. It's already been declared.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...y-define-being

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't get it, do you? It can be read to allow strikes within the United States against US citizens if the President, without consent from anyone, so chooses. Would you have wanted President Bush to have that power? I didn't think so. Neither would I, nor would I want it for any President.

You are willing to kill a thousand innocent people, in hopes that you will get at least one who might, at sometime in the future, be guilty of something. I can think of no system of morality that condones that type of thinking outside of Soviet or Chinese communism, or Nazi fascism, and their progeny.

so are you saying you wouldn't want a US citizen on US soil who was working with al Qaeda to be taken out?

[CuteOldGuy]

No. Not without due process. If you are an American, and believe in the rights enumerated in the Constitution, of course not.

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the President to decide who gets what rights, and when. If we allow this, who knows? You could be next.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No. Not without due process. If you are an American, and believe in the rights enumerated in the Constitution, of course not.

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the President to decide who gets what rights, and when. If we allow this, who knows? You could be next.

say during "due process" his lawyer finds some loophole in his arrest, his rights were violated... some shit like that, the guy walks, conspires & commits some act of terrorism...... and all along some special forces unit could have taken this person out..... but instead they have to give him his due process?

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes.

[Yssup Rider]

AGAIN, ANOTHER INANE TOPIC FOR DEBATE.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT DISCOURSE. IT'S ABOUT INTERCOURSE.

Your droning obstinance proves that yo mama really did take it up the ass, Whiny!

Damn are you annoying. You no more believe this shit than yOu believe the Earth is round, but will fight for the rights of others as long as they don't conflict with yours.

The most dishonest poster on ECCIE ... Maybe anywhere!

[CuteOldGuy]

What was dishonest, Assup? He asked my opinion, I gave it to him. I know you don't like the idea of freedom, rights or a constitutional republic, but others of us do. Until your side completely nullifies that right, I intend to exercise it.

Hmmm . . . Weren't you just voted . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

[timpage]

Fucking idiot. The original post and every comment you made thereafter was dishonest. And you know it. You're a hypocritical lying shitbird.


QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1052312502]What was dishonest, Assup? He asked my opinion, I gave it to him. I know you don't like the idea of freedom, rights or a constitutional republic, but others of us do. Until your side completely nullifies that right, I intend to exercise it.

Hmmm . . . Weren't you just voted . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

[/QUOTE]

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

Fucking idiot. The original post and every comment you made thereafter was dishonest. And you know it. You're a hypocritical lying shitbird.


QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1052312502]What was dishonest, Assup? He asked my opinion, I gave it to him. I know you don't like the idea of freedom, rights or a constitutional republic, but others of us do. Until your side completely nullifies that right, I intend to exercise it.

Hmmm . . . Weren't you just voted . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

[/QUOTE]

I disagree with you, because you are wrong, Timmy. That does not make me dishonest. BTW, You're an idiot. That was not dishonest either.

[WTF]

I vote we ask Obama to drone COG!