Brennan Refuses to Rule Out Drone Assassinations Within the US

[CuteOldGuy]

Why not just say "no" to drone assassinations in the US? What is so hard about that? Unless . . .

From the article:

In written responses to questions submitted by the Senate Intelligence Committee, John Brennan, the Obama administration’s nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), refused to rule out drone assassinations of American citizens on US soil. The committee on Friday released a declassified version of Brennan’s responses.

Brennan, currently President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, is the architect and director of the program of drone missile assassinations that is run out of the White House with the personal participation of Obama. Asked squarely, “Could the Administration carry out drone strikes inside the United States?” Brennan replied, “This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so.”

This is what is known as a non-responsive answer. It is reasonable to assume that if the answer was “no,” Brennan would simply have written, “no.” Instead, in order to avoid a giving straightforward “yes,” he answered a different question than the one that was asked.

Brennan’s answers to the written questions make clear that there was nothing accidental about his refusal to rule out drone assassinations within the United States at his February 7 confirmation hearing before the Senate committee. It was, rather, an expression of a deliberate policy adopted by the Obama White House and the military/intelligence agencies.

How does this differ from your average tyrannical regime? Well, you voted for a police state, and you will have your police state.

Read more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/brennan...the-us/5323542

[Guest040616]

Yet another in an increasingly long line of snoozers for StupidOldLyingFart. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[timpage]

Has the definition of the word "tyrannical" changed since Obama was elected? Or the generally accepted meaning of the term "police state?"

I wish they'd drone you, you silly old man.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by timpage

Has the definition of the word "tyrannical" changed since Obama was elected? Or the generally accepted meaning of the term "police state?"

I wish they'd drone you, you silly old man.

Let's create a scenario, shall we? If a known terrorist, such as OBL, is hiding out in a remote location in a rural Wyoming farmhouse and we have confirmed reports that he is well armed and will be personally carrying out a 9/11 style terrorist attack the following day. I say hell yes, send in the friggin' drones. We will sort out the details when the dust settles.

Let's put StupiOldLyingFart in the category of giving OBL the benefit of the doubt and then blaming Obama for not doing enough to prevent the terrorist attack.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Let's create a scenario, shall we? If a known terrorist, such as OBL, is hiding out in a remote location in a rural Wyoming farmhouse and we have confirmed reports that he is well armed and will be personally carrying out a 9/11 style terrorist attack the following day. I say hell yes, send in the friggin' drones. We will sort out the details when the dust settles.

Let's put StupiOldLyingFart in the category of giving OBL the benefit of the doubt.

And when the dust settles they find out they hit the wrong farm house.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Budman

And when the dust settles they find out they hit the wrong farm house.

Budman casts his ballot for giving OBL the benefit of the doubt. Are you two shacking up together?

[Budman]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Budman casts his ballot for giving OBL the benefit of the doubt. Are you two shacking up together?

Hardly. I think we should have captured that fuck and totured him for many years. Drone strikes in the US are an entirely different matter. We can all come up with scenarios that support whichever side you are on.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Budman

Hardly. I think we should have captured that fuck and totured him for many years. Drone strikes in the US are an entirely different matter. We can all come up with scenarios that support whichever side you are on.

I was just playing the scenario game the way that StupidOldLyingFart likes to play it, with a much more reasonable twist. He is clearly in favor of coddling the bad guys and then blaming Obama when they inevitably do something bad.

I say get rid of the sorry bastards while you can and we can count the bodies when the dust settles. Mission Accomplished!

[timpage]

Why shouldn't the administration be allowed to carry out drone strikes in the United States under appropriate circumstances? Admittedly, it would need to be an extraordinary circumstance but is what BigTex hypothesizes about something that couldn't occur?

What if another airliner was hi-jacked 9/11 style and was again heading toward the Pentagon, or the White House? Frankly, I don't know if drones have air-to-air capabilities but assuming they do, and a drone was the only available combat arm to shoot that airliner down, wouldn't the President be derelict in not giving the order?

Brennan's answer was exactly the correct answer to give. He told the truth. He could just as easily have lied and said "no, that would never happen"....thereby depriving the paranoid anti-gov whackos like COG of another imaginary drone issue....good for him.

It's an extraordinarily effective and diverse weapons system. Restricting it's use, just because that use might occur within United States boundaries, doesn't make any sense.

[Budman]

You guys would be screaming bloody murder if this was going on under a republican administration and you know it. I don't believe there is anything this clown in the white house can do that you won't defend. The hypocrisy is pathetic.

[I B Hankering]

. . . regarding more encroachment by a looming police state.

SCOTUS Goes To The Dogs
By Radley Balko

The Supreme Court has always been reluctant to question the motives of police officers. But you needn't think that police officers are terrible people to understand why an officer might want a drug dog that tends to confirm the officer's own hunches. Most of us tend to think our hunches are correct much of the time (or we wouldn't have them). A compliant drug dog allows an officer to follow his own instincts without the hassle of procuring a search warrant. It's why drug dogs are sometimes called "probable cause on a leash." But the entire reason we have a Fourth Amendment is to protect us from being searched every time a hunch or suspicion crossed the mind of a law enforcement official.

As Sullum suggests, asset forfeiture by itself is an incredibly powerful incentive for police to want drug dogs that confirm their suspicions, even if that means regular false positives. In fact, though a drug dog's alert in itself shouldn't in most states be enough to trigger a forfeiture action, it certainly goes along way. Combined with two or three other otherwise innocuous "indicators of criminal activity," it can begin a process in the government takes your stuff, and even if you're completely innocent, it can cost you more to fight to get your property back than the property is worth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...f=the-agitator

[Yssup Rider]

Off topic blather, Syndrome. Start a new thread.

How about something to do with the real role of drones in the circle of life?

Did you hear that there's a fucking queen bee out there with more drones than you can count on all of your fingers and knees?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Off topic blather, Syndrome. Start a new thread.

How about something to do with the real role of drones in the circle of life?

Did you hear that there's a fucking queen bee out there with more drones than you can count on all of your fingers and knees?

And your dumb, ignorant ass really thinks your post is on topic, Assup the jackass!?! Go back to poking your plastic playmate, Assup the jackass, you puny pricked putz.

[timpage]

This whole drone debate fascinates me. It's just amazing how technology potentially outstrips constitutional protections (yeah COG, I kind of agree with you) and I am cognizant of and respect those arguments. But, issues like this one always make me shake my head in amazement at strict constructionists like Scalia who think they can interpret the Constitution in light of technological developments like drone surveillance. The same rules just do not apply.....

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Budman

You guys would be screaming bloody murder if this was going on under a republican administration and you know it. I don't believe there is anything this clown in the white house can do that you won't defend. The hypocrisy is pathetic.

Budman, if I am not mistaken you were around in the ASPD, Houston Pig Pen days. If you were not around at the time, let me give you a history lesson. I repeatedly commended the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11, for their decision to go after OBL and his wayward band of outlaws and thugs in Afghanistan. I was one of the first (and perhaps the most vocal poster) to criticize the Administration's decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003.

Neither decision on my part was based upon a Republican vs Democrat scenario. It was based solely upon what I personally felt was right for America. If you were around, you should also recall the phrase I used hundreds of times on the P, "GW lost his focus upon the perpetrators of 9/11," when he invaded Iraq. I said that repeatedly beginning in March of 2003 and I have yet to change my position. In fact, I have made the same statement numerous times in the Sandbox.

Bottom line, OBL was a huge threat to our national security from 2001- 2003. He clearly deserved top billing when it came to our National Security in the aftermath of 9/11. In much the same way that Hitler deserved top billing over Mussolini in Europe during WW II. I have never, I repeat never, stated that GW was anything other than 100% correct in going after OBL in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

By the same token, I have consistently stated that GW was equally as wrong to shift America's focus from OBL to Saddam during the spring of 2003. Even you should be able to understand that logic! On second thought, it might be a huge stretch to think you might actually understand something logical!

By the spring of 2003, Saddam was little more than a third rate, pain in the ass dictator who was no longer a threat to our National Security. Instead of focusing upon the obvious problem, Dub/Cheney and their band of Far Right Wing-Nuts decided it was much easier to put a noose around Saddam's neck than continue the search for the Terrorist that attacked America on our soil and killed almost 3000 on September 11, 2001.

Once again that was not a Democrat vs Republican statement. If it was, I obviously would have opposed GW's decision to go into Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Instead my statements were based solely upon what I strongly believed to be in our nations best interest. Nothing more, nothing less! Quite frankly, I believe history has clearly shown I was correct in the statements I made prior to the ill fated 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Buddy Boy, you may now return to shacking up with SupidOldLyingFart. You two clearly deserve each other!