By Amy Lazenby || A U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) memo released yesterday reveals the Obama Administration’s legal rationale for using targeted drone strikes on American citizens abroad who are believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. For an explanation of the content of the memo (and to read it for yourself), see Morgan Allison’s piece here.
The White House insists its policy on the use of unmanned drones to kill American citizens is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The constitutional basis for these strikes, according to the administration, is the Commander in Chief Clause, in addition to well-developed concepts of international law – the right of nations to defend themselves against attack and to engage in self defense before the attack occurs.
What the policy actually does, however, is put the interest of the United States to prevent a possible terrorist attack above the right of actual American citizens to their lives. Thus, a theoretical threat becomes more important than the life and liberty of our people. That, Mr. President, is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
After the release of the white paper this week U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “our primary concern is to keep the American people safe, but to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and consistent with our values … We only take these kinds of actions when there is an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible, and when we are confident that we are doing so in a way that is consistent with federal and international law.”
But the “broader concept of imminence” in the memo – which allows for a targeted drone strike on an American citizen on the basis of information held only by an “informed, high level official” – makes Holder’s words ring hollow. How is such a targeted kill program, in the words of the Attorney General, “consistent with our values?”
Where is the target’s opportunity to defend himself?
Have we been so terrified by the 9/11 attacks that we are willing to relinquish our basic right to due process under the law? Has our national consciousness become so entrenched in this “war on terror” that we have been lulled into believing that the extrajudicial killing of American citizens – just because the president says so – is a necessary evil?
It is not, nor should it ever be. Not under this president, not under the previous one, and not under the next one. How long, exactly, will these counter-terrorism efforts continue? Indefinitely, apparently. And how many American citizens will die without having a chance to present their cases in a court of law? An indefinite number, it appears.
According to the white paper, targeted strikes against Americans do not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens, do not violate American law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas, are not war crimes, and do not violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.
Those are bold and broad claims, claims that should frighten any American citizen who believes that his right to life, liberty, and property – but especially life – is guaranteed under the Constitution and the canon of law that surrounds it.
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the memo reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”
But the fact that the reasoning in the memo goes beyond previous definitions of “self-defense” or “imminent attack” as defined by the program’s key architect, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, should give all Americans pause. Exactly how far in advance of actually committing a crime against the United States can a person be targeted for a drone strike, and on what evidence? We, the American people, cannot know. We are not the “informed, high level official.” We are merely citizens trained to live in fear of possible threats.
Jon Brennan is now the president’s nominee for CIA Director, and as the principal coordinator of this program, he will have some difficult questions to answer at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the efficacy of these drone strikes and whether they are actually creating more militants than they are killing.
In addition to the named targets – be they American or non-American – drones have killed innocent civilian bystanders, and the collateral damage has not gone unnoticed by the people who live in the countries targeted by this program. Is America really willing to expend its limited political capital in the Middle East in this way?
Wading even further into the ethical morass that is the administration’s drone strike policy, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday, “We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats – to stop plots, to prevent future attacks, and save American lives. These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.”
It is my contention that they are extra-legal, unethical, and exceedingly unwise. Our country will pay for the colossal mistake that is this program, in American lives and in American political capital on the world stage.
Amy Lazenby is an occasional commentator for FITSNews. Follow/ contact her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz, and check out her blog – Polistew.
145 comments
Well there is just nothing left for little miss Amy to do but move to the Middle East where all things are fair and above board. Their views on women should really impress her.
Why move to the Middle East when we’re adopting many of the same autocratic policies that we criticize them for? Killing “enemies of the state” without trial, without any notion of due process, is the very reason we call rulers like Assad and Ahmadinejad tyrants, yet when we do it’s ok. That’s the definition of hypocrisy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15F4Xp3NaBo
NIA film – USA economic collapse.
Please reference my post/response this morning at 10:04 am (7 Feb 2013) on the older FITS article on the same subject titled:
“Morgan Allison: On the Obama Drone memo”
That’s my stand on this………..
FITS needs to talk to a WWII veteran of the Battle of the Bulge (sadly not many left) who faced former US citizens who fought for Germany and posed as American troops and killed American GI’s for a different perspective.
There MIGHT be one or two at the VA hospital in Columbia who could educate FITS on the matter.
Well,
I guess FITS could go over there himself and read the US Constitution to the ragheads.
I’m sure they will put down their Korans, quit plotting/planning to kill Americans in every way possible and become proud members of the TEA Party after a thorough lesson on the US Constitution.
“I’m sure they will put down their Korans, quit plotting/planning to kill Americans in every way possible”
Of course, the natural question one might ask is what percentage of the “raghead” population is doing such “plotting”. Further, how many would do so if we just left?
Since you were in Vietnam, can you tell us what percentage of gooks were planning the same when you were there? How many gooks now plan such things?
Concerning my two previous posts on this subject:
And/or Ms Lanzby for that matter………..
I love, Love, LOVE the cheering from the Po Mo Fo Lo Info voters and their goose-step endorsement of the Bush/Cheney policies.
YES WE CAN!
i can’t figure out why americans can only think in absolutes. -i want to keep my 4 foot long skeet-shooting arquebus, therefore we cannot ban semi-automatic handguns with 30 bullet clips. or, the government cannot kill terrorists in pakistan if they were born in the US because that will inevitably lead to nuclear strikes on maternity wards in major cities. there is no such thing as a “slippery slope”. that was a marketing ploy someone made up instead of an argument. you can’t do this because everyone agrees you can’t do this completely different and unrelated thing. i wonder if the constitution encourages this pathology because we are always trying to apply totally unrelated rules to novel courses of action.
….. hmmmm, definitely something to think about—–
I don’t know why people who lack basic reasoning and understanding have to resort to ridiculous hyperbole, idiot, so I guess we each have our own cross to bear.
BTW, your apparent example of the “slippery slope” argument is wrong. Looks like you are living up to your name.
You are right Sid. It would appear that the concept of incrementalism in the slippery slope discussion has been lost.
That, plus he/she is claiming the “slippery slope” argument is based on the idea that you can’t do A, even if people agree with it, because it will lead to Z, which everyone disagrees with. The argument doesn’t have anything to do with what anyone agrees or disagrees with. The argument, in one form, is if you do A, then eventually Z will also happen.
Of course, I prefer the concept that the “slippery slope” argument is predicated on the idea that the people promoting A are only doing so because they know they can’t achieve Z, which is their ultimate goal. Thus, they go for the easier target, which is A, which will inevitably be a failure (which they likely know), so they will then argue they need to go further, to B. Lather, rinse, repeat, all the way to Z, which was their goal in the first place.
Slippery slope and incrementalism are interchangeable, in my opinion, but that’s not what idiot is talking about.
@idiotwind:
You are correct
The simple answer to your quandry is that BOTH the far left and the far right are blind to common sense and are slaves to their particular dogma.
Now as to answer by?:
As I have posted numerous times (and which you fail to remember), I am a Vietnam ERA veteran (active duty US Army 1971-1974) and was not sent to Vietnam. However I AM a Gulf I,Bosnia conflict, and Gulf II veteran who served in country as a reservist during all 3 conflicts/wars.
Vietnam during 1968 – 1972 is not the same as the Vietnam of 2013. That being said, if one is reasonably intelligent and understands how the REAL world works (unlike yourself and “sid”) In all likelihood, it is close to the same percentage of insurgents participating in killing American troops in southwest Asia as the Vietcong of 1968 – 1972 who were guerrilla fighters. The motivations are slightly different but you are dead just the same.
I absolutely detested the mindset of the right-wing “chickenhawks” who claimed that Iraq was a threat and thus the rationale of invading Iraq. it was a mess before and if you follow the news today, it is still a mess after we left.
That don’t mean a fucking thing to the men and women serving and following orders.
The war on terrorism is a TOTALLY different matter and of which you and “sid” appear to not understand one fucking bit.
These zelots don’t care one fucking bit about the US Constitution and the ones who swore an oath to uphold it (and follow the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief BTW). They come in all nationalities and would as soon destroy the United States as drink water. Some (not all) truly believe it is their ticket to heaven (thankfully we provide them an excellent conduit to do that). Their numbers are few but just like some right wing-nut zealots in this country won’t be satisfied untill they can force everyone to accept their dogma as the primary way of life.
You can argue all fucking day about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but while you are doing that, someone is plotting/planning on your and your families demise as well as the United States Constitution you claim to know so damn much about.
I think I need a little clarification, sc. Are you saying that the percentage of Vietnamese who wanted to kill Americans during the Vietnam War is the same today? If so, how in the world do you figure that? We are not waging a war in their country right now, so what, exactly, would be the motivation?
Or are you saying the percentage of Vietnamese who wanted to kill Americans during the Vietnam War is the same as the percentage of “ragheads” today?
BTW, are you any relation to Jake Knotts?
Goose-step much?
After the release of the white paper this week U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “our primary concern is to keep the American people safe
“In order to keep you safe, we need the right to blow you to smithereens at a moment’s notice without bringing formal charges against you or providing substantial evidence that you are an immediate threat to the country.”
If they affiliate with al-Qaeda, they have renounced their citizenship as far as I’m concerned so just make sure the drones hit their target.
Obama and Stalin both have 6 letters in their name
Obama and Stalin both were born on December 25th
Obama and Stalin both finished Bryn Mawr Law
Obama and Stalin both were the first born of 9 children
Obama and Stalin both have O Positive Blood
I won’t bother to knock down all your bullshit, but Obama wasn’t born on Dec 25. If you can’t get that right then why bother with you.
Fuck man, even Stalin wasn’t born on Dec 25th.
In both of the World Wars, there were American (and British) citizens, either by birth or by naturalization, who returned to their home country of Germany (or, if they were there, remained) and fought against the Allies. I cannot find any concern about killing them.
Precisely
That’s what I referenced in two earlier posts.
I can be liberal as they come many times, but I’m doubting any “innocent” person has been killed by any drone.
I disagree with the holding of suspected terrorists such as we are doing at Guantanamo, but targeting known villain of peace in a war area is valid.
Soooo, holding a suspected terorist is bad, but killing a suspected terrorist is good? Interesting perspective.
BTW, what do you mean by “a war area”? Many of the people who have been killed with drone strikes have been killed in countries with which we are not at war. In fact, the memo specifically references using lethal force in a foreign country “outside the area of active hostilities.” That seems to cover everywhere except here in the US (thankfully) where there is not an actual war going on that involves US troops.
Actually there have been many innocent people killed by drones. Those innocents were call collateral damage and deemed an acceptable lose for the greeter good. That being said none of them were US citizens to my knowledge.
The collateral damage is a completely separate argument. What we are talking about is American citizens being targeted for execution using drones. Whether or not they were “innocent” is part of the discussion, but considering there is no due process involved, there is no finding of guilt. Just a determination that someone must be executed.
@sid;
If you care to read more CAREFULLY you woud see that I wrote the Vietnam of 2013 is NOT the same as the Vietnam of 1968-1972
As poorly as you write, the most careful reader in the world would have difficulty decifering your posts. Best I can tell is you hate “ragheads,” and you are fine with Barry giving the green light to executing 16-year-old American citizens without any semblance of due process.
So I guess you are also saying that the percentage of Vietnamese who wanted to kill Americans during the Vietnam War is the same as the percentage of “ragheads” who want to kill Americans today. Got it!
So, where are you on the My Lai Massacre?
to: “sid’ & “by?”:
Please answer this very simple question:
Did y’all (and folks of similar mindset) have a similar case of hemorrhoids when Ronald Reagan unsussessfully attempted to ASASSINATE the president of Libya Omar Quadaffi (sp) {lately departed by his own people BTW} by ordering US Navy & Air Force fighters bomb his desert tent which resulted in the DEATHS of one or two of his INNOCENT CHILDREN???
Were any of his children American citizens?
Yes SC, I have issues with that. (American citizens or not)
I value life, brown, white, whatever…I personally feel the only justification for killing people is when they mean to do you harm.
Dosen’t matter.
You are making the argument that individuals are being snuffed without due process and that an innocent 16 year old boy was killed just becuse he was associated with a relative who was targeted. What if the boy was not an American citizen?? Would you be crying crocodile tears over him?? Judging from your answer above, the answer is obviously no.
Not only was “Omar’s” adopted daughter killed during the bombings ordered by Reagan, a number of other innocent civilians were killed as well. On VERY shaky ground at that. It was never proved substantially that “Omar” ordered the Disco bombing that precipitated the attacks by the Davy & Air Force
Talk about fucking “due process” for crying out loud……
If you hypocrits value life as much as you claim to, you would renounce all killing and join the Quakers.
You’re just pissed that it is “Barry’ doing the killing and not your own political hack – whoever that may be.
@”by”
Doing harm??
What the hell do you think a person who has sworn “Death to America” is thinking? Be they individuals who have renounced their US citizenship and have joined a terrorist organization or the terrorists who flew into the World Trade Center.
“Doing harm??
What the hell do you think a person who has sworn “Death to America” is thinking? Be they individuals who have renounced their US citizenship and have joined a terrorist organization or the terrorists who flew into the World Trade Center.”
So is that the case with the 16 year old? How about Qaddafi’s kids?
I think you’ve been all caught up in the propaganda of the whole deal, the vilification of brown people or a number of other bogeymen that helps Uncle Sam justify their empire/globetrotting.
Let me assure you that most third world people are focused on quality of life and dont give two shits about the US or killing its people.
Yes, sc, it does matter, as this discussion is about Barry’s policy regarding executing American citizens without due process. You want to start a discussion about collateral damage during an airstrike that took place almost 30 years ago, write a piece and submit it to Sic.
BTW, there is little evidence to support your claim that QaDaffy Duck had an adopted daughter killed in the airstrike.
That said, we are talking about American citizens and Barry giving the green light to executing them without due process. One of them was a 16-year-old, and the govt. has yet to state any justification for the execution. You are obviously OK with that, but others are not.
Now, if you can point to anything indicating Bush had the same policy, either in theory or execution, I will be happy to say that, too was wrong. Again, it has to relate to American citizens, as that’s what we are talking about.
Whether or not the deaths caused by American actions are justified when they relate to folks in other countries who are not American citizens is a completely different topic. Try to follow the discussion.
Amy Lazenby, your efforts would be better directed at the fact that we have an affirmative action abortion in the white house and deadly incompetence in the State Department. Leon Panetta just testified that Obama was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND while the Benghazi attack was going on: “Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, “up to us.” In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.”
I shed no tears for Anwar Al-Awlaki, but I do for the victims at Fort Hood, who were slaughtered by Nidal Hassan under the tutelage of Awlaki. I suggest you use yourself as a human shield, since this topic clearly concerns you more than the fact that the Commander in Chief is a fraud who is MIA during international crises, just like he attended only 38% of his presidential daily security briefingS. Do you honestly think he has any input or interest in drone attacks?
“American political capital” Are you unaware that we are supporting jihadis across the middle east with money and weapons? 20 FREE F-16s and a billion and a half dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood in egypt, supporting islamic supremacists in Lybia with weapons and air support which Hilary herself said that those weapons turned up in Algeria in the hands of jihadis, military aid to the ‘rebels’ in Syria, now Mali, Sudan’s genocide has always been an issue of Arab supremacists, look at a map, we have betrayed allies and are now openly supporting our enemies with taxpayer dollars, they are going to form a power block across the ME that will make Hitler’s Axis look like a tea party. The entire mahgreb, and from Kosovo to Syria to Yemen = one huge Islamist coalition that will destroy Israel and then turn their weapons on the United States, their stated goal is a global caliphate and you think they give a rat’s ass about a drone strike? They’d saw your head off in a heartbeat, stop projecting your leftist mindset onto them.
Something tells me that “sid” & “by?” (and others of their persuasion/mindset) wouldn’t be making this an issue if Ron or Rand Paul were president and doing the exact same thing……..
Actually, it probably wouldn’t be an issue to them at all as long as it was anyone other than “Barry” if the truth be known….
The only thing telling you that is your tortured grasp on reality. I don’t really like Rue Paul (which I’ve alluded to before), but if you know anything, which is in doubt, you would know he would be the LAST person you would have to worry about implementing the policy Barry has set.
Thank you very much for making my point.
I rest my case.
Something tells me that it’s usually the narrow-minded who always assume their opponents are equally narrow minded.
Not that those two need my defense, but both seem to be independent thinkers — and not the type that forms an opinion simply because a politician or party holds that opinion.
@sid:
Since you (and your type) “allude” to be an expert on what does and does not constitute reality, would you kindly provide your Doctor of Psychlogy credentials?
Or are you like most right wing-nuts and communists that declares someone psychotic just as soon as that individual calls bullshit on a subject when they read/see/or hear it?
Or do you prefer the taste test yourself??
SC, you are completely incorrect in my viewpoints.
First, I don’t equate Ron and Rand in hardly any sense, short of Rand sprouting from his loins.
Second, I have no ideological leanings in any traditional sense but recognize human crime regardless of the political label attached to the perpetrator.
@ “Good old Boy’
I can assure you that one thing I AIN”T is narrow-minded!!!!
You will never find a more REASONABLY open minded, semi-southern, middle aged caucasian male than myself!!!
Only thing I can’t/won’t tolerate is bullshit.
Doesn’t matter which president signs it, it is still wrong. And it doesn’t matter if the president promises not to abuse it, or even follows through with that promise. The point is that the opportunity is there for the president to abuse, as well as the precedence that stands for future presidents to use, abuse, or expand such policies.
Obama signed NDAA with a signing statement that he wouldn’t use the provision for indefinite detention of Americans, but that doesn’t change the fact that it CAN be used for such purposes, by any president, including Obama himself. Drone warfare against US citizens is no different.
Even if you believe it will never be used against someone who isn’t linked with terrorism, the amount of people we kill who are innocent people is enough to question the drone program in its entirety. Then again, the government won’t even come clean with those numbers, so that’s just further evidence that we shouldn’t trust government with these kinds of powers, since they can’t even be honest about the consequences of these programs.
Sid….making more friends.
Let me remind you all that he claims to own three houses, have a 150 plus IQ, be an expert writer, etc.
Vomit.
“Thank you very much for making my point.
I rest my case.”
If you say so, sc. Not sure what point was made, but it does appear you need some rest. Perhaps a little nap would help, but I’m guessing you wake up just as angry and imbalanced as when you go to sleep.
As for credentials for determining reality, sounds like your perspective has been challenged before. Sorry if I struck a nerve. I wasn’t trying to give a clinical analysis of your psyche, just questioning your general cognitive and reasoning skills.
Like I said, using Rue Paul as your example was a complete failure. That guy, if you have bothered to pay attention, is a bit of an isolationist.
Nonetheless, if you can point me to any other President who has implemented a policy where American citizens may be executed without due process, I will be happy to condemn it. Regardless of party affiliation. I can’t change the past, though, so that would be more an academic exercise. I’m most concerned with the existing policy Barry has in place. You are not, which you have made clear.
Now, go get some rest.
Actually, Drew, I said I’ve written professionally. Not sure I’ve ever laid claim to being “an expert writer.” You got the rest correct, though. Thanks for remembering me. Wish I could say the same about you.
@”by”
So are you a Buddhist or a Quaker?
I live by the non-aggression principle.
Funny,
So do I…………
I’m neither a Buddhist or a Quaker though.
Think you might be moving to Sweden???
With global warming going the way it is,Sweden’s climate will probably be like Maryland or Virginia in 25 years or so…..
Global warming? Man, you are even more out of touch with reality than Ithought.
Is there precedent for applying due process on the battlefield? Because that’s what we’re talking about here. An unconventional battlefield, but a battlefield nonetheless.
I would have serious concerns about expanding this policy to the US, it’s territories or protectorates.
So do I.
It’s really simple:
I’m not a JAG but from what I remember in my annual briefings:
If a US citizen renounces his citizenship or allies him/herself with an organization (or even individually) and freely advocates or actually participates in actions that are considered combative (like the american born/bred citizens who became German soldiers/spies in WWII). They are no longer Unites States citizens and due process is a non-issue.
The Geneva Convention rules as it applies to POW’s does not apply to terrorists like these individuals who have joined terrorist organizations like Al-Quieda whether they are in the Unites States or overseas.
By virtue of them joining and acitively participating in a terrorist organization whose sworn duty is the destruction of the United States, they have forfeted any rights they had as a United States citizen.
If they by their actions and deeds they have sworn the destruction of the United States, killing them wherever they are is not a problem with me.
You can’t “play nice” with these individuals.
You really don’t have any idea what is being discussed, sc, do you? Now I get it.
I say blow their traitorous asses up any day of the week you want.
If you are with Al Queda, then you can put your face between your butt cheeks, and kiss your ass good bye forever.
I hate traitors.
Additionally,
If you are talking about “conventional” battlefield rules as established by the Geneva Convention,actions against terrorists do not apply.
Some countries (example Japan during WWII) did not recognize the Geneva Convention and allied POW’s in Japan suffered GREATLY. I’m sure a number of countries today do not recognize Geneva Convention rules which again does not apply to individuals who are considered terrorists.
The War on Terrorism is a totally different battle and takes many shapes and requires bad things to happen to bad people who don’t play by the rules we would prefer to abide by.
I don’t like it but in this situation we have to track them down and kill them by whatever means necessary.
The war on Terrorism may NEVER be over but at best marginalized.
UNLESS some of you want us to colonize Southwest Asia, the rest of the Middle East and Africa.
@Drew:
I don’t CLAIM to own three houses, I DO consider myself fortunate to own property in three states (with houses on them)and somewhat sadly have the property tax bills to prove it.
Never claimed I had an IQ of 150 but my old Army test score was 130 (GT test I think it was called back then….)
As you can see, my typing,spelling and writing skills COULD use some improvement though…….
Drew,
It appears I misread you posting.
My sincere apologies (but I do own 3 houses,blah,blah,blah,blah!!!)
I just did not realize how much “sid” and myself had in common!!!
Unlike “sid” I’m being truthful however…………
What a surprise you misread, sc. Kinda like how you don’t understand the Constitution.
Believe me, we have little in common, though. I’ve never been paid by American citizens, then decided it was OK to kill one who is 16 for no reason other than who his parent was. You’re a real patriot.
My homes I own because of hard work, good investments, and not a dime from taxpayers. Not so much you, I’m guessing.
So, what about My Lai? That was OK with you?
Oh, and I’m not a racist. Another area where we differ.
At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy tjheorist, it makes me extremely uncomfortable when a single, unnamed official can decide to assasinate an American citizen with no legal process, accountability, or oversight.
It’s a new world we live in post 9/11 fraught with all kinds of twists and turns and hard choices.
I’ll say this though, I’ll take my chances with some single,unnamed official against a terrorist with a cannister of biological agent or a suitcase nuke anyday.
Be they American, Asian, African,IRA,black,caucasian,brown,whatever basically anyone else wishing to do attack the United States.
And yes, that includes some that are “ragheads” but Timothy McVeigh was not. I guess if “sid” had known McVeigh was parking a big-assed truck bomb beside the federal building in OK. City, he would have had a case of hemorroids is someone had shot him without “due process” prior to him lighting the fuse.
McVeigh being a US citizen and all……….
I was not in favor of the Iraq War but served anyway.
I’ve NEVER bought into any politician’s BS or propoganda concerning the war against Terrorism. Some (like “sid”) just refuse to see what we are up against and cannot offer any solution except to pontificate on it or sit on their asses and play arm chair general.
It’s a different “war” (for lack of a better word) and requires different tactics.
Sadly some refuse to understand this.
It’s really sad to see someone who may have served this country abandon the principles he was supposedly defending. It’s also sad to see him abandon logic.
It would have been completely appropriate for a govt. agent–whether local, state, or federal–to stop and question McVeigh if they saw him parking a truck known to contain explosives at the fed building in OKC. If the agent saw him sitting by the side of the road doing nothing other than preparing a meal, and the agent walked up and shot him in the head, that would have been illegal, and the agent would have gone to jail.
See how that works? Probably not, since it sounds like your mental capacity is on the steady decline. Sucks being an old man with fading importance, I’m guessing.
Sid says “See how that works? Probably not, since it sounds like your mental capacity is on the steady decline. Sucks being an old man with fading importance, I’m guessing.”
I say: It would seem that your mental facilities, Sir Sidney, are what are in decline. Minimally, you don’t comprehend how you portray yourself. More realistically, you need your ass kicked. Why don’t you start bragging on your self again. Its what you do best. You know…..your fame as a punk rock star, your IQ, houses,….
That’s the best you can offer, CS? A threat of physical domination? I’d be surprised if there’s ever been a physical confrontation from which you haven’t run.
Why should I brag, though? I’ve got you doing it for me. Not sure I ever said anything about having actual “fame as a punk rock star,” but I appreciate that you presume I was successful.
Any desire to actually engage in the discussion, or are you afraid of that, too? Are you comfortable with Barry’s decision to let one individual decide if an American citizen lives or dies? No due process, and no accountability? What say you?
I laugh at you Sid.
And no, I’m not real comfortable when due process is taken away. But I don’t sweat the issue too much as its Obama making the decision and not Bush. I don’t think there’s been a drone strike yet that I wouldn’t have approved.
But to focus you, the issue we were talking about is your behavior, not drones.
I guess you’re just one of my little stalkers. You just can’t get me out of your mind, and have committed all my accomplishments to memory. Nice to know you care.
It’s also nice to know you have no principles. Put all your faith in Barry, little fellah. I’m sure he can do no wrong in the eyes of a little Obamabot like you. So, you’re OK with executing a 16-year-old American citizen because Barry said it’s OK. No independent thought at all. Truly sad.
But I don’t sweat the issue too much as its Obama making the decision and not Bush.
lol…
1) I wouldn’t trust anyone with such a power. The secrecy is enough to not trust Obama with it. The fact that it could result in accidents is enough to not trust even the most trustworthy president with it. The fact that it could be abused is enough to not trust ANYONE with it.
2) Obama has 4 years left in office. Who’s the next president? Do you trust them with it? What about the next? And the next? Do you think this power is going to just expire?
Precedence is an ugly thing for shit like this, and I’m not even taking int account the possibility that future legal justification could expand this power even further.
Carl,
Yep,
When whacks like “sid” can’t rationally argue a point they get personal by resorting to claims about someone’s mental state. All the while “sid” admitted that he is not a mental health professional
Stop and question an individual who is KNOWN to be driving a truck with tons of explosives and for all the cops know can detonate the explosives in an instant if he is stopped for questioning???
McVeigh’s preparing to light the fuse to the drums of ammonia nitrate & diesel fuel and “sid” expects the cops to question him???
WTF?????
Nobody’s talking about someone on the curbside eating a sandwich and getting plugged in the head for crying out loud……
Unless that person (who happens to be an American citizen in this situation) is KNOWN to be wearing a suicide vest that is….. But it appears “sid” would expect the dude wearing a suicide vest to be provided “due process” since that individual is an American citizen.
There ain’t no such thing as “due process” when you are about to get blown to bits.
Ann Colter was right, you can’t have a dialog with people who lack common sense. (actually she wrote liberals but most rational liberals are nowhere near as convoluted as “sid”).
But then again, he is a “professional writer” and all…………
I knew you had no idea what was being discussed. The 16-year-old American citizen was sitting by the side of the road eating when Barry’s drone executed him. But that’s OK with you, because he was a “raghead.” Just like you have no problem with My Lai because those people don’t look like you. You really are a disgrace.
BTW, you’re the one who starts the personal attacks whenever confronted. Every time. Sucks to be old, weak, and predictable, huh?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy?INTCMP=SRCH
curious, the use of the monicker “terrorist”. an unaccountable, lone executioner authorizing drone killings of suspected terrorists in secret? nothing American about that – good article, Mrs. Laz.
Hey Sid,
Nice! You’ve got friends wanting to kick your ass.
On another thing you’ve bragged about in the past. Want to come to DC with me on Climate Science Day? February 27th. You’ll get to meet congress. I’m sure you can dazzle them with your vast knowledge in the area and overall brilliance.
SparkleCity, Sid sold himself as an expert on the topic a year or so back. Told me I didn’t know WTF I was talking about and started some stubborn-headed psychological warfare with me (I study the topic for a living as a university statistician).
Dude, you really are funny. I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise. Seriously. Prove it. If you cannot offer anything, I will accept that as an admission that you are a liar. I hope you don’t lie to Congress. I’ll have to speak with some of my friends in Congress to watch out for you.
So, when you got scared to debate actual climate experts (not me, but real experts), and I called you out on it, that must have really stuck in your craw. You still can’t let it go. As a reminder, you challenged a couple posters here (not me) to a debate on climate change, and when I suggested you debate actual experts, you ran like a little girl. A really timid little girl.
You really should think about getting a real job. Studying for a living sounds horribly unproductive.
February 27, Sidney.
Are you in?
I ran? Here I am Sidney.
Sorry, but I gotta go teach. Maybe you can amuse me with another of your patented long-winded psychologically-probing rambling diatribe of a comment.
So, no proof of your claim? I guess that is proof positive that you are a liar.
Oh, and a coward. Again, you ran like a little girl when the offer was made for you to debate actual climate experts. I never offered to debate you, nor did I ever claim to be an expert. If you are so sure of your abilities, why would you challenge people who aren’t even in your field to debate issues on which you seem to think you are an expert?
Have fun on 2/27, though. You going to testify? If so, let me know where, and I’ll see if any of my friends will be present, so they can give you a warm welcome.
By the way, since you say “teach,” does that mean you lack a PhD?
Suite Sid,
I’m a Full Professor. That means a PhD and about 20 years in academics. Trust you know that we teach too? Maybe not….I don’t think a higher educational degree was feasible for you.
I remember quite well. You told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. Then started spewing some misinformed Republican mantras on climate change. How could I misremember this? Maybe you have Alzheimers or insult so many people that you easily forget. And after you bowed out of coming to Clemson, you told me to go find someone to debate me (this was most amusing as scientists study and prove, not debate). In fact, most of your comments were pretty condescending and juvenile, just like your words here. Cheer up…a political blog can be a tough place.
Do round your boys up next month….I’m not sure on exactitudes on where we’ll be and when, but its Feb 27 in DC. I’ll count you out.
Just curious, since you said “teach.” I know a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals like you who feel that “teaching” is just for those instructing K-12, while those who paid some more money for extra papers are somehow superior, and they don’t just “teach.” Glad to see that’s one area where you aren’t a blowhard.
As for your flawed recollection, as I told you before, there were some folks discussing climate issues here (not me), and you came stomping in like you were God’s gift to science, and began challenging folks to a debate. That’s when I stepped in.
I called you on your bullying tactics, and asked if you’d like to debate real experts in the field that don’t support your opinions. Again, I never claimed to be an expert, but once I made the offer, you started demanding you get paid to take part, and that I had to coordinate the debate. I told you I’d supply the adversary, but you won’t get paid, and you had to coordinate, since the debate idea was yours. That’s when you ran away.
As for a political blog being a tough place, how would you know? I don’t ever see you engaging in any discussions here. You pop in occasionally because you have a fixation with me, but other than that, you’re nowhere to be found. Let me know what I
owe you for the space I’m occupying in your head.
Oh, and if you’re in DC next month, I think you’ll have missed your opportunity to offer your opinions on climate change.
“I called you on your bullying tactics, and asked if you’d like to debate real experts in the field that don’t support your opinions. Again, I never claimed to be an expert, but once I made the offer, you started demanding you get paid to take part, and that I had to coordinate the debate. I told you I’d supply the adversary, but you won’t get paid, and you had to coordinate, since the debate idea was yours. That’s when you ran away”
Sid, baby. I’m still here. You totally lie. But I offer you this: if you’d like to pay for “real experts” in the field to come debate me, have at it. I accept. When? Where? I can publicize it. Please do supply the adversary. I eagerly await your details. Seriously you blowhard?
You are like, retarted, or something.
I doubt Sid could/will set this up, but if this goes down, please hold it at UGA on a non-track night.
It’s funny how easy it is to manipulate you ‘soid. And shocking how stupid you are for a man of “science.” Don’t you know that nothing goes away on the Intertubes?
Fitsnews.com/2009/11/24/not-that-hot/
There’s the exchange in question. Quite a bit more than “a year or so back,” so Ihope you are much better in your field than you are at either remembering details or estimating time.
So, refresh yourself, and point to where I claimed to be an expert on climate (in fact, it was the exact opposite), or where I said you didn’t know anything on the subject. There is an available source to prove you are lying, and it just won’t go away.
Again, you made the debate challenge, so coordinating and paying for it is on you. I merely suggested a more level playing field than a self-proclaimed expert debating random bloggers.
I don’t even know who you are, other than someone with a PhD. There are a lot of those around, so let me know who you are, and your CV, and maybe I can see if there’s anyone actually interested in debating you. Otherwise, coordination is on you.
Now, if you refuse to coordinate a public debate on climate with experts from differing perspectives, then I guess there’s not much more to discuss, “shitstain.”
Still stalking me, SS? The offer is also extended to you to educate yourself. Check the thread, and you tell me who started with the debate challenge and the personal attacks. I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t me, sweetie.
For the sake of moving this forward, let’s say you are right on everything that has happened in the past.
Now lets look at what you wrote here:
“I called you on your bullying tactics, and asked if you’d like to debate real experts in the field that don’t support your opinions. Again, I never claimed to be an expert, but once I made the offer, you started demanding you get paid to take part, and that I had to coordinate the debate. I told you I’d supply the adversary, but you won’t get paid, and you had to coordinate, since the debate idea was yours. That’s when you ran away.”
This implies that you want to see someone debate me and that you will find “The adversary”. No Sid, I don’t get paid for such things — in the hundreds of talks I’ve given in my career, I’ve never been paid once. But you may well need to pay the adversary. I don’t know, but I cannot pay the adversary.
Now there are two courses of action for you:
1) Man up to your words and press the issue forward. This requires details.
2) Retreat as you have done in your dishonorable past.
What’ll it be?
So, you admit you lied? That position is supported in the original thread from three+ years ago. We can’t move forward until you clearly state that you lied, because you did.
It is, however, a little disturbing you, personally, cannot get beyond our encounter from 2009. What do you think that says about you? How many times a day have you thought about me since then? Do you talk about me in class? Do you talk about me with your colleagues? I’ll bet you do. In fact, I guarantee it.
So, you claim you don’t get paid to debate? Why did you demand money in the first encounter? It’s all in there, if you need the reminder. In fact, you specifically mentioned your budget for appearances. Where does that money originate? Even if you just wanted expenses, that’s still payment. Are you lying again, or just playing around with terminology?
Now, the original exchange, as I explained, and which you now concede is accurate, involved you challenging people to a debate. If you make the challenge, it’s up to you to coordinate. I didn’t start the debate talk. You did, and you now admit that is true. All I did was suggest a more compelling debate than you, a supposed expert, against some random blogger. I thought it might better challenge your “abilities.”
So, since the debate idea was yours to begin with, it is up to you to see it through. Or is that not how academics work?
Hey, remember back in ’09, when you challenged bloggers to a debate, then I suggested you debate other “experts” in your field, and you said you guys don’t actually debate? What was up with that? Now you guys do debate? How do you normally set those things up? Whatever is the process, do that.
Soooo, are you going to follow through with your original challenge, or are you going to run away again, like a scared little girl, mope around for another three+ years, then come back and hope history has changed? Those are really the only options available to you, “shitstain.”
Look Sid Maggot,
You lie like a child trying to avoid punishment. You are an incredibly dishonest person. It’s not just me saying that — the rest of the posters here seem to agree. You believe that half of this community is stalking you. Realistically, it might be that you behave like an asshole. Overall, your status here seems barely above BigT’s. Somebody needs to slap your parents.
I have given you a way forward. Take it or leave it. I am done wasting my time with a little plebe like yourself. Call me when you become important one day.
Again, about what am I being dishonest here? I’ve given you every opportunity to show me where I have been dishonest.
Show me the quote where I said, or even remotely implied, I was an expert on climate. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist, “shitstain.”
Show me the quote where I challenged you to a debate that came BEFORE your challenge of bloggers. You can’t, “shitstain.”
Show me a single thing that refutes ANYTHING I’ve said here. You can’t, “shitstain.”
Like I expected, you are running away, once again, like a scared little girl.
If you actually want to move forward from a fight you started (proven) that you have been stewing over for more than three years (so sad for you), then all you have to do is admit that my description of events is the accurate description (proven), and your fantasy as to how it transpired was either an intentional lie, or your invention out of your own fevered imagination because that’s how your little mind works.
Do that, and I will be happy to move forward, “shitstain.” (If anyone is actually reading this exchange, I only use the term “shitstain” because that is a term originally used in discussions here by ‘soid.)
I’m reading it Sid. It comes off like you’re the afraid little girl. You’ve been asked to man up, but you keep arguing over seemingly nothing. White noise!
I’m not really concerned what you think, CS. You’re little more than a leftist Obamabot, and everyone knows how I feel about them. I’ve raked you over the coals enough times that if I cured all cancers, you’d claim I only did it to make Barry look bad, and I should be condemned.
All I’m asking ‘soid to do is admit the truth. What’s wrong with that? You do support the truth, don’t you? The truth is he lied about our original exchange. If you don’t agree with that, then you don’t agree with reality. If you do agree, then encourage him to admit the truth. Otherwise, you look like all you ever do is attack me. Oh, wait, that is what you do. Never mind.
Oh, but watch what you say when you use terms like “white noise.” There’s some monumental idiot who visits this site that thinks you are using that term incorrectly. You’ve misapplied it here, as you aren’t very bright, but your intent was correct, so you aren’t as dumb as that ‘tard.
Sid, you are lying again. These are the verbatim words of Lundasoid that I found with your link:
“On a debate: if you can get someone local, I have the afternoon of December 16th free and Clemson will be past finals. If you cannot find someone local, then the onus is upon you to pay travel. I get only about $2000 a year of travel expenses and I have already committed it out this year. Do you have any candidates?”
How is this asking you to pay Lundasoid? He’s saying he can’t pay YOUR ADVERSARY!!!!!!
But he definitely called you a shitstain. From what I’ve seen, I can’t say I disagree with that designation.
Qualify “again.” Other than your tortured interpretation of this passage, where else was there a lie?
As for this claim of “lying,” if your interpretation of the passage is accurate, why didn’t Professor “shitstain” make that argument? Why would he rely on a nobody like you to make such a point?
My read was that if the debate was not the locals-only event he wanted, then travel expenses would have to be paid. That would cover either travel expenses for an opponent to him, or him to a non-local site. If I read that incorrectly, then I’ll concede that point. But that’s not “lying.” That’s simply a misunderstanding that Professor “shitstain” could have easily clarified, but did not.
Nonetheless, it is still his debate idea, not mine. Again, I suggested a contest that might be more compelling than an “expert” debating a couple of novice posters. If he wants a debate, which was his original challenge, it’s up to him to coordinate it. I don’t care if he debates people who post here, but since he waited more than three years to reopen this old, personal wound of his, I don’t know if any of the people he originally challenged are even around anymore. If he wants to revive his debate idea, though, then I still think he should make it more challenging than his original plan.
Now, since we’re tossing around the “lying” accusation, where did I say I am an “expert writer”? Or were you lying about that?
Also, now that you’ve admitted to reading the original exchange, I presume you agree that my account of it was correct, and Professor “shitstain” had either a senior moment, or was simply lying, right? I presume you confirm that he originally made the challenge of a debate, and that I NEVER even remotely implied I was an expert in his field? Thank you for your support.
I’m just saying I don’t see what you’ve insinuated. You’re accusing someone of lying. But when I read it, it seems you are the one gerrymandering the facts. And I have no dog in this fight.
Sidney,
1) Looks like you’re making more friends.
2) Looks like you’ve twisted my words. Did you work as a political spinner previously? Or is reading comprehension not your strong suite?
3) Shitstain will be your name. Thanks Drew.
4) I’ve given you a way to move things forward. Holler when you care to man up to your words.
Bye Shitstain
Do you not pay any attention, Professor “shitstain”? Your supporters here have been following my crazy antics for some time, and all initiated the personal attack approach, just like you. If that’s the quality of the company with which you wish to be associated, I guess that just confirms my analysis of you as an exceptionally thin-skinned blowhard.
But what words have I twisted, Professor “shitstain”? And do you consider twisting words more of a problem that your proven lying? Is that how it works with academics? They take offense when their words MIGHT have been misinterpreted (not proven, however), but they are fine with lying and presenting said lies as facts? No wonder a lot of people take a dim view of academics like you.
You need not thank Drew, Professor “shitstain.” You originated the term in our original exchange from 3+ years ago. I understand you may have forgotten (perhaps you’ve been told to take some anger management, and wish to put your volatile past behind you), but a true academic would have reviewed the link to our past exchange to see if he might learn from it. That should have reminded you. Or have you abandoned real research, and not bothered to review actual documentation?
Ultimately, though, it seems you are the one who needs to move on, Professor “shitstain.” You keep bringing up an encounter from 3+ years ago. One where it has been proven you initiated personal attacks, initiated a debate challenge, and backed out when it was suggested your debate should be between “experts,” rather than your suggested debate between an “expert” and a couple amateurs.
So, for 3+ years this thing has been sticking in your craw, Professor “shitstain”? Again, what rent do I owe you for the space I’ve been apparently occupying in your head for all this time? I’m not sure if you’ve even commented on FITS since our initial exchange, except to rehash this issue where you have been proven to be a liar. If that’s the case, and you only come here to engage me, why is that? What hold do I have over you? Whatever it is, I release you from it.
That said, if you still are interested in resolving this whole debate issue, Professor “shitstain,” just admit you lied (proven), admit that I never presented myself as an expert in your silly field (proven), admit that you initiated the debate challenge with posters here at FITS (proven), and admit that I never questioned your abilities in the field of climate studies (proven). I won’t even ask you to admit you backed out, as that can be open to interpretation. I still think you did, but I’m feeling generous today.
Your pal,
“Shitstain”
Drew, you cannot possibly be that dumb, so I’ll presume you are being intentional. I’ve spelled it out several times. Professor “shitstain” claimed I presented myself as an expert on climate. If you read the initial exchange, then you know that was a lie, plain and simple. In fact, I repeatedly said I am not an expert. He also claimed I questioned his abilities in the field. That’s another lie. I never questioned his abilities, and if you read the exchange, you would know that.
As for not having “a dog in this fight,” now who is lying? You are on record as not liking me, which is fine. I’m no fan of idiots or liars. You are obviously one of those, if not both. You may not have a position on climate issues, if that’s to what you are referring, but you have a position on me, so I’m your dog.
Shitstain Sid:
To respond to “But what words have I twisted, Professor “shitstain”?”
You said Lundasoid asked for money. I don’t see this either. Your statement is false. That means a lie. You also have some brouhaha with SparkelCity here, independent of this matter, where he calls you a liar and dishonorable.
Don’t worry. I still think your credibility is still slightly above BigT’s.
Not that you guys will ever be able to move beyond Sid’s need to be right, but if you have this event, can it be at UGA?
Sid:
You are dead wrong concerning my property and insinuating I was sucking on the government payroll to get what I have so fortunately and blessedly obtained.
I’ve been working my ass off and saving my money for well neigh 40 years. Since I only did 3 years on active duty that meant I pulled 22 years as a reservist which meant that not only did I work 40-60 hours per week on my civilian job,I served Uncle Sugar one weekend per month and usually 1 night per week staying current with my flying duties not to mention active duty for months on end during Gulf I, Bosnia, and Gulf II and every other active duty and training mission I was tasked to do from 1988 – 2010 when I retired. But I volunteered for it and wouldn’t change a thing. I loved what I did and miss it every day. Not the bad parts but the immense joy of flying and getting paid for it. In all honesty, I would have done it for free if Uncle Sugar had been too broke to pay me for the privilege and honor of flying.
As a matter of fact, I have not yet begun to receive my military retirement because obviously you have no idea how the military retirement system works if you are a reservist. You see, I’m 59 years old, I don’t start drawing my benefits until I reach 60 years of age.
So basically you are showing how big a dumb ass you really are.
Mind your own damn business concerning my personal affairs because you know absolutely nothing about me or how I make my living but attempt to imagine that you do.
As a rule ones that CLAIM NOT to be a racist are the ones who usually are.
My Lai??
I thought we covered that.
Tragedy, pure and simple and totally uncalled for. Not a good comparison unless you are referring to troops having the notion that every civilian was a potential enemy – which some were. No real time and a waste of band to discuss My Lai with the likes of someone like you in this type of forum.
If you want to come Spartanburg and buy me a beer at the Nu-Way sometime maybe we can talk about it face to face. There’s also a shooting club I belong to right off I-26. We can go there before we go to the Nu-Way. But it is hard to find ammo these days since all the dickheaded right wing-nut’ed horders have scarfed up every bit of ammunition though…………
I’d rather enjoy that myself.
I’m usually at the Nu-Way on Saturday’s around noon. I’ll be the guy reading the Spartanburg H/J and sipping on a PBR. It’s kinda my way of unwinding after a hard weeks work…….
It’s old school but it works for me.
Glad to know you weren’t career military, considering your racism and contempt for the Constitution. At least as it relates to American citizens and due process.
Appreciate the suggestion to not delve into your personal life, but when you bring it up, I’ll continue to delve. Hope you don’t mind, but I really don’t care if you do.
No, you never covered My Lai, but you already knew that. You call the rape and murder of countless women and children “totally uncalled for”? Really!? That’s really making a bold statement. No wonder you’re fine with Barry’s policy.
Thanks for the invite, but I doubt I’ll ever find myself in Spartanburg. And certainly not on a weekend. That’s family time. I’ll do my shooting with my wife and girls, thanks. Not sure why you can’t find ammo, though, unless you’re talking military rounds, and even that’s out there, if in limited amounts. Try actually looking.
You keep on bashing people you don’t know, though. It seems like it’s a good stress release for you.
To all FITS bloggers;
Well, I tried to reach out to “sid”
yep, some of you are right.
“sid” is a complete asshole
And a liar to boot.
Qualify “liar,” racist. And how, exactly, did you reach out? By asking me to subsidize your drinking? I believe reaching out would have involved you offering to buy me a drink. I don’t live anywhere near you, so if you were really reaching out, you might have considered something that might involve a little effort out of your lazy, racist ass.
@CS..old news ..most have known for years what a total arrogant asshole sid is..and fact free most of the time..dont let him get under your skin he is just screaming for attention as usual.. just look at how many posts he has on this one article alone..the guy has no life..dont let him get to ya.
@”sid”
By evidence of your postings/replies you have demonstrated to be a person of unhonorable and noncredible character with limited knowledge of world and military affairs while presenting youreslf as a pseudo-intellectual(a somewhat juvenile one at that).
The tone of your replies is unbecoming of a grown man(if indeed that is what you are).
One final thing: It’s President Barrack Obama (not “Barry”) asshole.
He won fair and square (without my vote BTW) and will be president for the next 3 years.
Get over it.
So, nothing to qualify “liar,” sc? Just as I thought. Personally, I feel you must exhibit a modicum of honor in order to judge it. Thus far, I have yet to see that out of you. Your knowledge of world affairs, similarly, seems rather limited, but you’ve likely heard that before. As for “juvenile,” this coming from the “man” whose fall-back comment seems to be something in the realm of complaining about “dickheaded right wing-nutted horders.” Very mature.
In closing, Barry is what lots of people call him. When I met him before he was President, and before he was even US Senator, I recall quite a few people calling him Barry. I’ll keep calling him that for the next FOUR years of his term, racist.
Let’s see….
8 Feb 2013 – ~20 January 2017 AIN’T 4 years. 3 years,11 months and change but definately NOT 4 years.
Looks like you suck at math in addition to lying about your credentials,your pseudo-intellectual facade concerning world and military affairs and generally coming across as an asshole.
As some are posting, this is definately getting away from the subject of what is legal (or illegal) when it comes to snuffing out individuals who REALLY desire to do harm to the United States of America. It is obvious where I stand and my motitations for my position are based on personal experiences.
I will spare FITS readers/posters any further “grade school playlot” exchanges between myself and that cretin “sid”.
Definitely NOT 3 years, either. It is much more than 3 years. It is a fact that it is FAR closer to four years than three. So, it is a matter of perspective, but from my perspective, it is 4 years. Apparently, from Barry’s perspective, too:
“And over the next four years as I work with this caucus and every caucus, the question I will ask myself on every item, every issue is, is this helping to make sure that everybody has got a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same rules.”
That’s taken from remarks he made yesterday. So, if it’s good enough for Barry to say four, it’s good enough for me. Why isn’t it good enough for you? He’s President, you know, in spite of your claim to have not voted for him, so get over it.
Still nothing to back up your claim of “lying,” though? Sounds like you are the liar, if you ask me. And a racist.
“It is obvious where I stand and my motitations for my position are based on personal experiences.”
Personal, racist experiences, it would seem to me.
In a nutshell, you are fine with Barry making policy that allows a 16-year-old American citizen to be executed because his father is a scumbag. I am not. Ultimately, I guess we’ll see where the rest of America stands on the issue, but so far, it’s not looking so good for you and Barry.
Hitler and his followers had the same rationalization as this president has when it comes taking away basic constitutional rights.
I say he’ll no mr. president we will not drink the Kool-aid because you say it is good for us!
A few points to remember with regard to the administration’s rationale for this program – The criteria for drone attacks are not sustainable; the administration has set up criteria that it cannot and does not meet with this program:
Imminent Threat – We can’t know if a threat is imminent, so we can’t meet this first threshold. We don’t wait until a threat is imminent to launch a drone strike because we simply cannot know that it is; thus, we are always acting in advance of a theoretical threat. We have already marked people as targets. “Signature strikes” target people who “appear” to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists “tend” do – that’s a pretty low bar for an execution and one that would never hold up in an American court, yet this is the rationale for killing American citizens.
Capture is Infeasible – We don’t want to try to actually capture these people because that would mean putting U.S. Special Forces or other U.S. troops in harm’s way, so we don’t try – we use drones instead.
Last Resort – We actually launch drone strikes often as a first or middle resort precisely because we don’t know what the timing of these supposed “imminent threats” might be.
Thus, the administration has a policy, outlined in the Justice Department’s memo, that it violates all the time. The policy simply does not bear scrutiny.
Yeesh, what is this thread devolving into?
Sid v. some guys who don’t like him. I tried to get it back on track above…
Don’t blame me. I’ve been talking about the policy, and how it apparently led to a 16-year-old American citizen being executed for doing little more, it seems, than having a POS dad. Some trolls/stalkers want to come in to take the topic elsewhere, I’m happy to oblige. But I’ve tried to keep it on topic.
Amy..sid has not a friend nor an ounce of respect as he presents himself as a arrogant condescending douche bag to the highest degree..the hypocrisy he displays is mind boggling. Dont let his type gt ya down.
Sid, I agree with your points about the 16 year old American boy. That is an excellent example of why this policy is so wrong.
I don’t think Amy needs, or wants, your help, CS. You are little more than an annoying gnat that has never offered a single original thought. All you ever contribute is pointless LOLs and praise for leftist posters. Try actually commenting on a topic, rather than following me around like a little puppy.
CS,
None of the commenters on here get me down. I appreciate you reading and discussing my work.
Not sure he/she has actually read your work, and I seriously doubt he/she has ever commented on its quality or content. That’s a little above her/his abilities.
Ms. Lazenby;
I have carefully read you excellent article a number of times.
All I can honestly say is when it comes to that part of the world, sometimes it is better to be feared than loved.
Unless you advocate we develope a posture such as Sweden or Switzerland (which is OK with me) and develop true no BS energy independence (which I have been advocating since the Yom Kippur War of 1973) We will have to face the situation in one part of that world or another for a long time to come. And sadly deal with it in the matter we are presently pursuing.
In my opinion your article (as good as it is) is politically motivated.
Although you write that no matter who is was,is or will be president this is cause for concern (and I agree it is for American citizens who have not sworn to destroy the United States). But these are individuals who are no longer American citizens.
Would you have written this article if a conservative was president at the moment? I don’t have a history of your articles but if you wrote similar articles conderning the lack of due process of the American citizens (and other foreigh citizens) captured and imprisioned without due process during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 (I was there) please let me know.
The death of an innocent 16 year old American boy as a result of a “drone” attack is indeed tragic but you must acknowledge that ALL innocent lives killed as a result of these actions are equally tragic as well but you offer no solution except to point out that this may or may not be illegal as it pertains to someone’s lack of “due process”
The sad reality is that this will continue to occur until we either prevail against the war on terrorism or fail to do so.
At present, it appears what we are following the only logical course available with the resources we possess. Unless you propose that Western civilization colonize the entire Middle East and parts of Africa but that didn’t work too well during the Crusades but communication and logistics have improved a bit since those days………
Whether it is legal or illegal is purely academic in my humble opinion.
From SparkleCity:
“Would you have written this article if a conservative was president at the moment?”
Yes. From the article: “Has our national consciousness become so entrenched in this ‘war on terror’ that we have been lulled into believing that the extrajudicial killing of American citizens – just because the president says so – is a necessary evil? It is not, nor should it ever be. Not under this president, not under the previous one, and not under the next one.”
The previous one was a conservative.
“I don’t have a history of your articles but if you wrote similar articles conderning the lack of due process of the American citizens (and other foreigh citizens) captured and imprisioned without due process during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 (I was there) please let me know.”
I wasn’t writing in 2002, but I take issue with the lack of due process for American citizens whenever and wherever it occurs. Thank you for your service, but it does not make your argument any more or less relevant than mine.
Thank you for your kind words about my piece, but it is not politically motivated. It is my personal conviction.
After rereading the comments in their order of presentation, there is every reason to blame Sid. The dude has Aspergers.
BTW, I’m not cool with the drone strikes.
Awww, sweetie, it’s cute that you still can’t get enough of me. Unfortunately, you came late to the party, as this thread actually started in comments on the previous drone story, where sc started us all down the path of personal attacks.
Honestly, I enjoy these exchanges, as I end up geting more out of folks than they might be otherwise willing to openly admit. But I am never the one to start with the personal jabs, unless there’s already a history between me and someone posting. You know, like you, who just loves to follow my crazy antics.
Glad to see you are at least on the right side of the drone issue. This discussion has been going on for a couple days, and I don’t think you ever made you views known, so if it took my responding to personal attacks with my own personal attacks in order to get you to speak up, then I guess that’s a good thing. Yay for me!
Oh, and if you’re going to use blog posts to diagnose who has Asperger’s Syndrome, sweetie, you’re going to have to affix that label to about 98% of the people who post here, including yourself.
I think this piece is a diversion. The companies that make drones pay their engineers and executive’s over 400,000 a year. We the people are taxing them at a higher rate thanks to the roll back of the Bush Tax Cuts.
The companies that make drones are run by Democrats. They work hard to create the jobs Americans are not skilled at. This opens up real job opportunities for immigrants to come to America for a new beginning.
The companies that make these drones are defense contractors. They are hiring gays, the disabled, and women. In fact, there are woman on the boards of directors. They should not be asked to lay off employees because Republicans play politics with our nation’s debt.
The companies that make drones are unionized. This is another attack against working families.
I think you are just another angry white woman in the far left tea (tax ’em again) party wing of the democrat party. You are just a racist because Obama won. Get over it.
“You are just a racist because Obama won. Get over it.”
I voted for Obama.
It is doubtful drones have been misused to date, but with the current policy that is certainly possible.
Pay no attention to those who refer to the President as Barry, as they have an agenda, and their arguments are designed to support their agenda. If their agenda changes their arguments will change. They really do not care about the topic they care about attacking the President.
The current policy could be easily fixed and should be. Congress should intervene and should set up a procedure for approving drone strikes. This procedure could involve designated representatives of the White House, the Pentagon, and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
That procedure will by its nature involve secrecy, and because of the necessity of speed, cannot involve what most Americans would expect in the way of due process before being killed by a police officer. American citizens who interact with Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations or even other nations who are acting against the United States must accept most of the responsibility for the risk they place themselves in, and yes the risk they place their family in. If I choose to meet with a member of a terrorist organization, I had better clear that with the appropriate authorities first, and if I do not I should know I will become a suspected terrorist, and my due process rights will thereby be deminished significantly and by my own actions.
Our Special Forces should not be asked to risk their life to capture person who is engaging with known terrorists, unless our nation could benefit from their capture. Just because they are a US citizen should not require other US citizens to risk their lives to capture them.
As with most things disclosure of risk is the key. Once you know meeting with terrorists puts your life at risk, and that other Americans are not going to put their life at risk to protect your life, res ipsa loquitur.
With you 100% on the “Barry” calling. You can see through that kind of agenda/BS like looking through cheese cloth.
And obviously we are on the same page when it comes to an individual deciding to join or associate with a terrorist organization or acting individually and the consequences of their actions which might tragically involve their family if they are so inclined to have them accompany them.
But I do have to disagree with a “secret committee” concept.
Wars(and this is indeed a war fought in the shadows across the globe) are not fought and won by committee rule.
Ossama Bin Laden might still be alive if the plan had been run by congress for approval prior to the operation.
Some things/instances require executive action. And the buck stops there if it goes wrong. Sadly that has happened on occassion. Perhaps more often than not.
Yes perhaps we should put something on the back of every international ticket, Like.
TO ALL AMERICANS TRAVELING ABROAD. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A TERRORIST MAY RESULT IN YOUR BEING IN UNCOMFORTABLY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A HELLFIRE MISSLE WHEN IT EXPOLDES. WE REGRET THIS INCONVENIENCE.
lol @ Jan. Funny.
This in from MSNBC:
Chris Matthews reported on his show approx. 78% of viewers of “The Ed Show” were in favor of the status quo of snuffing anyone (INCLUDING United States citizens) who had joined a terrorist organization or was an individual acting along the same lines.
Matthews expressed surprise that the percentage was so high among “progressives”.
I’m not surprised at all.
Looks like common sense will prevail in spite of folks who don’t understand the threat.
Again, you haven’t a clue as to what was being discussed. But the fact that you watch such programming reveals quite a bit about you. A liberal citing MSNCBC is about as unbiased as a conservative citing FoxNews.
So, what terrorist organization did the 16-year-old American citizen Barry had executed join? What “proof” must be supplied to show any American citizen has joined a terrorist group before Barry says he or she can be executed? What oversight is in place to ensure American citizens are not executed by mistake, or based on bad intel? Is using bad intel for the purpose of executing American citizens OK with you? I thought that was the problem with what got us into Iraq? Is some bad intel good, while other is not?
Sounds like you are just making excuses for Barry. I’m beginning to think you actually did vote for him.
Sid, you are lying again. These are the verbatim words of Lundasoid that I found with your link:
“On a debate: if you can get someone local, I have the afternoon of December 16th free and Clemson will be past finals. If you cannot find someone local, then the onus is upon you to pay travel. I get only about $2000 a year of travel expenses and I have already committed it out this year. Do you have any candidates?”
How is this asking you to pay Lundasoid?
But he definitely called you a shitstain. From what I’ve seen, I can’t say I disagree with that designation.
Shitstain Sid:
To respond to “But what words have I twisted, Professor “shitstain”?”
You said Lundasoid asked for money. I don’t see this either. Your statement is false. That means a lie. You also have some brouhaha with SparkelCity here, independent of this matter, where he calls you a liar and dishonorable.
Don’t worry. I still think your credibility is still slightly above BigT’s.
Not that you guys will ever be able to move beyond Sid’s need to be right, but if you have this event, can it be at UGA?
Sweetie, you aren’t exactly a neutral source, are you? I’d consider your comments about me in the same way some other posterapparently considers any comment that refers to Barry.Nonetheless, you may see Professor “shitstain’s” comment one way, but I see it another. And the fact that he never bothered to raise the defense you and Drew offered tells me it’s not so clear. Ultimately, though, the whole issue starts with Professor “shitstain” lying about an encounter that is 3+ years old
In this case Sid, you are either a liar or have reading comprehension issues. It seems that Lundasoid is a Clemson Professor. How could he ask for travel expenses to have a debate at Clemson? You twist things to make it seem that you’re right, but its hardly reality.
I guess pigs like you have difficulty with simple concepts, but the idea was Professor “shitstain” would have to travel to a debate that was NOT at Clemson. Get it? Not sure why even the simplest concepts escape you, but I guess I really don’t care, either.
So, I MAY have misunderstood Professor “shitstain,” but he DEFINITELY lied about me claiming to be an expert on climate and questioning his knowledge of the subject. Unfortunately, you are way too fixated on me to accept those simple facts. Again, I don’t do pigs, so stop trying so hard.
I am indeed a professor from Clemson. Sid’s comments about me being asked to get paid travel crack me up, especially since I volunteered to host at Clemson. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever remotely insinuated that a cretin like Shitstain Sid knows anything about climate. In fact, that was rather the whole point of the discussion.
“SparkleCity, Sid sold himself as an expert on the topic (climate) a year or so back.”
You can’t, apparently, keep your lies straight, Professor “shitstain.” Nobody suggested you insinuated I know about climate. The allegation was that you claimed I said I was an expert. That is a complete lie, of which you are aware. Hell, I never said a thing about climate. I talked about you. That’s a subject I probably know better than yourself.
Furthermore, you made the debate challenge, and when I suggested it be between you and others in your field, you backed out by demanding I organize it. Why would I organize it to be convenient to you, if I were to organize? I would make it convenient to me, which would not involve Clempsun. Thus, travel.
Nonetheless, your lies are really stacking up. I think, in your ‘soid-centric world, you have completely lost track of “the whole point of the discussion.”
Yes, you made statements that implied you were in the know on the topic of climate change. I corrected some of the things you said, which took a very anti-science Republican stance. I think we all agree that you don’t know jack shit about much, Sid, including climate change.
Now move forward! You have this stubborn streak that is oh so annoying.
You have the link to the original exchange, Professor “shitstain.” Provide the quotes where I “implied” I was “in the know on the topic of climate change.” Also, provide the quotes where you “corrected some of the things [I] said.” Failure to do both would simply be more proof that you are, indeed, lying.
We cannot possibly “move forward” until you either admit you have lied, or provide the proof that I “sold [myself] as an expert on the topic (climate) a year or so back.” We already know your timing is way off.
Ultimately, though, it seems it is you who needs to get beyond the pain you continue to feel from our encounter of more than three years back. You keep bringing it up, not me.
Cant play with you now SSS (Suite Shitstain Sidney). I don’t judge you to be worthy of my time and I’ve got more pressing matters. It’s okay…I’m sure your battles with Sarah Sez, Sparklecity, Carl Spackler, Smirks, etc. will rage on. You might want to see someone about that Aspergers.
That’s OK, Professor “shitstain,” as I would expect nothing less from you. If you had not run away like a scared little girl I would have been surprised.
I only hope you do a better job of defending your views in your field than you do here. I doubt if a colleague gave you one of your old papers and asked you to explain your errors you would attack them personally. Then again…
Sweetie, you aren’t exactly a neutral source, are you? I’d consider your comments about me in the same way some other posterapparently considers any comment that refers to Barry.Nonetheless, you may see Professor “shitstain’s” comment one way, but I see it another. And the fact that he never bothered to raise the defense you and Drew offered tells me it’s not so clear. Ultimately, though, the whole issue starts with Professor “shitstain” lying about an encounter that is 3+ years old
In this case Sid, you are either a liar or have reading comprehension issues. It seems that Lundasoid is a Clemson Professor. How could he ask for travel expenses to have a debate at Clemson? You twist things to make it seem that you’re right, but its hardly reality.
I guess pigs like you have difficulty with simple concepts, but the idea was Professor “shitstain” would have to travel to a debate that was NOT at Clemson. Get it? Not sure why even the simplest concepts escape you, but I guess I really don’t care, either.
So, I MAY have misunderstood Professor “shitstain,” but he DEFINITELY lied about me claiming to be an expert on climate and questioning his knowledge of the subject. Unfortunately, you are way too fixated on me to accept those simple facts. Again, I don’t do pigs, so stop trying so hard.
I am indeed a professor from Clemson. Sid’s comments about me being asked to get paid travel crack me up, especially since I volunteered to host at Clemson. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever remotely insinuated that a cretin like Shitstain Sid knows anything about climate. In fact, that was rather the whole point of the discussion.
“SparkleCity, Sid sold himself as an expert on the topic (climate) a year or so back.”
You can’t, apparently, keep your lies straight, Professor “shitstain.” Nobody suggested you insinuated I know about climate. The allegation was that you claimed I said I was an expert. That is a complete lie, of which you are aware. Hell, I never said a thing about climate. I talked about you. That’s a subject I probably know better than yourself.
Furthermore, you made the debate challenge, and when I suggested it be between you and others in your field, you backed out by demanding I organize it. Why would I organize it to be convenient to you, if I were to organize? I would make it convenient to me, which would not involve Clempsun. Thus, travel.
Nonetheless, your lies are really stacking up. I think, in your ‘soid-centric world, you have completely lost track of “the whole point of the discussion.”
Yes, you made statements that implied you were in the know on the topic of climate change. I corrected some of the things you said, which took a very anti-science Republican stance. I think we all agree that you don’t know jack shit about much, Sid, including climate change.
Now move forward! You have this stubborn streak that is oh so annoying.
You have the link to the original exchange, Professor “shitstain.” Provide the quotes where I “implied” I was “in the know on the topic of climate change.” Also, provide the quotes where you “corrected some of the things [I] said.” Failure to do both would simply be more proof that you are, indeed, lying.
We cannot possibly “move forward” until you either admit you have lied, or provide the proof that I “sold [myself] as an expert on the topic (climate) a year or so back.” We already know your timing is way off.
Ultimately, though, it seems it is you who needs to get beyond the pain you continue to feel from our encounter of more than three years back. You keep bringing it up, not me.
Cant play with you now SSS (Suite Shitstain Sidney). I don’t judge you to be worthy of my time and I’ve got more pressing matters. It’s okay…I’m sure your battles with Sarah Sez, Sparklecity, Carl Spackler, Smirks, etc. will rage on. You might want to see someone about that Aspergers.
That’s OK, Professor “shitstain,” as I would expect nothing less from you. If you had not run away like a scared little girl I would have been surprised.
I only hope you do a better job of defending your views in your field than you do here. I doubt if a colleague gave you one of your old papers and asked you to explain your errors you would attack them personally. Then again…