Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
Judge Andrew Napolitano declared that 2/3rds of Americans are identified as potential terrorists under DHS and DoJ documents. Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Pro-life, bumper stickers, third party supporters, anti-UN, anti-government dissidents, etc.
.
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
Judge Andrew Napolitano declared that 2/3rds of Americans are identified as potential terrorists under DHS and DoJ documents. Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Pro-life, bumper stickers, third party supporters, anti-UN, anti-government dissidents, etc.
.
"Judge" Napolitano says things like that because people like you eat that shit up.
Judge Andrew Napolitano declared that 2/3rds of Americans are identified as potential terrorists under DHS and DoJ documents. Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Pro-life, bumper stickers, third party supporters, anti-UN, anti-government dissidents, etc.
.
"Judge" Napolitano says things like that because people like you eat that shit up.
I've read all the documents and posted them on this board already. You have no knowledge.
.
That is not what the government said, kiddo, try again. You reactionaries do not get a free pass any more than do the NBPP.
The overwhelming majority of drone strikes are used against NON-COMBATANT targets either eating dinner in their house or in a cafe or walking down the street.
So how is this fictional or hypothetical? If we're going to start using drones WITHIN the United States, we should be able to ask whether or not we're going to use them the same way we use them in foreign territory, since that's the only historical model of drone use that we can base on observations on.
Also, the amount of time and pressure it took to release this answer, implies that they originally intended to use drones in the United States the exact same way they use them overseas.
Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.
Now let's not stop here, and get to the NDAA and the Patriot Act and draw the same amount of attention. I'd rather be dead than jailed for life without due process, because I was declared a terrorist for helping organize Occupy Wall Street.
FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
This is the Catch-22 about nonsensical things like this.
You guys scream and yell that Obama is going to kill us with drones, and then when he says "No, I won't", you guys scream and yell that you stopped him.
Actually, I don't think the Obama Administration was ever going to kill American citizens with drones. What I feared was FUTURE President's, like King George the Decider.
I voted for Obama twice, did you? I'd vote for him a third time if possible. Would you?
I did NOT vote for Obama either time. And he's not going to run for a third term, so that's a moot point.
Fixed your quotes, too.
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
Judge Andrew Napolitano declared that 2/3rds of Americans are identified as potential terrorists under DHS and DoJ documents. Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Pro-life, bumper stickers, third party supporters, anti-UN, anti-government dissidents, etc.
.
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?
The SPLC has pretty much named everyone who isn't an Obama supporter as a threat.
Among their other purposes, drones have been used to target combatants, primarily in Iraq, Adghanistan and Yemen who pose an imminent threat, while not putting American lives at risk. Presumably Rand Paul's "filibuster" was in response to the 2 Americans killed in Yemen by a joint CIA and U.S. military operation.McCain, Graham assail Rand Paul on targeted killings policy
March 5, 2013.
..... joined Paul during his filibuster to show their support for his demand that President Barack Obama explicitly say whether he thinks he has the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was a noncombatant and posed no imminent threat of an attack .....
Graham scoffed at Paul’s question about whether Obama thinks he has the authority to kill a noncombatant American citizen on U.S. soil.
“I find the question offensive,” Graham said Thursday on the Senate floor. “As much I disagree with President Obama and as much as I support past presidents, I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Paul’s question, the South Carolina Republican said, “cheapens the debate.”
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...gs-policy?lite
P1: The U.S. drone bombs people at weddings in the Middle East, a place we treat as a battlefield.
P2: The Federal government defines the U.S. as a battlefield under the laws of war, no due process.
C: The Federal government has created a framework that allows drone strikes in America against non-combatants.
.
P1: The U.S. drone bombs people at weddings in the Middle East, a place we treat as a battlefield.
P2: The Federal government defines the U.S. as a battlefield under the laws of war, no due process.
C: The Federal government has created a framework that allows drone strikes in America against non-combatants.
.
Wrong........................it's bullshit unless you can provide direct quotes to the actual document.
Otherwise, you're just another fear monger like the rest of the Tea Party and the GOP.
If they can't scare you, you won't vote..........................
P1: The U.S. drone bombs people at weddings in the Middle East, a place we treat as a battlefield.
P2: The Federal government defines the U.S. as a battlefield under the laws of war, no due process.
C: The Federal government has created a framework that allows drone strikes in America against non-combatants.
.
Wrong........................it's bullshit unless you can provide direct quotes to the actual document.
Otherwise, you're just another fear monger like the rest of the Tea Party and the GOP.
If they can't scare you, you won't vote..........................
You have no knowledge. You are utterly clueless. Don't call information bullshit if you haven't researched jack shit.
US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk
Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law ? RT USA
"We were in the middle of our discussion when the missile hit and I was thrown about 24 feet from where I was sitting. I was knocked unconscious and when I awoke I saw many individuals who were dead or injured, he says in his affidavit."
CIA Drone Killing of Non-Combatants Detailed in British Court (Woods) | Informed Comment
.
The overwhelming majority of drone strikes are used against NON-COMBATANT targets either eating dinner in their house or in a cafe or walking down the street.
So how is this fictional or hypothetical? If we're going to start using drones WITHIN the United States, we should be able to ask whether or not we're going to use them the same way we use them in foreign territory, since that's the only historical model of drone use that we can base on observations on.
Also, the amount of time and pressure it took to release this answer, implies that they originally intended to use drones in the United States the exact same way they use them overseas.
Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.
Now let's not stop here, and get to the NDAA and the Patriot Act and draw the same amount of attention. I'd rather be dead than jailed for life without due process, because I was declared a terrorist for helping organize Occupy Wall Street.
FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
P1: The U.S. drone bombs people at weddings in the Middle East, a place we treat as a battlefield.
P2: The Federal government defines the U.S. as a battlefield under the laws of war, no due process.
C: The Federal government has created a framework that allows drone strikes in America against non-combatants.
.
Wrong........................it's bullshit unless you can provide direct quotes to the actual document.
Otherwise, you're just another fear monger like the rest of the Tea Party and the GOP.
If they can't scare you, you won't vote..........................
You have no knowledge. You are utterly clueless. Don't call information bullshit if you haven't researched jack shit.
US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk
Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law ? RT USA
"We were in the middle of our discussion when the missile hit and I was thrown about 24 feet from where I was sitting. I was knocked unconscious and when I awoke I saw many individuals who were dead or injured, he says in his affidavit."
CIA Drone Killing of Non-Combatants Detailed in British Court (Woods) | Informed Comment
.
