White House: Drone Strikes ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical’ And ‘Wise’

[ProSense]

White House: Drone Strikes ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical’ And ‘Wise’

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday addressed American drone strikes used to target enemies, after a memo outlining the legal basis for the U.S. to target American citizens who are senior al-Qaeda leaders was made public. Carney said President Obama takes his national security responsibilities "very seriously."

"These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise," Carney said. The government takes "great care" when deciding where and whom to strike, he added.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-drone-strikes-legal-ethical-wise

[mike_c]

1. atrocity....

eom

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. yep.

[840high]

37. Yes.

[Octafish]

115. War Crime

Especially when sending in the follow-up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12

[JaneyVee]

2. Whatever is making them legal should expire with the end of war.

[HiPointDem]

33. we're not at war, so how can it 'end'?

[amandabeech]

40. That's one of the big problems.

1984 anyone?

[JaneyVee]

53. In 2014.

[HiPointDem]

54. got the inside dope, do ya?

[JaneyVee]

56. Yes.

[HiPointDem]

58. oh, do tell!!! from who did you get it????

[JaneyVee]

61. If I told you I'd have to drone you.

[HiPointDem]

67. actually, i don't believe you, so i don't care.

[JaneyVee]

74. It was a joke, I don't really possess a drone.

But yeah, the resolution should be dismantled upon completion of the 2014 timeline.

[jeff47]

79. We are at war.

Congress passed a resolution allowing warfare against "terrorists aligned with Al-Queda".

Yep, it's massively over-broad and has no end condition. But it's there.

[HiPointDem]

83. war is a fight between parties within a state or states. not between a state & 'terrorists'.

furthermore, 'allowing warfare' isn't a declaration of war.

furthermore, al-qaeda -- who is that?

who funds that? it's either states, factions within states, or monied interests. who are they?

furthermore, in the last 12 years, where are the acts of terrorism on US soil?

funny kind of 'terrorism'.

[jeff47]

86. For some reason, Congress has preferred these non-declarations of war since the 50s.

I have no idea why, but that's how we fought the Vietnam War, both wars with Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

And yes, the resolution is rather absurd. But it's still there. As long as there's a reasonable claim that the person is a "terrorist aligned with Al-Queda", then Congress says we're at war with them.

[Marr]

88. It's because we've been an imperial power since the 50's.

We haven't actually had another nation to fight-- with one or two exceptions. Our military actions for the last half a century have been about invading and occupying, mostly at the behest of big business.

[HiPointDem]

91. of course it's absurd: a state doesn't go to war with individuals. the war is then everywhere and

nowhere; it has no beginning and no end.

in orwellian terms, it's perfect.

no, there was no declaration of war in vietnam; however, there was a well-defined enemy inhabiting a defined territory and the war had a fairly clear goal: to extract surrender from the north vietnamese and keep them out of the south.

what's the goal in the war on terrorists?

how do we know when we win (or lose) this war?

what's the prize we're fighting over?

there's no answer.

perfect for endless war and endless repression.

also, i believe the resolution you're talking about was specific to the terrorists who did 911, not the entire universe of terrorists.

[jeff47]

94. No, it's not the universe, just those "aligned with Al-Queda".

So the ones that attacked us recently in Turkey, for example, aren't covered.

[HiPointDem]

98. and those individuals can be anywhere, and be used to justify anything.

[jeff47]

99. Pretty much, yeah.

Almost like Congress rushing in to "DO SOMETHING!!!!!" right after 9/11 was a bad idea....

[MoonRiver]

123. What war???

That was a bush meme. I thought it would go out of office with the dimwit.

[quinnox]

3. glad they cleared that up

The final word has been given. Case closed. (Do I really need the sarcasm icon??)

[jberryhill]

5. It is far from the final word

It would b nice if we had a functioning Congress willing to step up and draw up some rules.

Part of the problem is lack of definition and standards, and unkown oversight.

[randome]

13. It was Congress who gave the Executive Branch unlimited power.

They need to take that power back but they are currently too cowardly to do so.

[KakistocracyHater]

112. and what about the Judicial Branch? can they review

this or the 2001 wreck that 'allows' such claims?

[amandabeech]

41. Seven or eight Dems and three Reps at least want to see the full

legal briefs backing up this memo.

Three of them are on the senate committee looking at Hagel's nomination.

I applaud each and every one of them without regard to party.

[NightWatcher]

4. I'm not worried about a drone strike on my place

I donated to Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns. 😎

[msongs]

6. sounds like he is quoting bush and cheney nt

[Bonobo]

7. The question is one of power and accountability. Period. nt

[WillyT]

8. Yeah... Huh ???

[FarCenter]

9. If an American citizen is killed in a foreign country, it is up to that country to prosecute

It's generally not within the US' legal jurisdiction.

So, for example, if an American affiliated with Al Qaeda kills an American in Nicosia, it is a crime in Cyprus.

The American affiliated with Al Qaeda is not suject to trial in an American court. Therefore, retalliation against that person must necessarily be extra-judicial, unless the person is captured and tried in Cypriot court.

[Enrique]

10. link to the whole briefing

quite a few questions about this topic

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/05/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-2513

[Bonobo]

11. San Marcos President: "Underwear will be worn on the outside"

Also, all children under 16 years old are now 16 years old.

[Democracyinkind]

126. I've gained quite some respect for you based on your replies on this topic

Now you even turn out to be funny. Thanks for your contributions, they make me fee a little less out of place...

[liberalmuse]

12. I think not.

I guess the White House has made a statement on this. Ethical, my godless, commie, liberal-loving ass.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Bullshit.

The King President as judge, jury, and executioner is none of those things. But he'll get away with it like GWB did and in 5 years he'll be golfing with Mitt Romney and starting a foundation with Neil Bush.

[CrispyQ]

15. I feel so much better about it all now.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Well, if Jay the Carney says so...

Black is white, up is down, war is peace... We've become a rotting, self-deceiving evil.

[libdem4life]

18. US Incursions on Foreign Soil – 188 and counting - Why? Because We Can.

Empire is not a game of "defense" any more than it is Democratic or Republican; Black or White; Left or Right.

Just a cursory glance down the countries the US has "incurred" upon does not appear that many of them threatened our "freedom"...just happened to stand in the way of our global march to supremecy.
http://www.veteransunitedfortruth.org/uploads/3/1/1/6/3116998/10_us_incursions_on_foreign_soil.pdf

[randome]

19. We already own the world. In unmatched power and finances.

The world functions based on the American dollar.

We get little if anything out of our invasions of other countries. For most of them we are there at the native government's request. For others, it really is an attempt to stop terrorist groups from functioning.

I'm not saying that everything the American government does is sacrosanct but I don't see any evidence that we are simply a power-hungry monster trying to own the world since...we pretty much already do.

[MadHound]

21. Wow, are you truly that naive?

Do you truly live in a rosy tinted bubble that prevents you from seeing what has, and is, going on.

That is really, really sad.

Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, the list is endless.

Geez, wake up, please.

[randome]

24. I'm talking about current world events.

The countries we are in now are not adding anything to our 'empire'.

[MadHound]

25. Again, are you that naive?

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/OB01Ad01.html
http://labornotes.org/blogs/2013/01/us-intervention-el-salvador-privatization-time
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That is but the tip of the iceberg. Wake up and inform yourself.

[libdem4life]

31. What are we doing in these countries at all...that alone adds to Empire

The current exudes from the past...The List...and this thread is about dropping drones, FFS, on people wherever, whenever, however...betting those experiencing these drones dropping bombs on their homes and villages think we are adding to our Empire.

[libdem4life]

29. You make my point...just took 188 little wars...how does one think we

accomplished this Feat of American Empire which is the owning of the world...the currency, the power, the finances? Naked agression.

Starting civil wars or taking sides in a civil war, eliminating the side we don't like and empowering the side we do like...with foreign aid, military bases, etc. In stead of the old fashioned taking of tribute via taxes, we take their oil or pipeline land or whatever else they have that we need.

Cozy little game of Risk via the The "Defense" Department.

[KoKo]

20. What else could he say...he's the Pres's Press Secretary...

[MadHound]

22. Jay Carney, unintentional court jester.

All he needs is the multipointed hat with bells on it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Wow. You ran it up the flagpole and people shot at it. No surprise there.

Add my bullet to the bunch.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Legal, yes, but ethical and wise are a bit of a stretch.

[amandabeech]

44. I'm a lawyer and I'm not yet persuaded that it is legal.

There are other lawyers on DU who are also unpersuaded.

I suggest that you keep an open mind.

None of us are on the Obama payroll.

[Agnosticsherbet]

49. This thread covers my reasons for considering it legal...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318795

Congress specifically gave Presidents the authority to kill individuals by whatever means necessary in the authorization. I do have an open mind, well except for it being ethical and wise.

[amandabeech]

59. Congress often makes laws that are found to be unconstitutional.

I have seen no authority that states that the particular law that Congress passed here is Constitutional, in this situation or any other.

If you have a cite to a Supreme Court case, I'll reconsider.

BTY, it seems that my posts here have provoked a rather coordinated response.

I'm just a low volume poster here on DU.

Of what are you afraid and with whom are you allied?

[jeff47]

81. Which part of the Constitution says the Constitution applies outside US jurisdiction?

As long as the people getting killed are not under US jurisdiction, it falls under the Executive branch's near absolute power in foreign affairs.

Assassinations are legal. The only thing stopping them (publicly) is an Executive Order signed by Ford.

[amandabeech]

89. You assume that the executive branch has the last say on what the Constitution and its Amendments

mean.

That couldn't be more wrong. It is the Surpreme Court that has the last word, and that has been the case since Marbury v. Madison.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Extra-judicial executions R Us! - n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

28. A lot of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were also 'legal' according

to then-current German law.

Whatever.

America the democratic republic (emphasis on lower-case 'd' and 'r') was a great idea whose time has now sadly passed.

[TheProgressive]

30. We are not at 'war' with anybody.

Authorization of Force is not Constitutional.

Ethical? No, killing people with drones without a declaration of war is *illegal*.

It is murder.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Criminal, abhorrent, and stupidly short sighted.

[gholtron]

34. This is what the Constitution says about Treason

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

These Americans commited Treason.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/well-known-homegrown-terrorists/story-fnd134gw-1226571234816

ADAM GADAHN

Born Adam Pearlman in Oregon, Gadahn converted to Islam in 1995 and moved to Pakistan, where he joined al-Qaida as a propagandist. Using the name "Azzam the American,'' he appeared in numerous al-Qaida videos, denouncing US moves in Afghanistan and elsewhere and threatening attacks on Western interests abroad. US authorities filed treason charges against him in 2006 and have offered a $US1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. Despite rumors he had been killed or captured, Gadahn appeared in a video last September marking the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.



This is a Russ Feingold interview who sat on the intelligents committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/russ-feingold-anwar-al-awlaki_n_1291593.html

so it looks like the executive branch is talking to the legislative branch. Hummmm. Why wasn't this put out there?

[amandabeech]

45. Another question: who gets to decide what is treason.

In this "White Paper", it is not the courts interpreting the Constitution.

It is one high governmental official, apparently acting on his or her own judgment, without any review.

I see that as a big problem.

[gholtron]

51. who gets to decide?

Both ex-Americans are on record by video tape declaring war on The United States. They call it a fatwa which is Arabic for war. Just Google it. That falls under article 3 of the United States Constitution for treason. Nuff said.

[amandabeech]

55. Treason does not exist on the basis of some high administration official.

Treason only exists if it is proven before a court of law and survives appeal.

There is no court of law and there is no appeal in the process that the Obama administration is pursuing here.

No one person makes that decision. Period.

[Dragonfli]

114. as long as they follow this part:

By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. It is then perhaps legal, but I think that assumes an actual look at the evidence and one would think some sort of a show trial at least, all the best banana republics swear by them and often there are costumes and funny wigs to make it a good show

When evidence and trials are completely replaced by nothing more than a promise that an individual that is taking the power to order someones death without showing or even needing testimony and evidence will be "real careful". The form of government itself is changed.

Other places with that sort of power held by one branch or person are not a Democratic Republics, and they certainly are not "nations of law", Usually we use uglier words to describe such forms of government, the one I hear most that describes this pattern is dictatorial.

[gholtron]

116. what about self admission

There are websites that show these two ex-Americans inciting violence against this country. We can't capture them. The fact that they have made threats on their own accord falls under article 3 section 3. No one to date has answered my question about how to bring them to justice.

[Dragonfli]

118. That would be good evidence to bring to the trial, yes. There needs to be a trial

I also read nothing in the hack legal opinion that required that only self admitted criminals are to be (or ever have been) placed on a list for execution, the hack opinion appears to claim no evidence at all must be shown, but that "it's ok because, you know, they don't need laws or trials or oversight of any kind" because they "promise to be careful".

You don't appear to understand the controversy, it isn't about debating if traitors should be tried for treason and sentenced by a court to death, that is pretty well codified, and many have been sentenced to death that way in the past. The problem revolves around giving any person the power to be judge, jury, and executioner with no review whatsoever by ANYONE, that is only done in dictatorships that have no rule of law except when it's convenient.

This changes the entire form of government in this country. I think kings as well as dictators reserve the right to execute anyone on a whim, but I think some of them actually require trials of some kind.

before you throw up the obvious "red herring" I will answer you preemptively, if there is proof enough to convict, they can be tried in absentia and found guilty.

[gholtron]

119. I do understand.

The whole issue was brought up because two ex Americans were targeted and killed. There is no questions that they are members of an organization that the United States Congress has declared war on.
This makes each member an enemy combatant. There is seen and possibly unseen threats made by each men. How do we go after them in an expedient constitutional way to eliminate this threat whether it is in its planning stage or not? During the time of war, the Constitution gives the President the role of Commander in Chief. He still needs a document that will allow him to go after American born citizens that poses a threat from the Justice Department. This legal document has to be broad enough to allow the President the leeway to deemed an American citizen an enemy combatant. The President did not draft this document. Now you may not like it. I don't like it but it is a necessary evil that needs to be done. These people are hell bent to kill us. The United States did nothing to Al Qaeda to provoke the 911 attack. In order to fight this faceless border less enemy, new legal tools have to be developed. This is the first time we as a country have to fight a war like this. There are no precedent to fall back on to do it.
I hope I have clarified my point to you. I do appreciate your response though. Thanks

[gholtron]

122. More fun facts to back up my earlier post.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4004/

[woo me with science]

35. War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.


The Ministry of Peace has spoken.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Imminent is Possible.

Infeasible is inconvenient.

Baaaaaa.

[Logical]

36. LOL, I was waiting for this! Almost on queue! n-t

[WillyT]

38. Oh I'm Sorry... I Thought You Were Being Funny/Ironic...

My bad.

[WillyT]

42. Psst... The Kool-Aid Is Strong With This One...

[ProSense]

50. I sipping some

while reading this:

Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856

Some of us don't equate terrorists to ordinary Americans.

[WillyT]

65. Some Of Us Would Have Made Great...

Nevermind...

[KakistocracyHater]

113. hey, it's ok if they're WITCHES-er COMMIES-no wait,

I almost have it.....starts with a T?

[morningfog]

128. What about the innocent people killed in our super-righteous-zealous attacks?

Do you equate them with ordinary Americans? Or are they somehow less in your eyes, too?

[Luminous Animal]

43. Karl Rove thinks so, too. Glad to see Rove getting the respect that he deserves.

[leftstreet]

72. ^^This^^

[amandabeech]

46. Report back to your masters, ProSense.

Many hard-core Dems are not amused, and many are undoubtedly wondering where our party went.

[ProSense]

48. Actually,

"Report back to your masters, ProSense."

...I wasn't making a joke. Are you OK?

Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856

[amandabeech]

52. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions.

Russ Feingold doesn't speak forI me or for others here who are extremely up in arms over the Obama administrations's position here.

We were just as upset with Bush and would be with any administration who treats our Constitution and the basic idea of our country with such contempt.

We don't need anyone to think for us, and your idea that we should just roll over and play dead because Russ Feingold doesn't agree with us is ridiculous and insulting.

Like I said.

[ProSense]

57. Wait,

"We don't need anyone to think for us, and your idea that we should just roll over and play dead because Russ Feingold doesn't agree with us is ridiculous and insulting. "

...more "ridiculous and insulting" than this condescending piece of drivel:

"Report back to your masters, ProSense."

As for this: "I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions"

...then why are you referring to yourself as "we"?

[amandabeech]

60. That there might be some organized resistance to the White Paper's

conclusions scares you, doesn't it?

[ProSense]

63. Now, you're telling jokes? n/t

[amandabeech]

64. It's 12:36 am.

I'm up with a bad cold and cough.

What's your excuse?

What is it, ProSense never sleeps?

[WillyT]

69. ProSense Defends The Administration... NO... MATTER... WHAT !!!

[Logical]

70. So true. Almost a parody at this point! n-t

[ProSense]

73. You forgot

"ProSense Defends The Administration... NO... MATTER... WHAT !!!"

...from terrorists.

Maybe I'm practicing my debate skills. You ever notice that I never post comments like the one above, that is: WillyT is this or that!

Maybe you should try defending your opinion and stop worrying about me defending mine. The moment you can't, you start mentioning my screen name. Why is that?

[WillyT]

77. Have YOU... EVER... Had A Problem With The Obama Administration... And Posted It Here ???

[ProSense]

78. Is that

"Have YOU... EVER... Had A Problem With The Obama Administration... And Posted It Here ???"

...a pre-requisite? I'm here to debate, not necessarily to agree with you. Why are you here?

[amandabeech]

82. Well, I think that Willy T has a good question.

Any presidential administration has policies on many, many subjects. There are so many fields that are covered by federal regulation that any one person is bound to have disagreements with something.

It was Will Rogers who said something like, "I'm a Democrat . . . I belong to no organized political party."

Well, at least that's what the poster given to me by a good friend says.

I take Rogers's comment to mean that the Dem party has an big, open tent where many voices are valued, unlike the small, closed tent of our opponents.

It's not surprising, then, in a historical sense that so many of us here on DU do have differences with the Obama administration positions or with Dem party positions on certain topics.

That's what makes discussions here on DU so much fun, outside the dreary election blackouts.

Like Willy T, I don't recall you, ProSense, ever having any disagreement whatsoever with the Obama administration, although I do admit that I had you on ignore for a few months. I don't intend to do that again. You're my source for the current administration position. Please don't tell me that I can't rely on you for that anymore.

[ProSense]

84. Like I said,

"Like Willy T, I don't recall you, ProSense, ever having any disagreement whatsoever with the Obama administration, although I do admit that I had you on ignore for a few months. I don't intend to do that again. You're my source for the current administration position. Please don't tell me that I can't rely on you for that anymore."

...so? I mean, if you want to confuse me with the administration, that's your choice. I never understand why these announcements matter in terms of making an argument on the topic at hand. They smell like red herrings.

[WillyT]

85. Oh C'Mon Pro... There Has To Be At Least ONE Example You Can Give Us ???

Break down...

[ProSense]

90. Who are you

"Oh C'Mon Pro... There Has To Be At Least ONE Example You Can Give Us ???"

...imitating: Ted Cruz or Joe McCarthy?

There are no examples. Now what?

Can you debate someone who you don't agree with and not pull a Ted Cruz?

[WillyT]

103. No... It Was A Perfectly Straight Question

[bobduca]

104. they are legion

[Maven]

87. Ridiculous and insulting is her specialty.

[ProSense]

92. "Report back to your masters, ProSense."

That the comment I responded to.

"Ridiculous and insulting is her specialty."

What's yours?

[amandabeech]

95. My specialty is asking you to do your job.

I'm not asking you to think for yourself or to question authority.

Over the years, I have never read a post of yours that was even remotely critical of any of the Obama administration's positions. None. Ever.

Dems are rarely that well behaved. If they were, they'd be Rs. It makes you seem as though you really are a paid shill or a group of paid shills considering how many posts you make seemingly 24 hours a day.

If you can't see that by now, you never will.

I'm done here.

Good night.

[ProSense]

96. And apparently telling jokes. n/t

[amandabeech]

93. Yes, that's why I've had her or it or them on ignore in the past.

But as I posted, whatever ProSense is, it seems to parrot the administration position.

It's like Jay Carney writes the ProSense's posts himself.

[ProSense]

97. "It's like Jay Carney writes the ProSense's posts himself."

The OP was written by TPM, quoting Jay Carney.

Are you confused?

[amandabeech]

101. No, but I think that you've just proved my point.

I really am done here.

Good night.

[ProSense]

102. Sure I did. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. Is there anything more pathetic than appeals to authority? nt

[wake.up.america]

62. Huge problem for the White House. Self inflicted.

[Fire Walk With Me]

66. Hey White House: FUCK YOU. A little problem with "absolute power" there?

Why not use it on Wall Street, who nearly brought this country into the second great Depression? No? Thought not. FUCK YOU again. Hello: CONSTITUTION....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

75. Someone didn't like your comment...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hey White House: FUCK YOU. A little problem with "absolute power" there?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2319969

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:50 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another bogus alert by a knee jerk jerk.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the White House can take it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If the alerter can't be bothered to justify their own alert and I personally have no issue with the post, I will voted to leave it. In this case, the poster is passionate in their opinion and they are welcome to it. And I happen to agree in principle.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Perhaps a little over-the-top and hyperbolic but thinking drone strikes are shitty doesn't make you not a progressive.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[HiPointDem]

100. good for that jury.

[Fire Walk With Me]

109. Thank you. I pretty much expected it to go the way of the Dodo but it's how I'm feeling

and that has been building a long while now, especially as an Occupy Wall Street activist (7400+ of us arrested by increasingly militarized police versus zero banksters, if you get my drift). Peace.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

110. I'm not unfamiliar with your OWS involvment. Thank you for

at least trying. It must be to some degree terrifying to see the police state close up and in action.

I think it's very telling that your post was able to stand unanimously.

[Fire Walk With Me]

111. I appreciate the jurors for leaving it alone. Strange days, indeed.

Police only attack when you challenge the status quo (meaning, banks and the rich). Obviously, the DHS and their overlords have been telling police that Occupy are a potential terrorist threat, which must be what this cop is parroting:

Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604


Why would police departments listen to DHS, much less be connected to them?

How LAPD are made into a tentacle of the DHS

http://occupyobservations.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-lapd-are-made-into-tentacle-of-dhs.html


And this:

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force

January 30, 2013 |
The national security state has an annual budget of around $1 trillion. Of that huge pile of money, large amounts go to private companies the federal government awards contracts to. Some, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are household names, but many of the contractors fly just under the public's radar. What follows are three companies you should know about (because some of them can learn a lot about you with their spy technologies).

http://www.alternet.org/meet-contractors-turning-americas-police-paramilitary-force?paging=off


Just not comfortable with these things. No one should be. Peace to you.

[LittleBlue]

68. Carney sounds like Baghdad Bob

How depressing.

[quinnox]

71. lol, true

And it is depressing, but also a funny observation!

[LittleBlue]

76. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so lol

Everything we do is legal and ethical and wise.

[leftstreet]

80. Holy Shit, I thought this was an old Bush press release

Remind me. Obama is different from Bush, how?

[WillyT]

105. Now That I Realize You Were NOT Kidding... Bwahahahahahahahahaha !!!!

[ProSense]

106. Carney really said that.

Can you believe it?

[WillyT]

107. You Gotta Let Me Know... Was It Asinine/Disingenuous Bullshit, Or Not ???

[ProSense]

108. I think you should figure it out for yourself.

What are you talking about?

[sadalien]

117. The Final Solution was "legal" too.

Just sayin'.

[woo me with science]

121. +100000 Thank you.

[Kolesar]

127. Account status: Posting privileges revoked Was it the Obama/Hitler comparison? eom

[winter is coming]

124. If you have to reassure the public that what you're doing is legal, ethical, and wise,

it isn't.

[Puzzledtraveller]

125. Proliferation of drones and the justification for their use

will lead to an increase in covert operations as war will become perpetual. The american public will not see the dead, but more importantly they will not see the flag draped coffins of US soldiers. Drones make waging war easier. When you add the justification for targeting US citizens you have set a horrific precedent.