Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How the NSA Helps the US Assassinate (Greenwald / Scahill) [View all]L0oniX
(31,493 posts)194. The NSA is evidence that the terrorists have won ...and some people are fine with that.
So when Bush calls the Constitution "just a piece of paper" it's a bad thing ...but when the NSA under the control of a Dem POTUS violates that Constitution then it's a nice generic response like "spying has always been going on ...did you just realize that?" These people deserve the penalty they are receiving ...I just don't want to suffer the same penalty along with them. A wise person will respect the wisdom of the forefathers of the Constitution ...the stupid will discard it as if it doesn't apply anymore ...just because that was then and this is now. History should be valued and its warnings heeded lest the same mistakes be made once again.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
304 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Did some folks really not know that intelligence efforts help direct military action when it occurs?
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#1
If you're going to call war "assassination", that happened back when the party was founded
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#92
Is the drones program secret? I think its one of the most heavily debated policy items.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#10
Don't tell me, let me guess. You would have been in favor of letting the NAZIs do whatever they want
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#93
There's a new book, just published, with all kinds of details about Operation Paperclip
Electric Monk
Feb 2014
#121
So "ridiculous" you can't manage to explain why they are not identical situations...
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#179
Isn't it interesting that some people around here tell us metadata isn't really an invasion...
stillwaiting
Feb 2014
#206
It really isn't about terrorism at all. Other than the terror carried out during the strikes.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#219
Thanks to real journalists, like Jeremy Scahill it is no longer a secret. They sure worked hard to
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#31
It was never a secret. No supposed journalistic superheroes were necessary. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#47
For the doubters about the reason behind the phone call records, here they can read
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#83
The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in ''The Origins of Totalitarianism''...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#128
This what these writers have written, do we ignore what Greenwald has now stated?
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#160
We're not supposed to notice hypocrisy like that from Greenwald, and I'm sure they will consider you
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#279
You may be right, nothing new, known much befire 2013 but some just seem to be learning
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#238
Thanks to world renowned and respected Journalists, like Jeremy Schahill, the Secret Drone program
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#85
NY Times mentioned Combat drone use in Afghanistan in October 2001 WAY before Scahill
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#283
It's sad that supposed Democrats would condone drone murders. We are not at war. But some
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#186
No, we didnt. There have been tons of NY Times articles on the subject since 2001.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#284
It may not be secret but it certainly is not one of the most heavily debated policy items
cali
Feb 2014
#58
Its obvious that it is. All one has to do is put the word "Drones" in a google search. 11.7 million
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#262
LINCOLN WAS SHOT IN A THEATRE! BY AN ASSASSIN! Should fit in good with your show.
Autumn
Feb 2014
#6
Did people know that the Military has replaced Due Process regarding killing American Citizens,
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#22
It's lovely that you want to give your opinion on something else, but that is not what I asked.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#24
Lol, well if you can give your opinion I don't see why you would object to getting a response to
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#35
If everyone did that, there would be no point to trying to discuss anything. That is why hijacking
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#42
Amazing, isn't it? Whenever someone reduces themselves to name calling, I have always
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#91
The topic of my thread was, "Did people not know that the military and intel work together to...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#263
Yes, as soon as I responded, I started a thread. An OP is not the same thing as a thread. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#281
You hijacked the OP, and than tried to accuse others who brought the topic BACK on topic
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#294
Yes, I know, threadjacking is funny when you support the goals of the threadjacker.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#264
The issue is not that the military works with the intelligence community when it plans its strikes.
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#94
Yes, actually, that is the entire point of the OP. This is supposedly a big reveal.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#268
Do you know what it's called when someone tries to lead an argument using questions? Look
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#187
You're right but c'mon...let them at least think you didn't thoroughly debunk that point.
great white snark
Feb 2014
#300
Then you should probably avoid commenting and continue asking questions instead.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#233
It's not intelligence when you kill civilians and create more terrorists, duh.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#148
ODS is defending these egregious violation of our Constitution that all these elected officials
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#25
Well, thank you. But one only needs to be a first grader to, and I know a few, to understand the
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#161
At least one of our DU attorneys has weighed in and said that this is already congressionally
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#11
right you are, the backers of these policies arent going to skimp on procedure
reddread
Feb 2014
#115
So, if it's OK for NSA to disregard Bill of Rights, it's OK for the president to kill who he wants.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#16
Those terms and amendments and rights have specific meanings judged by appellate courts and the
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#20
So your attempt at a point is that because an appellate court or the SCOTUS has made mistakes
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#40
Not really. Arecent court questioned the constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs and SCOTUS
Vattel
Feb 2014
#191
I'm still waiting for Sanders, Warren, or heck..even Paul to submit a repeal of the AUMF of 9/18/01.
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#67
Sigh....let me explain this...again. The constitutional basis for drones derives from the AUMF of
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#78
PA primarily, 3rd circuit. Am barred in other jurisdictions that I do not currently
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#109
You haven't studied or practiced law. That's why it doesnt make sense to you.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#267
I have several. IT and Journalism are just two. You still aren't a lawyer. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#272
That isn't really the case at all, is it. The AUMF is about the twin towers. Right?
reusrename
Feb 2014
#201
No...it really is the case. The AUMF of 9/18/01 empowered the President to pursue those
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#207
Um, no. And why would persons contemplated under the AUMF be charged in an Article III court while
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#229
You are saying that we are only killing folks who have already been identified.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#234
Um, no. I'm saying we are targeting people already identified. As for how the
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#235
I think we are talking at cross purposes here...why not ask me specific questions about specific
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#239
The specific people that the authorization specifically authorized for killing...
reusrename
Feb 2014
#240
Wait...are you suggesting that a specific person must be targeted by an AUMF? That's a crapload
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#243
AlQaeda and it's affiliates. Thus, we had a seperate AUMF for Iraq. Currently,
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#301
Yes. You are correct. All three branches of government have confirmed that persons
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#304
So you supported all of Bush's policies, then. All of them were Congressionally authorized. Thanks,
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#26
Iraq war conditions were not met, torture was not approved, warrantless wiretapping, etc.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#44
Really? Then why has no one been prosecuted for what, if they eg, lied us into war, would be major
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#55
How about some lawyers who actually know what they are talking about re the US Constitution:
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#163
You can ask the person who posted that directly. They are the attorney. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#261
I don't ask for facts from internet 'experts'. We have plenty of actual experts
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#270
I know msanthrope in real life. She is an attorney, and you have no right to slander her. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#273
I don't know either of you in RL so to me you are merely strangers on the internet and you have some
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#302
What happens when a cop sees someone pointing a gun at someone and has no recourse but to shoot?
randome
Feb 2014
#29
Apparently with Ibrahaim Al- Banna, the strike target. Although reports vary...it seems the strike
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#69
Which Droned US Citizen was sending Mushroom Clouds our way? And how many bystanders do cops
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#50
I don't base my opinions on 'what ifs', I base them on facts. 'Supposing there really were
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#95
I didn't create much of a scenario. It's entirely plausible based on the guidelines in place.
randome
Feb 2014
#101
Well, you just stated the problem right there. We KNOW there are dead people, bodies, men, women and
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#169
False dichotomy fail. How bout we leave them alone and stop creating terror and horror.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#154
Boots on the ground? Why would we have 'boots anywhere' unless we are being invaded with actual
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#220
I would think many of the operations prevented have not been directed at the U.S.
randome
Feb 2014
#111
Our assumption that we are the world's police force, and that we can bust in anyone's door
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#117
War is very profitable for a select group of 'contractors'. To justify war we need an 'enemy'.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#222
Agree. But when it happens by accident, do we condemn the person who pulled the trigger?
randome
Feb 2014
#89
If the trigger was pulled on purpose, and the target was unclear, and there may be innocents
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#141
Nobody is able to adequately explain how the people we are blowing up with drones
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#97
I doubt that killing a few hundred people will do ANYTHING for corporate profit.
randome
Feb 2014
#104
Unless they are activists interfering with say, privatizing nationalized oil.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#205
Remember "US persons" means US corporations! So a threat to corporate interests might get you the
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#204
Pro government assassin shills will now proceed to place Jeremy Scahill under the bus.
L0oniX
Feb 2014
#30
Things have changed here for the worse but in the outside real world, most folks are becoming more
xiamiam
Feb 2014
#147
So, some dudes in a cave in Afghanistan caused all this and 9/11 too???
blkmusclmachine
Feb 2014
#32
Amazing, wot? Here's the guy that's really made out like a bandit. Heh heh heh.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#166
for the public record, link to WSWS on Democratic support for Bush spy powers
grasswire
Feb 2014
#236
You know who got the Military Industrial Complex started down the counter-terrorism road?
Octafish
Feb 2014
#79
As you know, there is ample reason to believe the NSA's data collection is illegal.
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#173
The NSA is evidence that the terrorists have won ...and some people are fine with that.
L0oniX
Feb 2014
#194
LOL! Is that why you announced: "Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago."
ProSense
Feb 2014
#132
When you post so much that's irrelevant, it's easy to miss the most important part.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#137
Obama didn't kill any people in Pakistan for a whole month?! Give that man a peace prize.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#108
You made me follow a link to your post which linked to your post which had no link to the source.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#118
That's your reply? You're right, I should just ignore your links and quotes like everyone else.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#133
Guess this is news to some but more proof the use of phone call records are being used for
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#113
The goal of wholesale surveillance to have info ready when time to arrest a certain population.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#153
This may have been written as a goal except Greenwald has furnished more information
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#159
No. They locate phones that may or may not be in the possession of a terrorist.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2014
#175
a story on RT claims the Obama admin is now contemplating the murder of another US citizen...
wildbilln864
Feb 2014
#152
Anyone who thinks this is a big reveal has really exposed themselves as one of two things...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#271