Everyone?
Generally logged, yes. Search algorithms will pull out "offensive" material for closer inspection. The NSA is one of the largest employers of PhD mathematicians. When you have that many mathematicians, there is no way you're up to something good.
Did the mathmaticians do 9/11?
Define “terrorist”. This could be read as claiming people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned criminals is concerned.
This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.
Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.
It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.
Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.
So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.
You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.
You're attempting to create a strawman argument where none exists. Clearly, our government is NOT going to conduct drone strikes abroad nor within our borders against a common criminal. Thus, I fail to see your point in seeking to "define a terrorist". If you really need clarity, buy yourself a Webster's Dictionary and look it up.
I've done no such thing. I've clearly eluded to the lines being blurred in this regard suggesting that those in the Justice Department do need to tread lightly, exhausting all recourses before taking such drastic measures as drone strikes against U.S. citizens wherever they may be pursued for crimes committed (convicted or alledged).
However, I strongly disagree that "strict adherence to the law is political ideology". That's like saying that before the police can arrest you for jaywalking he must first inquire as to your political affilication and if such is different from his then you're liable to have the book thrown at you. A rather foolish notion don't you think?
You don't declare war against a nation that harbors a "criminal" no matter the offense committed. However, you DO declare war against a nation who supports, aids and abides the criminal who has committed an act of war* against your country.
The Taliban, a remnant of Al-Quade and Osama all fled to Pakistan but notice that the U.S. didn't declare war against that country. Ask yourself "Why not?" The answer commonly given is "because they have nukes" but that's the easy way out. Truth is, the Pakistan government gave assistance to the U.S. government as broadly as it could to fight the Taliban and Al-Quade strongholds in Pakistan. It was their military and portions of their Intelligence Agency that was uncooperative. I would encourage you to study-up on the matter before reaching any other conclusion and try to understand more on U.S./foriegn relations other than what you read in the headlines.
*Although the U.S. did not declare war against Afghanistan, the Taliban nor Al-Quade, the use of military force was authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the UN. (See Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist
Again, I've done nothing of the sort. I've merely said it is a very thin line our government walks on this issue of drone strikes against its own citizens whether abroad or domestically, the latter Chief Justice Holder has stated would not happen under today's rule of law. However, Rand Paul was correct in bringing this matter to light despite using the wrong bullwhip in order to do it.
You see "tyranny" where most people see "treason".
The opening paragraph discusses who he was running with. You know the best way not to get run over by cars? Dont play on the highway.
All the rest of the terrorists hanging out in the desert. No different than if a group of terrorists were hanging out in a dirt patch in the middle of the desert playing soccer...boom goes the dynamite. It wasnt his name...it wasnt what he was wearing, it wasnt his name and it wasnt his nationality. He was targeted because intel said "blow that group of ****ers up right there...they are terrorists." I may not agree with Obama about a lot of things, but when it comes to aggressively pursuing terrorists...he's my homeboy.That was Anwar.
The boy was killed in a subsequent strike. Who was the target in that strike?
Clearly, our government is NOT going to conduct drone strikes abroad nor within our borders against a common criminal.
Perhaps not, but if we remember Ruby Ridge and Waco it seems quite likely that, under the right hands, it will.
Mark Steyn: Drones too convenient to stay overseas | drones, america, drone - Opinion - The Orange County Register
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?