jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (114 posts)

Bush Era Mind Control Experiments a Resounding Success

  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    In yet another echoing of the evil genius and master manipulator, Dick Cheney,  Barrack Obama uses a drone aircraft to execute an American citizen, luckily it was on foreign soil, this time. 

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ … 5C20111005

    1. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this


      Hi there, UV. Nice to hear from you again.

      It is interesting that the Reuters article referenced in your OP statement says, “Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder” and “Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki.” I’ve also seen other comments about this incident that have criticized the current President for ignoring due process guarantees under the Constitution and even you noted how some call him a “murderer.”

      Obviously, this is an issue with no clear or simple answers. Lacking a considered and prevailing judicial or ethical consensus, each of us is left to our own individual resources to make a judgement.

      My research reveals Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen killed in Yemen in a military action that was part of this country’s War on Terror. This is not a political event, nor is it a constitutional or a legal issue as some argue. It has nothing to do capital punishment, due process under the constitution, or a person’s rights as an American citizen.  The death of Anwar al-Awlaki is an act of war.

      CPT Pete Kilner, Instructor, U.S. Military Academy put it this way in a presentation to The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics in Washington, DC, on January 27-28, 2000:
      “It is morally permissible to kill another person when certain conditions are met: that other person has made a conscious decision to threaten your life or liberty, that person is imminently executing that threat, and you have no other reasonable way to avoid the threat. Moreover, it is morally obligatory to use the force necessary to protect an innocent person from such an attacker as long as you have the means to do so, and especially when you have voluntarily assumed the obligation of protecting that innocent person.”(1)

      That innocent person is you, and me, and every other American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was plotting to kill. I would consider the decision to eliminate him as a threat to this country as a reasonable and justified act of war. A war started by al-Qaeda on 9/11. A war in which Mr. al-Awlaki consciously volunteered to be a participant.  A war congress never officially declared but for which it allocates funds.

      I trust you have achieved the fun and entertainment you wanted to get from this thread. Too bad it insults and trivializes the sacrifices and the goals of the men and women who are actively engaged in the War on Terror. I see nothing in their valor that is fun or entertaining.

      Still, I hope your are enjoying your thread.

      (1)http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/jscope/kilner00.htm

      1. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this



        You should turn your sarcasm onto the perpetrators of the manufactured 'war on terror' who are sacrificing your troops for their own fiancial gain and to further their control of your citizens at home.  Focussing your approbation onto people discussing the issues is petty and slightly ridiculous.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I think you're chastising the wrong guy.  UCV admitted that he is using this thread to "provoke, prod and tweak, for several reasons, all of which are valid for me.1) I enjoy the fun.2) Others may be entertained."

        2. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Ni hao, recommend1.  Thanks for your opinion of my opinion.

          The topic of this thread is the elimination of an al-Qaeda operative. My comment about the intent and purpose of this thread is neither petty nor ridiculous in my view.  I take the death of Anwar al-Awlaki as a serious matter while others use it to generate fun and entertainment for themselves and others. My judgement about the justification of the method used to eliminate him is my judgement. It is based upon my analysis of the facts as stated above.

          Nor should my comments be used to segue to your take from afar on the War on Terror.  I sat and watched on 9/11 as al-Qaeda openly declared war on my country. Every single person living within a 50-mile radius of NYC had a family member, or knew someone, who perished at the WTC that day. Many living in the tri-state area around Manhattan attended several funerals in the days and weeks that followed. So most Americans already know the perpetrators of the War on Terror but thanks anyway for offering your opinion.

          I appreciate your reaction to my comment, Recommend1. Your view has been noted.

  2. elucidator profile image60
    elucidatorposted 6 years ago

    I am not pro-assassination, but I think al-Awlaki lost his citizenship when he declared war on the US by joining a group that is seeking to destroy America. He was part of religion/movement that declared jihad. I see it more as a killing in the midst of war rather than an assassination.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I do not disagree with the method.  I disagree with the process.  The ersatz tribunal is a little frightening in it implications.  Would this strike have been widely praised or widely derided by the Press, Peace Prize Committee, Senate Democrats or Barrack Obama if it had been carried out while George Bush was President?  That is for you to decide - I suspect that there is no objective answer available from liberals.

      1. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I would qualify as a Liberal if I wasn't something else  -  from over here it looks as though Obama has either screwed up by betraying the 'liberal' side of America, or cannot escape the grip of the military that seem to be running the US for the bankers.   It would appear from conversations out here that the world lost all confidence in him when he failed to close down Guantanemo Bay and would have jumped onto the gravy train of Libya if the US could have afforded it.

  3. recommend1 profile image72
    recommend1posted 6 years ago

    "U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

    While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks."


    So this guy was 'suspected' of standing next to somebody who made a suspect phone call, and his role was identified as media.

    Wow,  where are all the defen ders of 'free speech' on this one then ????

    The US illegally assasinating US citzens for indulging in free speech.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image82
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Dictators murder people without Due Process!

  4. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    Yes. An american citizen should certainly be allowed to hide behind enemy lines, plot the death of other citizens; and do it with complete autonomy. How dare any government view them as enemy and treat them accordingly. The audacity of O'Bama on this action is appalling.

    That was, of course, sarcasm. It is one of the few actions by either administration during this whole mess that I'm not going to criticize. The guy knew the risks involved in waging war.

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      and as usual you miss the relevant point.

      The point is about the people who scream about free speech yet deny it totally in others - and about execution without trial or any checks and balances - making it state sponsored murder.

      And the whole point, to make it simple, is how can you criticise any other government or culture for anything if you engage in these practices yourself - and yet many people here and your government and news do exactly that day after shoddy day.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        As usual, you insult without knowing what you are talking about. You cannot, across the board, criticize every action simply because mistakes have been made by a government, and gross errors in judgment are in need of addressing. When you do that, you lose any credibility and are seen as little more than a loudmouth.

        I have no intention of attempting to work up a self righteous indignation over a decision that could have been made by any of us. This guy was not an innocent civilian. He knew the risks involved when waging war.

        1. recommend1 profile image72
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I clearly did not make it simple enough.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No. We disagree. This does not make you right, it means we disagree. I'm not fond of actions by this government, in regards to its foreign policy. But, not every action is wrong.

            This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Insisting that it does is ludicrous.

            I don't criticize other governments anywhere nearly as much as I criticize my own. I attempt to understand what motivates other governments and the citizens of other countries to spit venom and insults. I do understand parts, and not others; but, I will not attempt to justify something I know is wrong. And I will not criticize where it isn't due.

            Your assessment, on this action is unfair. Imo. It is an unbalanced view.

            1. recommend1 profile image72
              recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              It is all about ethical foreign policy, free speech, murdering people without trial or recourse to any checks and balances.  It is all about those who squeal about free speech in other countries and the actions of 'foreign' governments when your own government is leading the way in opression and the destruction of International laws, agreements, the codes of war that put at least an element of civilisation into that business before it became an export.

              My own government in the UK is doing exactly the same, as usual, and it is still not right or conducive to any kind of peace in the world.

              The individual murder of so many people, including now a US citizen, is not the main issue, it is that these actions are condoned and carried out in your name without objection or understanding of what it means in the long term.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image76
                EmpressFelicityposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Regardless of whether you agree with the policy per se (I don't agree with it either, myself), the original point of the thread* is being lost IMO. Namely, that far from being a contrast to Bush/Cheney in his foreign policy, Obama is pretty much the same - sort of a Bush Lite.


                *Well, what I think the original point of the thread is anyway... perhaps UV can confirm.

                1. recommend1 profile image72
                  recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the OP was talking about 'mind control' as in the masses accepting murder and unethical actions by their government, Bush and Obama.   

                  Bush Era Mind Control Experiments a Resounding SuccessPost -  ???

              2. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I agree, in that it is about ethical foreign policy, but ultimately the issue at hand is about war. There is no free speech in war; people are murdered without trial in war. And the recourse of checks and balances in war cannot be compared to the checks and balances within the borders of a society not in the throws of civil war.

                Sure, there would be no drones on American soil; sent to kill someone that threatened the safety of the citizens; but this gentleman in question had many more rights than the average citizen on American soil is now afforded. Our government now arrests people for words spoken that appear to be threatening; even if the person that uttered those words had no will or way to implement their actions.  It happens on a daily basis. 

                But this man had the will, the means and the where with all to carry out his threats. War is hell. Go figure.



                I agree that we need to address all of what you have outlined. There are atrocities that none of us should ignore.  But, you can't drag this incident in and call it an atrocity and a travesty.  This incident does not show our government speaking out of both sides of its mouth.  It was a calculated judgment on how to deal with a threat.



                I think we all know what it means in the long term.  And I agree with you that, viewed as a whole, nothing is right. But, again, this individual action does not warrant the attention you are giving it. We are at war with an opposing philosophy. This man knew the risks and took them. I have no intention of giving him quarter; simply because he felt the effects of taking part in something I am against.

                I find his actions no less offensive than the actions of this government in response to them.

                1. recommend1 profile image72
                  recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The OP started this thread as 'mind experiments of the Bush era'

                  The only mind experiments are those to do with public opinion and the use of a non-existent threat from 'outside' to allow the US (and the UK) to break every law and convention in respect of foreign countries, and ultimately to control their own public opinion. 

                  It seems to have worked pretty well.  However - I refuse to apologise for not swallowing their hook, line or sinker.   This is subjugation of the US (and UK) people and nothing less.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You know, conspiracy theories are always fun; but rational people usually understand that they are simply that. Just for fun. Those who buy into them hook, line and sinker have no need to apologize. It's the type of thing they enjoy.

                  2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Mind Control Experiments is the only way to explain how Barrack Obama could receive the Peace Prize and then turn into a ruthless warmonger.  GWB or more likely, Dick Cheney must have control over President Obama's mind.  He has expanded the war in Afghanistan, attacked Libya, used US forces to support the government in Yemen, has launched broad attacks into Pakistan, has kept Gitmo open, denied civil trial to those seized from foreign land - all sounds like Dick Cheney's plans for world domination.

  5. lovemychris profile image72
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Same as the OP.

    I'll bet he actually DID think these things were genius when Dick "go f yourself" Cheney was doing them.

    NOW, it's  bad bad bad bad bad....

    as is shown by his title..."Oh Look, I can get them to read it if I say Bush is bad"...then goes on to slam Obama.....

    shows you something though, doesn't it?

    Obama Derangement Syndrome can't stand on its own.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hardly, just being the stick in the pudding.

        Just goes to show, the "Peace" Prize recipient likes to pull the trigger, remotely.  I wonder where Cindy Sheehan and the "peace" (read anti-Republican) movement have gone now that GWB is no longer POTUS?  How many innocent Afghanis, Pakistanis, Libyans, Yemenis have been killed in the name of Alfred Nobel's prize?  Renditions, Gitmo, predator strikes, Spec Ops(in the middle of the night) all continue apace despite the "values" of liberals.

        I suppose it is okay now because the "murderer" is a liberal.  All those poor people rotting in foreign prisons, having their civil rights violated, being held in Gitmo, being subject to "sneak and peak" and phone taps.

        The delusion is that there is a difference between the villified GWB, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's "War on Terror" and Patriot Act and Barrack Obama's expanding WAR and Patriot Act.  What is the difference?  There is one substantial one - Barry blows them up with drone strikes instead of water boarding them.  How compassionate.

      1. lovemychris profile image72
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The difference is who's in office.

        I trust Obama more than Bush...you obviously vicee versa.

        And another difference: you aren't called an un-American traitor.

        How nice for you.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          President A kills thousands, rounds up hundreds, pursues multiple wars, expands those wars and starts new ones and he is wrong because he is president A. 

          President B kills thousands, rounds up hundreds, pursues multiple wars, expands those wars and starts new ones and he is right because he is president B.

          This makes sense to you?

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          On the contrary, that is why government must be limited.  Men are not angels and an infinitely powerful government is destine to become an oppressive one. This is a fundamental difference between the liberal and the conservative.  The liberal places faith in the rule of men.  The conservative knows that men must be limited in power through the rule of law.  When men replace the law liberty ends and tyranny begins.

          1. lovemychris profile image72
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Errrrrr, so why were all you law and order types against impeachment hearings on Bush and Cheney?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.  Seems to me the Democrats were against impeaching GWB.

              1. lovemychris profile image72
                lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No they did not.

                It was a GOP sweep. They had everything, and allowed POTUS and VEEP to testify while not under oath. Clinton didn't get that priviledge.
                And they basically laughed at Kucinich.
                But you are right, only one Dem stood with him, Jim McDermott. (Jim McGovern??)

                anyway---for you to say the right are law and order is a joke, IMO.

                Only when it comes to dems and poor people. That's when they lock the door and throw away the key.

                With themselves? It's a wink and a nod.

                "Eh Guvnah?"

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  What were the electoral consequences of the 2006 elections?  How much authority did Democrats have in government starting in 2008?  The Democrats had all the authority necessary to bring Bush to liberal "justice" but did not pursue impeachment or war crimes charges.  Why?

                  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

                  1. lovemychris profile image72
                    lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, said she was "not going to put the country through that".
                    Perhaps she was thinking of the billions of dollars and years spent going after Clinton.

                    Wrong decision, IMO. Terribly, horribly wrong. No Justice, No Peace....EVER. That's just the way it is.

                    But DURING Bushco, it was all repub....where were they?

                    We may have to see another country do our dirty business for us. So be it. And those Americans who would just like to forget all about it....SORRY.
                    Not gonna happen.

                  2. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    UCD, I have a feeling you already know this but you're fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And law makers are not men?

            1. Mighty Mom profile image87
              Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Law makers, corporations --- they're all people (per Mitt Romney).
              Oh wait, the corporation people ARE the lawmaker people!! lol

          3. recommend1 profile image72
            recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            What a very strange thing to say !!   

            You mean that lawmaking and control of a country should be by some kind of god endowed dictator ?

            or do you actually mean that only YOUR kind of man should make the laws ?

  6. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Not sure al-awlaki was even an American citizen to begin with...

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes he was - which is why this news story came up, the hundreds of others are just throwaway 'foreigners', and their neighbours and families, who are not worth reporting.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Have you researched his background?
        And the U.S. Constitution?

        1. recommend1 profile image72
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I see that your own media report him as a US citizen, just as US as your president ?

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And therein lies the dilemma!

            1. JBBlack profile image60
              JBBlackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I onject toi the idea of checking everyone's papers constantly.

    2. cheaptrick profile image70
      cheaptrickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      He wasn't...simple research will show he was a citizen of Yemen.I looked it up.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Howdy Mr. Cheaptrick.

        Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the United States.  He was an American citizen. According to Yemen law, he was also a Yemen citizen born of Yemen parents.
        http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/refere … index.html

        Your statement that he was not a US citizen is not true.

  7. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago

    This subject was covered pretty extensively in this thread:

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/83976#post1802693

    Well, except for the mind control experiment nonsense.  big_smile

  8. JBBlack profile image60
    JBBlackposted 6 years ago

    I'm sorely disappointed in Obama's efforts on the war.  He is to willing to listen to what seem to be well reasoned arguments, which are at the premise, contrary to what he claimed to have believed in.  I would rather have a predator drone fly in and blast someone, than have to occupy a whole country and rack up countless atrocities on both sides.  I understand that killing is wrong and war is not that answer, but this drone attack is a case of self defence.  This guy is guilty of treason, and probably could have been killed under military tribunal or something.  I think this is the war on terror done better.  Let's bring 90% of our troops home and annex Mexico.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So let me get this - Barrack Obama's "beliefs" are subject to reasoned argument - well shazam, he does deserve a little credit for being intelligent then. Perhaps his "beliefs" were merely postures required to placate anti-war liberals. 

      There has been a giant leap forward in the accuracy of drone strikes under Obama since they apparently kill the obviously guilty and leave the innocent or less obviously guilty in proximity to the target unharmed.  That is phenomenal!  That is the sort of precision that the entire court system of the United States cannot seem to find in Death Penalty cases.

      Treason is one of only two crimes named in the Constitution, he wasn't found guilty of piracy.  But wait, he wasn't "found" guilty of anything since a finding requires a legal hearing.

      I wonder what the casualty figures would be for an invasion of Mexico, especially now that there are many more guns in the hands of Drug Cartel thugs provided by Barrack Obama's Justice Department.  I hope we can put that genius precision drone technology that only kills guilty people into the artillery rounds and ammunition used by those invading Mexico.

      Can we get that technology into the hands of the police.  It sure would solve prison over crowding issues.

      1. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this



        You think that is not on the drawing board ?  Once you sheeple are properly conditioned to accept this stuff in your own country shezzam !!  one anti-government comment on here and yhour IP address will get obliterated by a 'drone' !

        Far fetched ? - only to a point.

  9. profile image0
    RookerySpoonerposted 6 years ago

    I don't know why, but the words "Bush" and "mind" don't seem to go together.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That is because Dick Cheney is controlling it.  But considering the "Bush is dumb" cliche perpetuates the Cheney mind control programs obscurity I suspect that you too are being manipulated, but probably by a more mundane source like goofy liberalism.

      For a man liberals like to call stupid, he sure did get them to dance to the tune he was calling and, the point of this whole thread, he still does.  So many Bush policies have been continued or expanded by this president that I wonder if GHWB didn't hide his Kenyan roots.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'd agree with you there.

  10. aware profile image70
    awareposted 6 years ago

    some people need killing . nation doesn't matter. this aint a picnic.

  11. Sue B. profile image97
    Sue B.posted 6 years ago

    Wow. Really good discussion. I have absolutely nothing to contribute.
    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5601731.jpg

    1. Mighty Mom profile image87
      Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'd be careful with an admission like that, Sue B.
      You'll give the rest of us with nothing to contribute (but posting anyway) a complex! smile

      1. Sue B. profile image97
        Sue B.posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Lol. I have to say- it was honest. I still wanted to acknowledge that it was a good discussion!

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Ron Paul is the only Presidential Candidate speaking out against this obvious defecation of our Constitution.

    If you are against giving the power to assassinate a US citizen to one man, then vote for Ron Paul.

    "But the TV told me that Ron Paul is weird", you say.

    Whatever - enjoy plebeian life.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I can get behind much of what Ron Paul supports, but I have huge disagreements with his view on the role of government.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Is your view of "the role of government" that "the President should be allowed to murder US citizens without giving them a trial"?

        Because, honestly, I think that the simple fact that someone who won a Nobel Peace Prize AND who took a vow to uphold the Constitution can even THINK that they can justify this should REALLY make you rethink what your view of government should be.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No, I have stated here on the forums that I do not support the execution of American citizens without a trial. 

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/83976?p … ost1803014

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Right-o. I kind of meant that this issue should take priority over other issues.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Ah, I wish that it could be so easy to determine, based upon one very important issue, what man or woman would best serve the people.  I know some people are one-issue voters, such as some of the anti-choice crowd, believing that the one issue trumps all others.  But, suppose I voted for Paul because of this one issue.  I would also be voting for a man who has opposed federal intervention in human rights issues, preferring to leave them to the states.  I believe many more people have died as a result of discrimination based on racism than have been summarily executed by the US government.  I also believe many more people die daily due to lack of affordable health care, and Ron Paul has not offered up a viable solution to that problem.

              I also must confess that I don't know everything about Ron Paul, having dismissed him early on based upon my dislike of certain of his positions.

              I have my ideals, but I also have my pragmatism.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                If you value human rights issues, and the issues are up to the states... then maybe you'd care more about your elected state officials.

                Ta-Da.

                Anyway, my point was simply that "assassinating US citizens without a trial" should REALLY be a VERY important issue, and only Ron Paul is speaking out against it.

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    There is a disagreement over the legality of killing Awlaki. However, I'm not shedding any tears over it. As far as I'm concerned he got what was coming to him. Here's a link to secret legal memos on the drone killing of Awlaki. Sounds like they may have had some help from John Yoo!

    NY Times breaking news:

    "The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

    "The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world … en.html?hp

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What's to debate? Obama killed a US citizen without giving him a trial.

      Impeach Obama.

      I'm disgusted that this isn't being demanded by EVERYONE in the US.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You are correct in principle but giving him a trial wasn't practical. He was a traitor to the U.S. and he was promoting terrorism and involved in the planning of specific terror attempts.

        "Impeach Obama?" You are dreaming.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Of course I'm dreaming.

          THAT'S WHY IT'S DISGUSTING!!!

          Why is it "dreaming" to demand that our elected officials uphold their oaths of office?

          This is disgusting - the man won the election as the anti-war candidate, and won a Nobel Prize for PEACE.

          Now we're in 5 undeclared wars and KILLING OUR OWN CIVILIANS without trials.

          Yeah, I'm dreaming. That's why it's so disgusting.

        2. recommend1 profile image72
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Surely the whole issue is that only 'someone' told you that information - there is no way of verifying it or knowing whether a total miscarriage of justice has occurred, or a blatant murder of someone who properly and with good reason opposes an individual in your government.

          No trial, no accountability and summary execution = oppression.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That is the problem I have with it.  Sure, based on what we've been told, even those of us who are opposed to his killing in principle are not sorry on an emotional level that he's dead.  But, think about what really occurred here, and it's pretty chilling: An American citizen is accused of a crime and killed without trial. The masses are told by the government that he was a horrible man who committed terrible atrocities and planned to commit more, and most of us believe it.  It's probably true, but how do we know for certain?

            1. recommend1 profile image72
              recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              And when they start assassinating citizens in the US there will be as little objection as we are seeing in these threads. 

              I have spent my life (including 8 years in the armed forces) protesting against unjust wars, protesting against the spread of nuclear weapons, protesting about the erosion of free speech, and more recently about the alternative to suppressing free speech by flooding the news waves with conflicting rubbish and suppressing alternative voices.

              In these threads I have seen many people squealing about free speech in 'other' countries in tune with media lies and misreporting - where are they all now when it is the US directly censoring free speech and the US denying civil liberties to its own citizens ??  Hypocritical zombies !

      2. lovemychris profile image72
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "Ron Paul added, however, that he believed every U.S. president had committed impeachable offenses, and said the success of a push for impeachment would depend on the political conditions in Washington."


        We're still working on Bushco....better get in line.

  14. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago
  15. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    I'm still trying to figure out what the "Bush era mind control experiments" were in the first place.  Never heard of 'em.  haha and hmmm...

  16. Reality Bytes profile image82
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    There are now drones small as hummingbirds that zero in on cell phones.  So if the Tyrant Obama orders you dead.


    Your dead, no Due Process.  The dictator has risen!!!


    Nobel Prize my a**  he is a cold blooded murderer, anti American oppressive demigod!

    1. lovemychris profile image72
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "There are now drones small as hummingbirds that zero in on cell phones."

      I read about that YEARS ago...it's not Obama that's doing it--it's the miltary. Anything we see, they are 50 years ahead.

      "he is a cold blooded murderer, anti American oppressive demigod!"

      No he isn't.
      He's responsible for the safety of Americans--just like elBushbo was. That's all I ever heard back then:

      "He's keeping us safe"

      Well--he didn't keep us safe.

      The Obama adm has stopped many alleged terror attacks...if one can believe it.

      So, Why are you right-leaning ones on his case?

      1. Reality Bytes profile image82
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah Obama's administration has taken people, brainwashed them in to bombing a scene.  Then arresting them when they try.

        Entrapment.

        Who placed all the detainees in Guantanamo?  By Obama's standards they should have been shot on the field of battle.

        Oh that's right Obama likes to kill with RC drones not actual humans.

        1. lovemychris profile image72
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That's the FBI, and I agree, that's entrapment...the police do it all the time!

          "By Obama's standards they should have been shot on the field of battle."

          He had info on this guy...Maybe more than what they let be known. If you want to say it was false information like the crap from Curveball that led us into Iraq...go ahead, let's hear it!

          Those detainees in Guantanamo....many of them weren't even combatants. They should not have been imprisoned by any standards.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image82
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The only info he had on Al-Awaki was from his Facebook account!!


            No other evidence, just hearsay.  But it was enough to murder the man.

            Expressing his freedom of speech on FB and all,  I guess he deserved to die?

            1. Quilligrapher profile image88
              Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Hi there, Reality. 

              After reading your statement above, my teeth fell onto my keyboard.

              Are you saying you had access to the Anwar al-Awlaki intelligence data that was used to nominate him as an al-Qaeda target?  Or are you blowing pot smoke at us to make a point? I would love to read your sources for claiming his elimination was based solely on his facebook account.  Obviously, you don’t believe he was an al-Qaeda operative.  If this is so, I would welcome your reasons for reaching that conclusion also.

              I hope this doesn’t come across as overly aggressive. I'm just so surprised because your statements are so definite and unsupported as far as I know.  I would greatly appreciate your sharing your knowledge with us. I truly would.

              Thanks, RB.

  17. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 6 years ago

    LMC wrote: We have to keep trying until we get it right!

    Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

    Your statement explains a lot, LMC.

    1. lovemychris profile image72
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      uh huh...like "tax cuts create jobs." How that workin out for ya?

      We KNOW solar works...and it's clean and abundant....just have to get everything else right.

      And that's what the gvt is for....to help create a better future for its citizens.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Two things need to happen, LMC. First, they needed to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. Business owners and companies can't plan with these taxes looming in just over a year, thus they aren't hiring. Second, get Obama out of office so he'll stop screwing things up.

        Government doesn't create jobs, LMC, but if they get out and stay out of the way, the private sector will do the work. Maybe then you could find a better job with a better company then maybe you could afford to buy yourself a better disposition.

        I agree, solar is a viable power source. IMHO, its biggest problem is its promotion. Maybe $535 MILLION could have gone to promoting its use rather than Obama giving to a failing solar company he knew was having trouble and eventually went bankrupt.

        Again, government needs to get out and stay out of the way. We'll create our own future.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The government CAN create jobs--teachers, policemen, firemen who are government employees and construction industry jobs fixing roads and bridges, repairing schools, building badly needed mass transit systems, etc. Lately the government has been destroying jobs as a result of ill-advised budget cuts--laying off teachers, firemen, policemen etc.

          The private sector can create jobs, but hasn't been doing so much lately because of the lack of consumer demand. Private companies and businesses don't hire people unless they are needed to make products or produce services that can be sold. The Bush tax cuts for the 1%, the two ill-advised wars and his administration's failure to regulate the banking industry are responsible for the recession AND the deficit.

          1. lovemychris profile image72
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly right!
            And going BACK to those policies will fix it?

            On what planet?

          2. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You're right, Mr. Deeds. The government does create those jobs. I stand corrected to that extent. However, the budget cuts were caused by the lack of tax dollars coming in due to lack of consumer spending. Consumers either don't have the money or are cutting back because of fear of where the economy is going.

            The private sector will create the jobs if the government will get out of their way. They need to cut taxes thus put more money in the hands of the consumer and businesses alike. Consumers would have more disposable income thus spend more thus drive up the demand from businesses.

            As for the wars, I agreed with removing the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. I've stated here before I didn't agree with going into Iraq. We could have gotten rid of Hussein other ways that were a lot more "surgical" than what we did. Obama has also gotten us involved in Libya where we didn't need to be and God only knows what's going to happen over this attempt on the Saudi Ambassador on U.S. soil. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. Sometimes I think it would be better to just pull all our troops and interest out of the region and let these barbarians kill each other to their little hearts content. Unfortunately, we can't do that without a lot of things changing here at home.

            As for the banking industry, lets not forget the involvement of the Dems here, most pointedly that of Dodd and Frank forcing bank to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back thus causing the housing bubble.

            I think you'll agree there's enough blame to go around. Lets not forget the over spending by the Bush Administration that has only grown larger under the Obama Administration along with the Pelosi/Reid Congress.

            The biggest portion of the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the American people for not keeping well enough informed and allowing the idiots on bother sides of the aisle to think we work for them, not the other way around. They all need a good ole fashion smack down at the least and most need to loose their jobs and be sent home.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              As I've said before, there's plenty of blame to go around for the subprime mortgage fiasco. Congress, Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Reserve, the mortgage brokers and appraisers, their customers, but most of all Goldman Sachs who bundled the phony mortgages into AAA securities and sold them to investors, pension funds, banks around the world. And, then, in the case of Goldman, placed bets against the mortgage securities they had sold.

        2. lovemychris profile image72
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "Maybe then you could find a better job with a better company then maybe you could afford to buy yourself a better disposition."

          I work for a private company. Gvt isn't in the way of my boss deciding how much money I make...it's all him.
          And me. I have told them if I don't get a promotion and a raise, I'[m outta there!

          12 years is enough time to prove myself I think.

          But don't kid yourself.
          Plenty of workers...non-union, like myself, are at the mercy of the boss. Gvt has nada to do with it.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You're right, LMC. 12 years is more than enough time to have proven yourself. I wish you luck in finding a better job, hopefully before leaving the one you already have.

            Sorry for the "better disposition" cheap shot.

            As for unions, I don't believe in them. They may have been useful at one time but they got greedy and have outlived their usefulness. Their slow death has been a long time in coming. Just my opinion.

 
working